Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive291

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Backlog at RFPP[edit]

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:RFPP at the moment – can anyone take a look? Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a backlog if people actually knew what they were doing. Out of 16 lodged requests, 25% of them have been declined immediately; others, such as Rocket League, will be, because of a distinct lack of egregious recent editing. Not only does sloppy filing add to the workload of patrolling admins, but the artificial creation of an extra long page doubtless puts off those who otherwise might be willing to join them. Happy days. — fortunavelut luna 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
True... At least the one I was keeping an eye on (Anne Marie Morris) has been taken care of. Back to vandal chasing... –FlyingAce✈hello 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It may be time to start warning people who consistently request page protection too early. I have noticed some repeat offenders. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The number of repeat offenders has dropped though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
8 requests left. Samsara 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Cleared, for now. Samsara 23:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Another backlog[edit] WP:UAA. 11 cases outstanding. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Rev-del request[edit]

Done. By KrakatoaKatie. Amortias (T)(C) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would an admin please rev-del this edit? Thanks. 2601:1C0:101:DA19:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done by KrakatoaKatie. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martin Poulter[edit]

Handled at WP:PERM. Note: unlike most other flags, nomination of others for autopatrol is frequent at PERM. — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems odd to me that User:MartinPoulter is not an "autopatrolled" editor. He is a former board member of Wikimedia UK, Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, a UK Wikimedian of the year - and, of course, a long-term editor in good standing. Please can someone rectify this unfortunate oversight? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If he asks for it, he will probably get it; I see no reason for a third party to request it for him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled. Thanks for the suggesion, Andy. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: I've assigned it to you. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to create redirect with blacklisted title[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Marine Midland Corpo­ration is a reasonable redirect request (mentioned in article). Can any admin accept it? feminist 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Feminist: There is some kind of invisible character in there. Marine Midland Corporation is not blacklisted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. Created. feminist 10:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Article move request[edit]

Done. Alex ShihTalk 01:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Could someone move Mark Fischbach back to Markiplier, Seán McLoughlin (YouTuber) back to Jacksepticeye and Evan Fong to VanossGaming- Both were moved without any consensus and unfortunately the system doesn't allow me to move them back, I know I should ask at RM but this would be alot quicker, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of specific permissions[edit]

I am requesting removal of account creator, new page reviewer, and page mover rights. If I need to perform tasks in the future that require these rights, I will request them again at that time, however I do not now see myself using them any time soon. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Have a great day Waggie. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AFD[edit]

Boom!  · Salvidrim! ·  14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could some admin check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs? I handled most AFDs which ended in the last three days but some of them I can't do because I participated or feel too biased to handle them. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel needed[edit]

Done and dusted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could I have a revdel to IP's edit here please. It contains a link to a pirated copy of a film. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 08:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee The IP's other edits also need revdel-ing. If you wouldn't mind :) Nördic Nightfury 08:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CSD criteria U1 and U2[edit]

Hi there, this is a question for administrators which requires no action, so I'm guessing this is the right place rather than ANI. I've had an account for some years - call it User:Omega - and about a year ago I renamed it to, say, User:Upsilon. I did not do this under any kind of cloud, and soon afterwards I re-registered the Omega account while logged in as Upsilon in order to prevent it from being taken. I realise that the log entry that says I registered Omega while logged in as Upsilon is a permanent part of the log, but nonetheless I am considering putting in requests under CSD criteria U1 and U2 to delete the user and user talk pages for Omega which currently redirect to Upsilon. I am also considering a similar request for a talk page archive, maintained by a bot, which contains only talk page discussions addressed to Omega.

So, my question is, would admins be willing to action all three of these requests? Also, if these requests are actioned, will my edits for the purpose for placing the CSD templates disappear from user contributions?

Thank you in advance. 2605:6000:E947:A00:80BE:BFEB:6CE9:D1F3 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Second question first: when a page is deleted, all edits made to that page disappear from your contributions, but without deleting a page, all edits to that page remain in your contributions. Meanwhile, since the log specifically says that Y created Ω, I would be happy to treat all these requests by Y as if they were being made by Ω. This means that I'd readily delete User:Ω, because I'd do this for anyone if it weren't some drastically bad-faith situation, but it means that I wouldn't delete User talk:Ω or its archives, because it's important to maintain a continuity of links from pages where you had reason to leave a signature. Unless the user accounts need to be 100% separated, it wouldn't be right to break things, but anyway the user creation log demonstrates that the accounts aren't separate: in my opinion, either you need to leave User talk:Ω alone, or you need to register another account without any logged entries. You can make U1-related requests off-wiki if you want to maintain the 100% separation. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Just an additional thought to Nyttend's comments. If [[User talk:Omega]] is still only a redirect to [[User talk:Upsilon]] or if there is nothing of any importance on it now, and its archives were made by copying rather than renaming the talk page, then all of [[User talk:Omega]]'s relevant history should now be in the history of [[User talk:Upsilon]] as a result of the rename - and so I think it might be safe to delete [[User talk:Omega]] and its archives. The point about maintaining a continuity of links from pages where you had reason to leave a signature is an interesting one, but I'm not sure policy demands it - links from old sigs are surely already lost if a user renames their account and then someone else registers an account in the old name. (Links from article contributions are needed for copyright purposes, but the renaming will have taken care of that.) 605:6000:E947:A00:80BE:BFEB:6CE9:D1F3, if you want to send me an email from your current account and identify the actual accounts in question, I'll be happy to have a look and let you know what I think can be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to replace p tags[edit]

