Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Continued pushing from new SPI[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive294#500.2F30_ARBPIA, the same editor appears to be back again, now called Dank Chicken. See edit history here: [1].

Illustrative article histories at [2] and [3]


Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean SPA? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, both. SPA who's been at SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. ansh666 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I've dropped a DS alert and a note regarding the 500/30 restriction on their talk page. If the SPI doesn't go anywhere and they keep editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, please report to AE for enforcement. By the way, you are required to notify them of this discussion. I'll do so now. GoldenRing (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't edit the template since it wasn't locked. Now I understand that no edits are allowed regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict before making 500 edits in 30 days. Thanks for informing me!
Btw, this is my first account in a couple of years. I just thought I'd clarify that because it appears some editors are doubting my credibility.
Dank Chicken (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a quick delete + revdel + block[edit]

Revdelled by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 25 November 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.

If it hasn't been done already: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I clicked, and it appears to have been done. Thank goodness nobody drew attention to it on a highly watched page or two. -- Begoon 10:40, 25 November 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.

Motion: Sexology[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Sexology

New Page Patrol[edit]

New Page Patrol Needs YOU!
Uncle Sam (pointing finger).png
  • We are the firewall that protects Wikipedia by identifying spam and malicious new submissions.
  • Currently our backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed new pages stretches back to March and there are currently a lot of pages in the backlog that have passed the 90 day Google index point. This means that are many thousands of pages that are indexed by google, but have not been reviewed at all!
  • We currently barely have the capacity to keep the backlog steady, and reducing it has been very difficult.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. Please see the granting conditions.
  • If this looks like you, please review our instructions page and APPLY TODAY. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Bambenek related vandalism[edit]

Since it was reported to me by others, wanted to make clear that I (John Bambenek)have nothing to do woth the recent vandalism. I assume it is obvious that it was the case. If you have need to contact me, a google search will reveal legitimate contact info. 2600:1008:B013:AC44:990F:9E73:2994:C634 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Anyone know what this is about? We just had Bambenek’s annual sockpuppet trip to DRV. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (To User:JzG) As above, those edits weren’t me as another editor and someone who did checkuser (I assume) can attest to. I can’t edit your page so I am asking here, there hasn’t been any real DrVs since 2009 which weren’t me either. Can we just after 12 years drop the WP:DEEPER and all of this please? All this went down 12 years ago, I have long since moved on and hope we can just bury this hatchet for good. RealJohnBambenek (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove edits[edit]

Hi. Please, kindly remove this and this edit done by me on my user page. Essentially, I do not want people to see those quotes in the history of my user page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Classic line, classic film. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 12:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It's stuff like this that's the only reason I'd ever want to become an admin -- I want to know what classic line from what film. (That's OK, unsatisfied curiosity makes the world go 'round.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IP block needed[edit]

204.126.11.192 (talk · contribs) seems to pass the WP:DUCK test of being an IP sock of user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked for disruptively changing song genres. Nearly all of the IP's edits are changing the genre field in country music songs to "bro-country" with no other citation besides "Look at the lyrics". This is a very flagrant WP:OR and WP:POINT violation. The IP has been blocked before. Could someone please find a way to put a stop to this? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Old indefinitely full protected articles in mainspace[edit]