Nobody's opposing the idea to replace p tags, but nobody needs consensus on AN for that; Magioladitis would've needed it, but there is strong consensus here against that (and he's since been blocked anyways).  · Salvidrim! ·  04:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thera are 130 pages that contains a p tag. In most cases we should use simpler wiki markups in place of these HTML-like tags. See MOS:MARKUP and WP:Deviations. I would like to fix that from my normal account using WPCleaner (or AWB) or by my bot account using Autosave mode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean <p> </p> , that's a simple tag, wouldn't changing that be a cosemtic change ?  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: - it would indeed be disallowed per cosmeticbot .. unless there is a community consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem with this .. but probably best from a bot account to not annoy editor's watchlists (which will hardly happen with 130 pages though). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Xaosflux below, that from that bot account you would need first to go through a BFRA. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose to main account Seeing as you are under a editing restriction from using (semi)automation tools on your editor account until at least September 7th - no way, come back in 2 months after you request to get your ban removed. As far as creating a new bot task, assuming you develop consensus here this would still need a BRFA filed. — xaosflux Talk 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Heavyweight oppose. "fix that from my normal account using AWB"S:D/789807112 There is a minimum of two months before the ban on AWB use on the main account can even be appealed, nevermind any possibility of whether it is lifted or not. —Sladen (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: Sladen, User:Xaosflux I am not requesting to do this right now. I can start in 58 days. Recall that these discussions tend to usually last a month. So, I started the discussion early enough. Dirk Beetstra In a previous BRFA I was asked first to come here. In fact, it was Xaosflux who asked first the discussion here to end before approving a BRFA. (I am refrring to the invisible characters case/discussion which is still active above. See here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Geez, stop with these requests. Go and edit an article by hand, why don't you, it'll remind you how the other half lives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken True but as you may have just noticed, someonee may arue this is not appropriate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
And to be clear, according to your restriction 07SEP is the EARLIEST a future appeal of yours could expire, your current restriction has no expiration. You certainly can propose a new bot task, and this discussion could show if there is community support for such a task. — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a standalone edit. I can't think of any compelling reason to do this other than to say we did it. I don't think it inappropriate to start these discussions while the ban is on, as long as the number of them open at any one time is reasonable and as long as the operator understands consensus here wouldn't override the ban. ~ Rob13Talk 22:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This task affects small screens Moreover, this CHECKWIKI task which I thought you would stay away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 in the discussion I did not claim I will do with with AWB durng the restiction period. My restriction is resticted to AWB and not for my bot account neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the restriction is any semi-automated editing including AWB, but that's beside the point. I'm stating that this discussion is fine, contrary to what others have said above. I'm agreeing with you on that much, so I'm not sure why you're responding to my statement. We've been over exactly what my recusal from CHECKWIKI for BAG means, so I'm not responding to that again. ~ Rob13Talk 23:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Magioladitis, the wording is wider: "…AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools (broadly construed)…"Special:PermaLink/789518720#User:Magioladitis_high_speed_editingSladen (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sladen Thanks for pointing this out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I added WPCleaner as an option fo how this can be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Question I've checked MOS:MARKUP and WP:Deviations. What's the benefit of getting rid of <p> tagging? Is <p> being deprecated, comparable to things like <center>? However, I'm also not exactly clear what you want to do instead. Are you just looking to use <br />, or to add line breaks, or something like that? If so, I'm fine with the idea itself, since indeed it's in line with MARKUP and Deviations. However, I don't understand why it's a problem to do it manually; just open up a bunch of tabs and make the changes in batches. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend Sure. I can do it manually but I am afraid that there will still be reactions everytime I try to do something systematically. No rason to do this via AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Everyone uses tabbed browsing (Willy on Wheels was using it twelve years ago!); why would someone object that you'd followed the wrong procedure? Just do a bunch of Ctrl+F work and copy/paste your edit summary, and if someone complains at you, point them to your contributions and show them how there's a time lag between each batch, the result of you closing the first batch, opening the second, and performing the changes before you save them all. If people doesn't believe that, they're the problems, not you. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: as to why this a procedure concern see: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (search for username) - there has been some prior challenges with this editor. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I was already aware of that; your edits to this section already made your opinion rather blatantly clear. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My suggestion to topic ban them from automated editing outright aint seeming so ridiculous now is it. Countdown to next request in 5, 4, 3.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose bot editing per WP:COSMETICBOT. Oppose this editor making changes in any form because of their editing restrictions and especially in light of the arbitration case that only closed a little about 4 months ago. Yes this is the prescribed avenue of requesting the change, however given previous drama, it would be best if Magioladitis dropped this issue full stop and walked away. This is only asking for trouble. No objection to cleaning these up in the cause of a substantial change to the page that improves it by an uninvolved user (and without prompting by Mag). If nothing else I suggest making it abundantly clear to Mag: Stay away from any cosmetic changes entirely for an extended period of time to demonstrate you can understand the difference between a cosmetic edit and one that has existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Site ban for Nate Speed[edit]

The user who operated the account Nate Speed and others (see SPI) is now sitebanned by the community.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just received a death threat via email from a sock puppet of User:Nate Speed (see also this diff). I think it's time we site banned this person. Besides the extensive edit warring and sock puppetry, I'm not the only one to receive harassing emails. There are other complaints in the sock puppetry case archive. I've reported him to the emergency contact at the Wikimedia Foundation and forwarded the death threat, so, if we're lucky, he will be facing some kind of repercussions for this behavior. Normally, in a case where someone will never be unblocked, I'd say the difference between blocking and banning someone is mostly semantics. However, sending me death threats changes my feelings on the matter. I want to make sure this editor is never unblocked and knows that his behavior is not tolerated by the community. I also have some possibly futile hope that if his death threats continue, it will make some kind of difference if he's listed as "banned", rather than "blocked" when it comes time to assess whether to escalate the situation beyond the WMF. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support site ban Geez, enough already. Sorry you're going through that, NRP. Katietalk 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban There's absolutely no place for this in the least. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban Such outright bullying needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Have also received death threats from this person. Sro23 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support By all means. General Ization Talk 02:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This kind of behavior should never be tolerated. SkyWarrior 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    By the way... SkyWarrior 02:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban and I sincerely hope the WMF takes this to the authorities or further. –Davey2010Talk 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've run into this user so much and they have threatened me and many others countless times. —MRD2014 02:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban Treating ones fellow editors in such a manner is contemptible. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Just had to block another IP for block evasion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly. But am I the only one who finds it kind of weirdly amusing that he self-censors his own curse words? ♠PMC(talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And ends each profane summary with a smiley (frowney?) wearing a funny hat. General Ization Talk 03:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello. We have a disagreement with User:Robsinden. He thinks that articles like 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup should not be included in navboxes of this kind: Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football, Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football. Maybe he is correct, maybe not. But I disagree with him. I have told him to discuss the issues with other users that are familiar with sports articles and users that are familiar with templates to say their opinion. But, he continue to remove the links from the Cyprus templates, (while he is not removing them from the templates of other countries even though he believe that they must be removed). Is that a right behavior? It will be more correct to have a discussion first about the subject with others users before he remove the links, just because that is his opinion? Thank you for your time. Xaris333 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: If there is a content dispute, please use the appropriate forum, i.e. talk pages or WP:DRN. Input from interested editors might also be requested at WT:FOOTY. See WP:DR for detailed instructions. As stated above, this page is only for general notices, not specific problems. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Review my block of Srwikieditor (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi, all! I blocked Srwikieditor as a single purpose account whose sole purpose over the last 3.5 years has been to force links to a single website onto several aviation related templates. Srwikieditor was warned by Kuru (talk · contribs) at 11:22, 15 May 2015‎ that they would be blocked if s/he continue the spamming behavior.

Srwikieditor twice added the link to {{US-airport-ga}} after Kuru's final warning:

I don't expect this to be a particularly controversial block, but I'm not very active these days and I was involved in the discussions opposing the link so it's here for the eyes of judgment. Feel free to adjust as anybody sees fit or not at all! Best, --auburnpilot talk 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


I've long had an adminstats section on my talk page. It now reads Jimfbleak is not an administrator or an account creator. Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats. I assumed that this was passing vandalism, but if it is, it's too subtle for me to see what's wrong, since the code looks OK. The actual adminstats page lists me, so I'd be grateful if anyone can work out what's happening, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been pointed to User talk:NeilN/Archive 37#Administrator_or_not? , so it's clearly a known problem, no need to reply Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's just the bot hiccupping, happens every few weeks. What you mean though is Template:Adminstats/Jimfbleak, not User:JamesR/AdminStats, which is a different page. I fixed it for you, tomorrow the bot should run fine again (see the page's history for what I mean). If it happens again, just undo the last edit by the bot until it works properly again. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
So, many thanks for the above and the heads-up on my talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for teaching me to fish too. All the best, Miniapolis 22:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Image restore[edit]

Hi, Could an admin restore File:Some Girls titlecard.png please, It was deleted because I used the incorrect license template, I've asked the deleting admin but they've not been on all day so figured I'd ask here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cryptic has restored it. FYI, there's a WP:REFUND page; nothing wrong with asking here, but WP:REFUND is the main place for this kind of request. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cryptic, I know but with REFUND they tend to take a few days so thought it was the quickest place to ask but thanks for the tip anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible spam/edit filter addition[edit]

Hey there. I'm pretty stupid about how the various filters work, so I'd appreciate some guidance. I have been reverting a lot of these edits over that past two weeks or so, always just the one edit by different accounts. Would the specific URL or anything else in there be a good candidate to be blacklisted? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The url is the most logical since they could change the wording but don't have the power to change that url. That is a lot of filter, not sure I would run it for longer than needed. Dennis Brown - 21:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Bongwarrior, we need some of those accounts in an SPI report. I can see some of your more recent reverts. We need to have a checkuser see if rangeblocking will halt them. As for the link they are using, that is a good question for Dirk, is a url fragment that COIBot/Poke can handle without catching all links? This is looking like it is worth blacklisting to me.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesblackchoco is a related SPI filed in June. I've blocked somewhere around thirty, I think, and I'll work on getting a list together. The earliest edits go back to about March. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: argh, one of those. We can blacklist or revertlist individual links and monitor special fragments. Reporting on them is not possible, it would spit out the whole stuff. I could in principle run the rather expensive MySQL statement on the db and just give a manual dump (running now). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior, Berean Hunter, and Dennis Brown: I've put the MySQL dump in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ (the related content page is not going to help, too many on this domain). If they used other domains (, please let me know, and please make sure that they are blacklisted appropriately. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. That list of users looks to be exclusively socks. About half are stale but they are easily associated by naming conventions combined with spamming those links. This will save Bongwarrior time looking unless he has more than that report shows. I'll start listing and vetting them tomorrow...I count 54 unique accounts that I have saved in a text editor and I'll check to make sure that we don't net an innocent. Dirk, thank you very much. That expensive SQL query just saved us a great deal of time and we might not have gotten such a nice comprehensive job as this has done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That is good stuff, but missing a few accounts that used a different, longer link [1] and a few others from June 26 like this one, which seems to match exactly but wasn't in the report. Either way, this looks like the majority of what I've seen, with quite a few that I wasn't aware of. Thank you all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bongwarrior and Berean Hunter: The bot has a backlog, so some may not have been parsed yet. I'll run some varieties of the query later (I had to leave), let's see if more shows up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bongwarrior and Berean Hunter: I've updated the dump, see diff. I now looked for the code in any link, there are a handful of additional .com links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
SPI case filed. I noticed that the original accounts from the SPI archive were not in the SQL report and I found one that wasn't mentioned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: m:LiWa3 is currently eating away a rather massive backlog (while also still keeping up with current edits). There may still be more to come (the backlog will likely take LiWa3 a couple of weeks to parse). I hope you can find the other ones by relation through CU. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government - review requested[edit]

Hi all. Please also see this ANI thread for further information. I closed the above AFD and do stand by the closure and the reasoning I gave both at the AFD and at ANI (the conduct of the user who initially reverted the closure was taken to ANI by someone else). On the ANI thread I did note I was happy for an admin to overturn my closure, as I have indeed been off Wikipedia for some time, however, no one has responded, so I am asking here if an admin can please review my closure of this AFD and either overturn the close or endorse the outcome. Thanks. Steven Crossin 02:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Closure was policy based, also the redirects are cheap. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--While I agree, that it was a bad NAC (Hey! How did you choose that particular one?!:)), I don't find any reason to undo a NAC when the closure was seemingly correct and well-thought out!Winged Blades Godric 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I tend to use common sense when editing. I saw the AFD and noticed it had been open for 2 weeks, and was well past the second closure time. I reviewed it, and came to an outcome, as I felt most editors would come to the same conclusion when assessing the consensus, and thus I closed the AFD (as there was no technical impediment from me doing so, such as deletion). I accept that my outcome may have been incorrect, and have asked it to be reviewed here for that reason. Steven Crossin 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Commnt: In WP:NAC, it says that [A]ny non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. I think the same principle should apply here - if the closure was correct, then don't undo or reopen it. If the result was wrong, deal wit hit due to the result, not the closing user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Despite hundreds of users who started editing after that RFA are now admins.. Capitals00 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, I have no realistic expectation that I'd ever pass RFA. So I do what I can without the mop. Steven Crossin 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That was six years ago. Now the incident is nine years in the past; most current editors probably won't even know about it. You got 124 support !votes back then (including myself), I think you can pass now. You should really consider it. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I might have closed it differently, but the close was reasonably within discretion, policy based and sane, so I wouldn't overturn. I still maintain that policy is clear that controversial discussions should be left to admin, but that isn't a valid reason to overturn a close that is otherwise reasonable. Dennis Brown - 16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not have undone the close had my only objection been the NAC. The main issue I have with it is the fact that it ran afoul of deletion policy. NAC guidelines clearly state that non-admins should only close AfD's where consensus is explicitly clear. This obviously wasn't the case here. Opinions were many and varied. A case where multiple comments need to be sorted and weighed against guidelines is precisely the kind that NAC guidelines instruct should be left to an administrator. I consider this example to be an illustration of why these guidelines should be followed, rather than than a reason to blindly revert. This brings me to deletion policy: "Egregious" would have been a better word for me to have used than "ridiculous". It would have conveyed my meaning without the incendiary undertones that accompany the latter word. Therefore, I'll call this "an egregious non-admin supervote". Make no mistake; this was a supervote. That doesn't mean the closer had anything other than the best of intentions. It simply means he voted in closing the discussion. My biggest problem with all of this was the fact that he openly and clearly stated that he assigned more weight to the "delete" votes that protested the article's lack of neutrality. That flies in the face of our deletion policy; content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. Lack of neutrality is a cause for improvement, discussion, or, if necessary, adding a "disputed" tag at the top. It is not, however, a valid reason for deletion. Assigning more weight to votes that are clearly not policy-based itself clearly contradicts policy. Steven Crossin is clearly intelligent, eloquent, and amiable. It was never my intention to suggest anything to the contrary. My objection to his close was not meant as an attack on his motives, and certainly not on his character. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not objective here because Steven closed the AfD as I !voted in it but I don't think it was a super!vote per se. It was imho the correct assessment of the various strength of the arguments, including especially Wikipedia:Content forking, the strongest reason mentioned for redirecting/merging. I do agree it was a bad NAC though because the policy is clear that non-admins (for whatever reasons) should not close such AFDs. Regards SoWhy 10:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirecting without merging was not proposed by any editor, and now we have a page redirected to one that doesn't mention the subject of the redirect. Peter James (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Peter James raises a very good point. There's obviously not going to be consensus to overturn the close, but the issue of a page redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the subject will need to be addressed. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically per Dennis. It's not how I would have closed it - the redirect seems still somewhat vulnerable to POV criticism to me - but was policy based, within discretion and should not be overturned. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that if the only problem you can see with a discussion is that it was an NAC, then you have to let it stand. I don't see any egregrious issues with the substance of the close that would justify re-starting the drama discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC).