Hi, fellow administrators! Given the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses discussion above, I took the next initiative and also pulled a list of articles in the mainspace that were under indefinite full protection and found that were were a handful of them (31 articles to be exact); most of which were applied 10+ years ago and definitely don't appear to be necessary or needed at all. I removed the protection from some of them (you'll see it in my log) - and I messaged some administrators asking about the protection they set so that I can verify with them that they weren't set indefinitely by accident. I'm sure that these articles don't need the indefinite full protection that I found and removed, but I wanted to create this noticeboard discussion to let everyone know (in case I unprotected any articles that do need it and for a reason I'm not aware of). If this is the case, please accept my apologies in advance, let me know, and I'll be happy to throw it back on immediately. Thanks again, everyone! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I helped find a lot of these via Quarry as above. There weren't a lot of mainspace - but just user_talk, there are nearly 3,000 - and close to 10,000 all namespaces combined. Probably something we should look at. SQLQuery me! 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but noting that these appear to have been saltings against re-creation, not actual articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad - Yeah, I saw that too. Some of them were edit / move indefinite full protection, some others were salts. If you (or anyone for that matter) think I should raise the protection bar up any on any of the articles I took indef full protction off from, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Since the articles you unprotected will scroll down on your log as you perform other admin tasks, could you put them on a list in your user space? I ask so that if problems pop on one of the pages -- say Dumbass -- it can be easily checked that it was once under full protection, which I think would probably ease the process of getting it protected again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken - Sure,  Done. The list is here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
You bet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: IMHO, those that were salted should keep their full, regardless of how long ago the salt was applied. Some of them will probably have been salted as the result of consensus at AfD (AfD consensuses? consensii?), while others may have had BLP/BLPREQUEST issues. The "Internet Slang" ones you've unprotected so far may or may not work out - we have no idea how many would-be vandals saw it was protected and moved on, after all. Now, a 10-year-old full protection on an actual page can probably go away, although some vandtrollers can be remarkably persistent. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Bushranger - I tried to avoid changing protection on articles that I thought were likely protected due to consensus or something extreme. What specific pages concern you? I'd like to take another look. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
None in particular, just general 'well, in my position...' musing. Face-smile.svg - The Bushranger One ping only 08:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Bushranger - Ahh, got'cha. It's all good; I was just making sure :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:ECP can be used with salted articles, so maybe there is still an opportunity to downgrade those protections. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. As it is not clear whether these are still vandalism targets (although some are), it makes sense to see whether protection is still warranted. (Unfunny memes that needed SALTing ten years ago probably can be dealt with by less extreme measures now). —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion at WP:VPR about reducing old creation protections from full to ECP. ~ Rob13Talk 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

'Greed' article[edit]

WP:RFPP is thataway↓. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 27 November 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.

On the page Greed, an IP is repeatedly adding this content which does not appear to be neutral and reliably sourced; this has been happening for the past two days despite repeated reverts. Admins, could you please give your input on the matter and help to get it resolved?

Entranced98 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I filed a request at WP:RFPP for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. As a note, requests for protection really should be taking place at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 November 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.

Other articles that need protection due to the Net Neutrality repeal in the U.S.[edit]

WP:RFPP is thataway→. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 27 November 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.

Just like the article Net neutrality, the articles Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law can be subject to vandalism or edit wars. Net neutrality law had already been vandalized --200.78.194.72 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 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.

Motion: Crosswiki issues[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:
(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.
(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.
(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).
(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.
(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.
(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

Closer needed[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin or experienced editor take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and reclose it? It had been previously closed but that was reverted for sound, albeit procedural reasons. I am INVOLVED so I can't close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - I'll do it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem - The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem - You bet; always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Update of Administrator Confidence Survey results[edit]

The Administrator Confidence Survey results have been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and to plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in learning your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making at Wikimedia Foundation and by the English Wikipedia Community.

You can discuss the comments on wiki on talk page or by email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI backlog[edit]

WP:SPI is badly backlogged. We sure miss Bbb23! Bless his heart, he posted today - for the first time in more than a month - and closed a complex SPI case. But he says his time for Wikipedia still extremely limited. Any other checkusers willing to step up and handle some of these requests? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only a single endorsed request for checkuser, and it's a relist. The call-out needs to be made to Clerks to review the 6 checkuser-requested cases and Clerks and Admins to review all of the rest of the open categories. There is always a shortage of Admins willing to jump in due to the burnout to reward ratio; it's a slog.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Clerks, admins, we need you! --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the kind words, Melanie. I dealt with the relist, so there are no more masters in the endorsed category. CUs, in particular the new energetic crop, have been doing a terrific job. As Ponyo gets back up to speed, she will make her usual dent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
First off, seeing your name pop up in my notifications was like Christmas come early. Second, I'm getting older - this is me "up to speed". There is no other gear!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
All I wanted for Christmas was to see Bbb23. :-) Katietalk 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
People know my thoughts on backlogs on here. OK, quick win time - isn't the admin newsletter due soon (1st of the month, I believe)? Along with the standard movers and shakers section, a quick paragraph about the most backlogged areas along these lines: SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. That'll hit 1,000+ user pages and maybe reach a few who aren't as active on this board. I'll even draft that bit up, if someone shows me were to go (fnar, fnar). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/12. Nihlus 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: AIV is never actually backlogged. It has a bunch of denied requests that most admins would prefer to leave stale than template deny. The solution to the AIV backlog is for vandal fighters to stop reporting good faith users. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And to stop reporting after two vandal edits. Points #2 and #3 on that board are too-often ignored. --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly also not to use AIV as 'WP:REQUESTS FOR BLOCKS', for random socks, impolite editors, and POV warriors. SQLQuery me! 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't mind the random sock reports as long they're obvious. Better than clogging up SPI or ANI. --NeilN talk to me 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems is that they aren't usually very obvious. And when declined, someone else usually follows behind and blocks anyhow - validating, and even encouraging the reporters misuse of AIV. SQLQuery me! 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ditto x2 @UAA — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree on AIV never being backlogged. It normally gets backlogged around 12am-10am UTC. Nihlus 19:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And most of those reports are bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nihlus and Tony. I've updated the newsletter. Feel free to change anything. Hope that helps. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, you probably don't need to mention RFPP. Backlogs there tend to get dealt with very quickly; they seldom last more than a few hours. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
IIRC, it has been raised here a few of times in the past months. Can't do any harm to mention it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, RFPP gets backlogged for more than 24h (often Saturday European morning - may be the majority of the admins are from North America?), and, indeed, I had to post here a couple of times in a couple of months, and I have also seen others bringing it here. A good thing is that it is actually easy to handle RFPP backlogs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I knew I wasn't making it up! Right, we'll give this a go and see if there's any improvement. I know that can be hard to quantify, but a reducation of requests here would be a good benchmark. Although, there might be a spike between the 24th and 26th of next month. Christmas is now cancelled. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series)[edit]