A related thought[edit]

While I'm not sure this will go anywhere, I just had a thought and I thought I'd run it by people for reaction which I can take two idea lab if there's any support.

Should we have a concept called "conditional close"? It would be a closing statement by someone who is not an admin in cases where the consensus is not crystal clear and thus otherwise ineligible for NAC. A conditional close would occur in at least two situations:

  1. A well-established editor such as Steve Crossin, who is substantial clue but no desire to go through the ringer and ask for the mop.
  2. An editor planning to go for an RFA sometime in the future but not quite yet ready.

In both cases, the close would not be final until an admin reviews and sign off. By constructing the conditional close, the editor is making it easier for the admin to do the review. In case 1 the admin can review the proposed conditional close and simply sign off. In case 2 the same occurs but it also gives the community a chance to see how the perspective admin evaluates the situation. In both cases, if the admin disagrees with a conditional close they should explain the reasoning but in case to they might go into a little bit more detail as part of the learning process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This idea flies in the face of WP:NAC, and basically creates yet another level of user-rights: "admin without a mop". I'm curious how any conditional close would make it easier for the closing admin to do the review, unless "review" means "rubber stamp". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, that wasn't meant to be rhetorical; it's a genuine question. Take this case, for example: if these rules were in place, and you were going to close the AfD, in what way would Steven's finding-of-fact have made it easier for you? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb: S Philbrick is essentially proposing that NAC be amended. (Obviously it's not a formal proposal.) Therefore, saying it "flies in the face of WP:NAC" is not a particularly good argument not to do it. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "amended". "Nullified" is more like it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - This sounds like clerking at AFD. Putting aside objections to the proposal itself and let's go back a step. The real question is, how regularly are closes challenged such that a clerking process like this would be required? One comment though, if consensus is not crystal clear, then it's better for non admins to just leave it as an admin required close. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I was giving this some thought today, because as you note, I couldn't see myself running for RFA. At the moment we have the ability for non-admins to close RFCs. Is there a reason that non-admins shouldn't be able to close XFD discussions where the outcome does not require the tools (delete). Of course, some safety nets should be considered to ensure that not just anyone can close an XFD, but similar to RFCs, the amount of non-admins that actually would close a discussion is rather small. We have standard processes in place to overturn the outcome of an XFD when the result isn't agreed with, similar to RFCs. Is there an actual reason we can't consider this? Steven Crossin 05:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no issue on non-admins closing discussions where tools are not required. If an XFD is a clear redirect result for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Given all that has been thrown at you, I think you have handled yourself quite well, Steven Crossin. As for closing AFDs, non-admin still can, but it is strongly recommended they avoid contentious AFDs. That is the only sticking point here. Often times, it isn't even about being wrong or right in the close, as closing some AFDs will cause a few people to get upset no matter how you close it. That is exactly the type that we want admin to close. People are often more willing to accept a contentious close by an admin compared to a non-admin. I could drone on about the psychology of perceived authority (and how that doesn't guarantee a better close), but in the end, that is just how it is. Dennis Brown - 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


I've been working User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report looking for unsuitable pages, but hundreds of very short military bios all created by User:Mad7744 form a good chunk of the entries. Many follow set text like these recent creations Draft:Manuel R. Zabala Draft:Robert H. Thompson Draft:Walter G. Amerman Draft:Frank E. Palo Jr.. It seems like these names would be best presented on a list together because at least these subjects won an award. Other very old drafts do not even assert anything but that the subject was a solder or airman - Draft:Richard Drucks Draft:Andreas Zink Draft:Alfred Zuner etc. etc. etc.

Previous attempts to stop this activity have not worked. See examples User_talk:Mad7744 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_2 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Military_biography_articles, User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Notability_of_subjects_.28reminder.29, User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Military_biographies, and an earlier ANi I started [2] User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#ANi_Discussion that lead to this post User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Freeloading to his talk page over a year ago:

There is a rule that articles in draft: space which have an -AfC submission- tag may be deleted if they have not been touched for more than six months. Unfortunately there is no rule for articles in that space without the tag but I think that the same rule should apply. Now you have a massive number of such articles. I have put in User:Mad7744/drafts a list of the 499 oldest of them. Another view is that you could be considered to be using Wikipedia as a free host - 88.8% of your edits are in draft space.
I want to see a concerted move by you to either request the deletion of these drafts or improve them to article status and get them submitted for approval for mainspace. I note that they survived this recent discussion but If changes do not happen within the next few months, I shall propose a bulk deletion of your drafts. (Legacypac please note.) — User:RHaworth 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any effort by the user to address these concerns All the deletions I checked were initiated by other users and I did not find any promotions in my spot checks. User has never touched their talk page [3] so not sure how to communicate with them. The majority of their mainspace creations have been deleted, they stopped using AfC so G13 does not apply to their drafts, and the drafts just keep piling up.

I hate to suggest this but... I propose an editing BLOCK to get their attention, stop the daily creation of more drafts, and prompt a dialog on their talk page. I also suggest we give consideration to User:RHaworth's proposal for bulk deleting these drafts without having to subject each one individually to MfD. Pushing this many drafts through AfC submission or MfD debates is going to be a whole lot of work otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: He responded on his talk page [4] with "You can delete every draft article I have made up to November 9th, 2015 but do not delete any draft articles beyond that date. Mad7744 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)" That covers close to 1000 pages [5] assuming none are now redirects. Please don't make me CSD them all individually! Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Working on it. —Cryptic 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the two IPs below belong to the same user, as they've been creating and editing same drafts:
I suggest that the drafts older than 6 months created by the IPs be included in the group deletion as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Should be everything. I came to the same conclusion with; had no edits surviving in Draft:. —Cryptic 22:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There is good reason that non-draft-tagged pages be not subject to G13 — they're not necessarily drafts. There's no bright-line way to judge whether one be a draft or not. If you want to see these pages be deleted, take them to MFD; this isn't the place for a deletion discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Two archive pages and a talk page worth have already been deleted via MfD or CSD one at a time. That creates very good precedent to deal with these in bulk, and I also brought this here to figure out a way to prevent continued creations. I've asked more questions on his talk and hope to get a response. My note about this report and a possible BLOCK finally got his attention today. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This may be some sort of WP:ADVOCACY. See, for example, the "Category:German soldiers" as edited by one of the IPs: [6]. Note the suggestion that " All these pages don't exist. To see information on them,click on the page go and click on the talk page on the top left hand corner." I'm not sure what the purpose is, but 95%+ of these drafts are on subjects that do not meet WP:SOLDIER. For example, the qualifying award for U.S. servicemen would be the Medal of Honor; Distinguished Service Cross does not really help establish their notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
he just says he's going to update them. Cryptic just deleted about a 1000 pages and there must be at least as many again (about 1500 it turns out). Many are low rank Nazi German solders, holocast victums, and American privates. Is the goal to cover every WWII participant/victim with a Draft page? I'm not understanding the modivation to do all this work over 3 years now. It's not like the business spam or autobio pages These subjects are all dead. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "There is good reason that non-draft-tagged pages be not subject to G13 — they're not necessarily drafts. There's no bright-line way to judge whether one be a draft or not."
    This is clearly down the road of nonsense/madness, when words no longer mean what they mean. DraftSpace should be *only* for drafts. If it is not a draft, get it out of DraftSpace. Userfy, ProjectSpace, or Delete. I am definitely moving to the position that everything in DraftSpace should be subject to CSD#G13. (I am approaching the position that DraftSpace as a whole should be WP:CSD#G2-ed, as a failed test, more work than it is worth, the best thing said about it is that is draws crap page dumps away from mainspace but that's at the expense of an extremely poor editor experience for the newcomers) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Restriction[edit]

I tend to have slightly esoteric viewpoints regarding bulk creations in Draft space. I feel (in order to reduce the disruption) that No page shall be created in userspace or draftspace by Mad7744 that does not have an AFC review template on it. No page created under this restriction shall be removed from AFC review until such time that this restricton is successfully appealed. The goal is to have these pages be improved and promoted to mainspace. Draft space is supposed to be getting pages ready for mainspace, not a semi-elastic storage. Reviewers are pretty good about being able to tell which submissions have hope, and which ones should be put out to pasture. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support sounds like a good plan. I also think we should submit some more drafts to deletion discussion in batches. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking back at my comment, obviously if a page gets promoted to mainspace the AFC review template is no longer valid because it's been promoted to mainspace. Not going to disclaim the WP:BEANS situation as there's already proposals and common sense in place for that. cc Legacypac Hasteur (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support restrictions. In addition, I propose that drafts older than 6 months be group deleted. I did a spot check and none would meet WP:SOLDIER or any other notability guideline or essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

bulk deletion plan[edit]

he recently posted on his talk page a comment that we can delete, improve or whatever we want and he is essentially quitting for now. I'm willing to take that as consent to bulk delete if an Admin will take on the big task. User:Cryptic? Axe any Draft without a credible claim that gets it past WP:SOLDIER regardless of age? Efforts to deal with this go back 3 years and finally headway. Let's not let this chance pass by. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac Sending a trial balloon up in [7] to see if patrolling admins are willing to accept "Per [8] author has given approval for deletion. WP:SOLDIER already considered and found wanting" as a G7 deletion rationalle. Hasteur (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Admin User:Maile66 accepted that CSD Hasteur. There are almost 1500 more drafts to go according to [9]. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rudolf Schicketanz as the year 2014 bulking launched. I know it's a bit creative way to do the deletion, but I think we can agree to not flood the user's talkpage with 1500 CSD nominations. Breaking it down into monthly (or submonthly) categories will allow MFD to do it's job, but also keep the user talkpage spam down. Hasteur (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Still a lot of work to list 1500 pages at MfD and we don't really need MfD given we have author consent. I agree don't flood the guy's talk. Why not do one CSD for the entire list? Are you thinking we should check page by page before an Admin looks at it? Our spot checks and Cryptic's work show nothing that should be kept. If we can recruit an Admin, they could do this based on this thread. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Although unstated in my comment up above, my original idea was a mass MFD (remember that nominations don't have to be individual; you can always bundle them), or yes you could simply request G7s based on that comment from Mad7744. Why would we be adding a lot of CSD nominations to the talk page? If you're thinking of using some sort of semiautomated tagging process that leaves a talk-page note, let me know; I could full-protect his talk page immediately before you start and then unprotect it as soon as you're done, thus keeping his talk page clear. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Legacypac, see TenPoundHammer's request in the "Speedy deletion" section higher on this page. Some admins have scripts for mass deletion; perhaps you could ask the admin who responded in that section to come down here. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've commenced working from the back of the list and doing the CSD nominations by "month/year" grouping so as to not overflow the CSD buckets. G7 doesn't drop a talk page notice, so that's good and I've updated my twinkle preferences to not add them to my internal CSD log. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: User:BU Rob13 this situation would be a good use of your script. Delete all Draft space creations still existing by this user (maybe up to 1500 pages). Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I could use AWB for the deletions. Are we deleting literally everything created by Mad7744 in the draftspace? Any exceptions if other people edited them? (That would make this much harder.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
yes wack everything they created in Draft space. No one has found anything yet worth keeping. We got creator consent. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: There are a few redirects from draftspace to different namespaces that probably need to be kept. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am happy to take on the task of a bulk deletion. I cannot start immediately because my personal website where the necessary listing tool resides is currently "down". Bear with me - these pages have been there for years so there is no hurry. If you don't see progress within a month, complain bitterly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful. I'm not looking for them, but tagging them G7 with a link to here as I happen to find them. They still represent about 20% of abandoned drafts Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove invisible characters from pages[edit]