While checking on some non-free images, I came across Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) and Draft:Superman (1978-2017 film series). I'm not sure why but it appears that they were created by same new editor. It looks they didn't know quite how to move the page to fix the hyphen/ndash issue they had with the title of the first one they created, so they simply created it again. Not sure what to do here. Does the first one Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) need to go to MfD or can it just be tagged for speedy deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • To be honest, it doesn't really matter because they're never going to pass AfC - we've already got an article Superman_in_film and they'd just be deleted A10 as duplicates. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I've G7'd Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) because the creator wrote they were marking it for deletion. Normally if a user makes a cut-and-paste move we would do a history merge, but it wasn't necessary in this case because the creator was the only contributor before the cut-and-paste move, meaning there were no attribution issues to resolve. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
      • @Black Kite and Jenks24: Thanks to you both for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually, if the creator of a page does a cut-and-paste move, and they're the only editor who has edited the page, then all that is necessary is to turn the original into a redirect. There's no point in a histmerge if the attribution links to a single individual. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Pretty sure that's what I said. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Indeed. Misread your original post. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on article[edit]

Admins may want to put some extra eyes on the Matt Lauer article. Major news in the U.S. Could see some increased activity with BLP issues. --Jayron32 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun (Extreme partiality, vandalism and censorship)[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG applied--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 29 November 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 remind the username Pahlevun (Pahlevan) means "champion" --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And I remind the admins reading that the editor who uses the sig "IsNotNationalist" is actually User:IranianNationalist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Who has been blocked for violating 3RR on another article. --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And is now continuing their non-nonsensical and borderline-incomprehensible complaints on their talk page. Is revoking talk page access or extending the block indicated in such a case? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I took away his talk page access since he was just using it as a venue to continue the dispute. ♠PMC(talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 29 November 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.

Duplicate articles[edit]

Hey fellow admins, I don't have time at present to handle this, so I thought I'd bring this here in case someone has a few minutes. SSangeertha and Sangeertha satkunarasa appear to be the same person. I don't know if they're doing this to circumvent scrutiny, or if they're just totally confused, but both of these accounts have created:

If anyone has some time to look into this, I'd consider it a favor. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Robert McClenon, as he's had some exposure to this and may be interested in scope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the drafts, as the person had blanked and added AfD tags to them. Seems like it's been consolidated to one article now. I doubt the multiple accounts are an attempt to avoid scrutiny since they edit the exact same things and are so similar that it's pretty obvious they're the same person. ansh666 08:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for delete those articles how am i improve puvi (actor) i want to deactivate my account Sangeertha satkunarasa how to deactivate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSangeertha (talkcontribs) 09:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SSangeertha: I don't think it's possible for you to deactivate or delete a Wikipedia account once it has been created per WP:UP#Deleting and merging accounts. If you created multiple accounts in error, you probably can just pick the one you wish to continue using, and simply stop using the other one. If you are planning on never editing Wikipedia again with any account, then you might be able to request a Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, but it doesn't sound like this is what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked User:Sangeertha satkunarasa per the request above. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
User:SSangeertha - For advice on how to improve an article, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Cyphoidbomb - Duplicate articles, in my experience, are developed for two main reasons. The first is to avoid scrutiny, either to re-enter them after they have been deleted, or to overwhelm or confuse the AFC reviewers, or in more complicated situations. The second is simply in good faith by an inexperienced editor. The former is more common, and often but not always involves sockpuppetry, but the latter is not that rare, and we should assume good faith unless we have reason to suspect subterfuge. This is clearly a good-faith case, since the author has asked for help and blanked the duplicates. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, I can't wait for that report. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
HAhahah... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about this... Sorry, someone had to say it... DonIago (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New vandalisim to Net Neutrality pages[edit]

The articles which I asked protection for, Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law had been both vandalized and are still open to further vandalism.