I find that there is consensus that these changes be performed, and that they must be via a bot account (with the occasional "manual" edit being fine); only one opposer (BU Rob13) presents any argument against the task, one opposes (User:Hchc2009) due to not understanding the provided details, and all other opposers object solely to the edits being done via Magioladitis' non-bot account. This result means that it is up to BAG to decide how to process the open BRFA, and whether to approve the task for Yobot, or for another bot that is not being operated by Magioladitis (considering the ArbCom case request).  Salvidrim! ·  15:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to start removing invisible characters from pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a lot more details about this and why it is necessary. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
They can break links and citation templates, but I was sure that Yobot already did such a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus True but I was asked to request re-approval. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux Per CheckWiki documentation "This could be a problem inside an article.", per AutoEd documentation "These characters are hard to remove by hand because they all "invisible", but they can cause problems and unnecessarily increase the page's size.". Inside URLs, images they can break filenames and urls, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose in general. No opposition for fixing things that are broken (the URLs, broken images, etc.), but I would likely oppose removing an invisible character in some other random space that isn't causing a problem (unless accompanied by another substantive fix). Edits removing invisible characters that aren't breaking anything puts this in WP:CONTEXTBOT territory. This falls under WP:COSMETICBOT and I can think of no reason to override that here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Per a recent discussion, I would suggest we tread carefully due to a tban that is in place. Dennis Brown - 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dennis Brown: The topic ban specifically included an exemption to discuss whether COSMETICBOT applies to Magioladitis' own bots (so long as not excessive), so there's not much danger here. In any event, since he's seeking consensus, COSMETICBOT itself is not too relevant. It can be overridden by consensus. I'm just noting that I see no reason to make an exception here for cases where things aren't broken. ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • My note was really a note to all of us more than him, to be careful so he isn't trapped into not being able to make a request. Maybe I'm over cautious. I agree, fixing things that really aren't broken seems to be unnecessary load. Dennis Brown - 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13 This is CHECKWIKI related in case you missed that. In fact, this is CHECKWIKI error 16. I already noted that this is CHECKWIKI related in my reply above. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I am recused from handling BAG actions related to CHECKWIKI because I anticipated drama if I were to do so. This is not BAG related and I am not commenting in my capacity as a BAG member. ~ Rob13Talk 17:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Dennis Brown I plan to fix these pages in addition to other fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Dennis Brown There is no tban in place about this request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this a request to get approval to submit this as a BRFA, or just edit you want to make without a bot flag using your own account? — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux My own account. I don't need to come here for my bot acccount. I can just fill out a BRFA asaik. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This is related to the ArbCom restriction requiring consensus to do purely cosmetic edits semi-automatically, for context. ~ Rob13Talk 17:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Magioladitis: Thanks, do you have any estimate for how many of these there are and at what edit rate you plan to run? There seem to be recent concerns from other editors that you are flooding watchlists. — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux Probably 3,000-4,000 pages since there are also bots that remove some of these. Moroever, this was one by Yobot for 7 years or so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, is there a reason this wouldn't be appropriate work for a bot to (to avoid lots of watchlist hits)? — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Xaosflux Yes, it can be done by Yobot. Some cases need manual attention though when it comes to non-breaking spaces. I will agree this is is done by Yobot and leave less than 100 edits to be done manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no harm in Magioladitis performing the requested edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the latest, I've lost all faith that Magioladitis gets it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken Per ArbCom I have to ask permission to do changes that do not change the visual outcome, I have no restictions to make any other changes. Connecting the two kinds of edits it's interesting.-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not connecting the "two kinds of edits", I'm connecting the one kind of behavior on your part in both discussions. To answer the question you originally posted here before you changed it, "Why did [I] expect?" - I expected an editor of your experience and length of time here, an administrator no less, to understand what they're being told, and not to Wikilawyer every goddamned thing that comes down the pike. That complaints keep coming, and that you attempt to talk your way out of them is one of your big problems, and the reason I changed my !vote here. (And, BTW, please don't send me any more sarcastic "Thanks for your edit" notifications, they are not wanted or appreciated, and, again, are an instance of un-adminlike behavior on your part.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken I appreciate any comment that will help us understand the problem and solve it. So, would you still be OK with a bot task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55? Is the problem the edit from my main account? Is the problem that the edit does not change the visual outcome? Would you be OK if another editor or bot peform these edits? If for example I ask someone else to do these edits, that would be OK? Thanks again and happy editing!-- Magioladitis (talk)
  • That response is typical. You attempt to gaslight your way out of a discussion which is not about the technicalities of your request, but about your behavior, and your apparent inability to understand that your tether is getting thinner and thinner. You are damn near exhausting the patience of the general community, and from the recent discussions, you seem to have already run out of it in the community of your bot-running peers, the people who, one would think, would be behind you. These are the reasons I'm withdrawing my !vote (without, however, changing to "oppose", at least at this time). Do me a favor, please, and don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Who cares about me? I want the task to be done. I don't care if this is going to be another use or a bot or software that will disallow this characters to be entered (that was my proposal to MW programmers). So support the task and find someone to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative support these are often changes that won't make very much differences, and will often be de-facto WP:COSMETICBOT, but there is an argument to be made that invisible characters are extremely editor unfriendly, and create headaches for when you're trying to fix things. If this is BRFA'd, I'd want a complete list of such characters affected, likely with each characters tested individually (this might affect non-English languages more). I'd reserve my final opinion on whether or not this is something that's actually needed after seeing what the effects would be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The list Regex: \u200E|\uFEFF|\u200B|\u2028|\u202A|\u202C|\u202D|\u202E|\u00AD can be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Would those leave explicitely declared characters untouched, like in Zero-width space? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Headbomb Yes. Anything given explicitelly (by visible text or by templates) won't be touched. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. For one thing, they're not technically cosmetic, because when you're viewing the code, the end result is the same as what you started with. Moreover, we routinely have bots going around and doing this already at Commons (one of the more common ones is removing RTL markers from category texts), because as noted above, they can cause problems when editors don't realise that they're there. For example, run a search for "soft hyphen" at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 60. Or see the "Weird pipes display issue" section at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 102, which discusses the invisible Zero-width non-joiner character. And finally, the mere fact of Commons bots doing this long-term is a demonstration that a bot can do this; it's not a CONTEXTBOT situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Nyttend: Responding only to your first sentence, please read WP:COSMETICBOT. A cosmetics-only change is defined as one which does not affect the visually-rendered result of the page (and also doesn't affect accessibility issues). This is definitely a cosemtics-only change as defined by the policy. If the community wants to make an exception in this case, it can of course do that. ~ Rob13Talk 00:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • This causes accessibility issues for everyone, as I explained in the rest of my sentences. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Without more detail on what is actually being proposed to be removed, and what the specific benefit is, I couldn't support. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: Invisible characters can cause unexpected issues. For instance, if you have a stray right-to-left marker, and you edit a page in AWB, if you press the right arrow to go right, you actually go left. But you don't know there's a right-to-left marker. Likewise, if you have a stray zero-width space, it can cause unwanted wordbreaks and copy-pasting issue. Nyttend's post above have more details on some of the specifics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the argument here that invisible characters are already banned from the Wiki, and that this is simply a question of how they're removed, or that we're proposing to ban them? Or that the proposal is to remove some invisible character? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 If possible we should replace all by the visible counter-parts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - still can't see clarity on what's actually being proposed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If that many need to be done it can be done via a bot and BRFA. Otherwise any support will be used by mag to condone running a bot on his main account to make what may/or may not be purely cosmetic edits. Notice the caveats from the above editors 'can cause' not 'will cause'. Without a clearly defined list and the problems each edit causes, given his history, I suspect the reason this is here and not at BRFA is that a run removing thousands of invisible characters that may/may not cause problems would not pass. Send it to BRFA and let them decide. Its what its for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: that... doesn't make sense. The point is to gauge the support for such a bot task. You can't say "I oppose, get bot approval" because bot approval is contingent on support for its task. Magioladitis is also required to advertise such tasks to AN when done semi-automatically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
A BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55) has been opened for this now. As mentioned above there may be edge cases that need manual editing, but if most edits can be done via a structured bot job that alleviates my excessive watchlist hits concern above. — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me be blunter. BRFA is a venue specifically to vet large-scale edits that would be best suited to a BOT/Automated process. AN is a noticeboard that attracts a wide array of editors & admins who may not have knowledge of Mag's history, the contentiousness of edits like this, the 'fixes' mag is on a crusade to implement by any means possible. Any 'support' here is essentially (given Mag's unique interpretation of what is/is not allowed when making gen fixes) giving Mag carte blanche to make thousands of semi-automated (given the speed of his editing history, I heavily doubt the 'semi' there) edits of dubious usefulness from his main account. I would rather not open up the floodgates to someone who has multiple restrictions related to automated editing. So no, I oppose any attempt here to give him 'permission' to do something that would best be evaluated at BRFA. If he wants to run a bot, he can run a bot. If the condition/requirement of passing BRFA for the task is that he gain consensus here, then no, he has shown he has zero judgement in when to apply controversial edits like this, so it would still be oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: BRFA is never where we assess consensus for a task. That is always kicked to another venue. In any event, this is getting a bit confused. Magioladitis, could you clarify whether you're seeking consensus for semi-automated or automated edits here? Those are rather different, and may elicit different levels of support. I'd be more likely to support a flagged bot doing this than semi-automated, although I don't know if I'd support either. ~ Rob13Talk 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, if you want to be picky about the wording. BRFA is where you decide if a bot-task can go ahead. Which is the appropriate venue for this. If the decision to approve the task is reliant on the requester showing consensus exists to make the changes in the bot-task, and this is considered a valid place to gain that consensus, the answer would still be no from me as the above request is too vaguely worded and boils down to 'I want to remove invisible characters that may or may not affect the articles in some manner' and has not provided sufficient detail to show that a)they are needed, b)the articles in his list have been sufficiently identified to contain invisible characters that cause an actual problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: I think the main reason for this initially was that any semi-automated edit (bot account or main) needs to be approved via consensus here due to Magioladitis' ArbCom restriction. If you think that should be done at BRFA, you'd want to file at WP:ARCA, but the community has no direct control over venue on this. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well in that case, if the scope of this request is to make semi-automated edits of no demonstrated need on his main account that affect thousands of articles... the answer is still no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BU Rob13: don't preclude that these could be done semi-automated, using a bot account - there is nothing wrong with that model in general and avoids flooding recent changes/watchlist. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
If the scope of a task was tailored to only fix invisible characters causing issues and was done semi-automated on a bot account, I would definitely support that. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux I would like to do this in automated way but also use my account for some cases because I would like to check some edits to avoid any mistakes. For instance, AWB can't remove an indivisible character if this is the only edit done. I don't wish to reply to RU Rob13 because he already said he'll stay away from CHECKWIKI related tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Just for clarity (and I will not reply further on this topic), I recused from handling CHECKWIKI bot tasks as a BAG member while explicitly stating I may comment as a normal editor. I've never stated I would "stay away from CHECKWIKI related tasks". ~ Rob13Talk 23:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Above someone suggested that invisible characters are only important when they break url, links and the like. It's worth noting that they also break searching, to varying degrees. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Oppose 3,000 – 4,000 pages? No, if this task is to be done, it should be done through a bot-flagged account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DoRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken Can you please confrim that the oppose is only on the "from a normal account" part? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I think removing these invisible characters would be a positive thing, and nobody has shown that there's any potential to harm any pages. I do have concerns about using Mag's personal account, due to the Watchlist spam potential mentioned above. However, I think Yobot doing this task through BRFA at a reasonable rate (with Mag manually handling the few the need individual attention) is perfectly fine. I believe overriding COSMETICBOT is justified here. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support task, oppose implementation: I take the view that hidden characters can cause problems in urls, editing and other accessibility problems. Therefore, fixing these is a task that is a) should be done and b) suitable for a bot. However, this proposal was suggesting that this would be done on Magio's user account. Editing 3000+ pages on a user account in an automated way will clog watchlists and is far more suited for a bot task. Done sensibly on a bot account and I have no opposition to the task. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis. We know this can be done from Yobot's account. So, are these (proposed) edits going to be done from Yobot's account (and only and exclusively so)? —Sladen (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sladen If the consensus is "bot account only" I am doing from there. If the consensus "you may also use your normal account", I'll use both ;) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the task. @Magioladitis:, as far as I know there is no restriction/policy that says that a bot account can't be used for some occasional 'manual' edits to supplement a bot-task (as long as they fall (strictly) under the same approved BRFA and that there is consensus for the edits). Heck, for me, if you have the necessary approvals to perform a task, and you want to use the bot account to do 4000 repetitive edits completely manual, why not? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Commenting only on the policy generally, a bot account can be approved to do manual edits of a certain type, but a bot operator cannot merely start doing manual edits from their bot account claiming that they "supplement" an existing bot task. A bot task is approval for a specific thing, not a broad category of things (generally - there are some exceptions which would be noted in each BRFA). ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: Hence my '..(as long as they fall (strictly) under the same approved BRFA ..'). Basically, you do the task the bot is approved for, but check every edit manually. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal my TBan (unarchived for admin closure)[edit]

Consensus is to lift the deletion process topic ban for Sk8erPrince, but it's a short leash. He is warned that resumption of the behaviors that led to this TBAN will result in it being replaced for a long time, possibly indefinitely, and blocks could follow. Katietalk 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Half a year ago, I was TBanned from all deletion related processes. I have been told that I could apply to have my TBan lifted after 6 months, which is today. Ever since I was TBanned, I have focused my attention in improving voice actor articles by citing reliable sources, as well as placing a new template in them which encourages contributors to source their information. If I do succeed in lifting my current restrictions, I would still continue to contribute to Wikipedia by improving/writing voice actor articles (which can be viewed on my userpage), more often than AFD procedures as I believe that I am more capable in the former. I believe that I have proven that I could contribute to other areas in the encyclopedia, which was a concern when it was believed that I am too obsessed with the deletion process. I hope the community and admins will consider my appeal, and I look forward to continuing working with you all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want the topic ban lifted? What has it prevented you from doing that would have benefited Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
So that I may contest PRODs on articles that I care about and participate in AFD discussions, which are both currently undoable due to my TBan. Even though my main area of focus has shifted, I would still like to redeem the privileges that I once had. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • How do you expect to move forward without running into the same problems of a battleground attitude, mass nominations and rudeness [10] that got you the ban in the first place? Dennis Brown - 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, since my primary focus is no longer AFDing (and will no longer be if this appeal is approved), mass nominations won't be a problem as I will be spending most of my time here citing reliable sources on voice actor articles than nominating articles for deletion. I have no intention of being rude in AFDs ever again; rather, I would approach those discussions in a calmer, civil manner, I promise. This is how I plan to move forward. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support this appeal, backed up with a reminder that any resumption of the previous behaviour will quickly result in the TBAN being replaced, perhaps alongside a block for abusive behaviour. But, that's not a threat. I'd expect the same to be applied to me; if I started mass-nominating, I'd expect to be sanctioned. What tips it into 'support', for me, is that this user has hundreds of edits since the TBAN was placed, and no blocks. There was a concern in early January that maybe the editor had violated the TBAN. Rather than become combative, the user discussed the situation. And that was early in the ban. I would encourage the user (encourage, but not require, and not request a response about) to consider what steps they will take if they find themselves heading down the wrong road again. In my experience, it helps to have a plan ahead of time to avoid getting in trouble again. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm tending to support too, partly because the appeal has been presented in a credible way, partly because of Yamla's reasoning, partly because I really do believe in second chances (unless it's obviously a bad idea), and partly because Sk8erPrince will be aware that any repetition of the problems that led to the ban is likely to result in its reinstatement with very little chance of being lifted again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Supporting purely out of benefit of the doubt and believing everyone deserves a 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 15:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per improvements and acknowledging that next time, the ban will be indefinite and appeal time will be 1 year or longer. Capitals00 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - AGF regarding OP's improved attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, OP blew it with their comment below. Deletion may be a necessary thing, but it's not something to celebrate. I guess their attitude hasn't really changed much at all. Thanks to TheGracefulSlick for point it out. Oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

:::If my attitude hasn't changed, I would have said that it wasn't Grace's business (that was actually what I said in the Tban discussion). Instead, I calmly explained my reasoning for keeping such a list. I fail to see how listing articles that I have managed to delete has anything to do with a battleground attitude or general rudeness, which were concerns when I was Tbanned. Keeping personal records doesn't mean I'm celebrating, nor does it mean that I am gloating that I am very good at the process. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not entirely sure if I'm just making a big deal out of it but did anyone else notice Sk8er still has all the articles he has deleted listed on his userpage -- almost like they were points or victories? I think it is right to ask: Sk8erPrince why do you find it is neccessary to keep such a list of "successful" AfDs and CSDs? I'm willing to support you as long as you have the right attitude toward the deleting processes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a second go at answering that question. It's not necessary to keep that deletion list as long as there's viewable records of my AFD stats. I have removed it, so it no longer poses as a potential issue. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

::The same could be asked for listing articles that I have tremendously improved, really. As long as it's a significant achievement, I'll list it in my userpage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Would you please explain how these deleted articles are "a significant achievement", equal to that of articles you've "tremendously improved"? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

::::They're not equal achievements. They're entirely different processes; also, at present day, I think article expansion is more contributive (at least, I have been able to contribute more effectively in that area). However, the AFD process was what I had been doing before I started getting actively involved in article contribution. Since AFD was the only way for me to contribute (that's what I thought, at least), those were the only achievements I've made, and they were significant in my POV. It is simply a personal record, nothing more (so I don't forget what I did manage to achieve). Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC) *Clarification: I just found out that the TBan discussion had listed keeping my personal list of successful deletions as an issue when combined with other more immediate issues such as rudeness, combative, refusal to integrate into the community and having a battleground mentality (it should also be noted that the main concerns took up most of the OP's post and those that support placing a TBan on me, and that my personal list was only briefly mentioned in just a few sentences). I would like to take this opportunity, since Grace has pointed this out, to clarify the purpose of keeping a list. I don't deny that I was unpleasant back then, and that I was rather immature and inexperienced when dealing with AFD procedures (mass nominations without having conducted enough research is one of them). Despite that, I still managed to achieve something in the end, and keeping those AFDs as personal records helps me learn and move forward when looking back. It is part of the learning experience.Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Guy, it's revealing of your mindset being unchanged, ESPECIALLY since you title it "Pages I've deleted myself [emphasis added]" --Calton | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Successful AFDs are "significant achievements"? If you had linked to the titles themselves -- perhaps as a watchlist against re-creation or as a guide for future re-creation if circumstances change -- I might have thought you had a point. But it's a list of links to the AFD pages, so serves no purpose other than that of a trophy list, like a fighter pilot painting his kills on his aircraft. --Calton | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I just remembered that my personal AFD records could be viewed using the AFD stats tool, so I've removed the deletion list on my userpage. I don't want to give the wrong impression that I'm keeping victory lists. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So exactly the same attitude, just hiding it better? Not the winning rhetorical strategy you think it is.--Calton | Talk 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no opinion on the Tban but since I was aware of this discussion I was surprised to see Sk8erPrince add himself to the Active AfC reviewer list which I reverted [11] Keeping a list of AfD nominations is pretty silly. They are not trophies, just spam fighting. I can see, however, putting together a list to disprove accusations of ma