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll get an actual response at WP:RfPP, but I don't know if there's enough to justify protecting the latter article (at least yet). ansh666 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses[edit]

Hi, fellow administrators! I'm currently going through the database report of indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and I see numerous IP addresses that have not only been blocked indefinitely but over 10+ years ago. I had some questions I wanted to ask, as well as some specific blocks I wanted to ask about adjusting their block duration to eventually expire. First question is: If the administrator of a company or department requests the IP to be blocked, do we still do so indefinitely? What about blocks like this made 9, 10, 11 years ago? I also saw an indefinite block on this IP with a summary that there was consensus at ANI to block - was this indefinite as well? What situations today would call for an indefinite IP address block? What blocks on this list should stay as-is? I think the issue with many of these old indefinite IP blocks is that (I believe) WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted after many of them were made. I wanted to draw some attention to this database report, and get input regarding what's on this list. I think that many administrators will find that indefinite IP blocks set by them were by accident (such as myself - I had one listed here). Any input, feedback, opinions, and assistance regarding this list would be very much appreciated; I've been running into old blocks like these, and I feel that I should at least take some initiative and re-evaluate them if they don't reflect today's etiquettes, norms, and guidelines. Thanks, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of these IPs are still assigned to the organizations that requested the blocking. What I am more interested in are the criteria by which we decide when to act on such a request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, since you recently blocked a school's IP based on an OTRS ticket, probably you ought to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My own indef block is a special situation, and I think it was a good decision — at one time, it was common for Toolserver bots to edit logged out by mistake (e.g. you'd see an IP clerking WP:UAA), despite the clear requirement at WP:BOTACC (in other words, this was a mistake, not ignorance or bad-faith bot operation), and this was one of the IPs they used, so I indef-blocked it while permitting logged-in editing. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) X 2 - Jo-Jo Eumerus - I also am interested in how we act upon requests from the organization or owner of the IP address as well. The issue I see with many of these database report entries is that the blocks are indefinite, made over 10+ years ago, with no diff or ticket number in the block summary (so it can't be reviewed), and by administrators who have long since left the project and are no longer active here. I've modified a few blocks from this report that I definitely don't believe need to be indefinite in duration anymore (old blocks and in the situation I just described); I'm interested to hear input by other admins and to get an understanding of indefinite IP blocks as a whole. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The older OTRS blocks were reviewed in 2014. Some essential reading (IMO): this stuff. I'm personally content to leave an indef-block alone where the school admin has requested a block and the IP remains assigned to the school. I probably wouldn't make any new indef blocks on request, unless there was some guarantee of a review. CAT:OP, which is typically excluded from the database report, has been in a horrible state since forever. So yes please more eyes on these blocks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
zzuuzz - I plan on going through this list to make sure that any indefinite blocks that have been set are still necessary. I've already started pinging some administrators on their user talk pages about old blocks and asking for their input about setting a definite duration. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, sorry about the edit conflicts. I've requested checkuser on the IP I blocked (to see whether it's still being used by approved bots) and on the approved bots (to see what IPs they're using), and I'll unblock this IP if it's not in use and block other IPs if they are. {{Toolserver IP}} instructs admins to indef-block the IPs in question, but if the Toolserver IPs are no longer used by WMF, we'll probably need to unblock all of them. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend - Don't be sorry; it happens and it's nobody's fault. Thanks for responding to my concerns here and for your input. This is good information that I didn't know much about, so I appreciate it greatly :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've filed an WP:ARCA request about the two IPs that were blocked as arbitration enforcement; one was blocked in 2014 and the other in 2008, so I'm guessing that neither one is needed anymore. Also trying to learn more about the Toolserver IPs and the IPs currently being used by the bots. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure some of these can be unblocked.
  • User:90.217.133.223 blocked four years ago and is a dynamic Sky Broadband IP, this will have been reallocated since then.
  • User:63.232.20.2 was used for block evasion, but that was eight years ago.
  • User:198.135.70.1 is a public IP used for vandalism but, again, is seven years old.
  • Orangemike has blocked indefinitely a lot of IPs for WP:NLT because "these should be indef", but many of these are also dynamic.
  • Might be worth going through them and knocking off ones like this. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Black Kite - I agree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As stated in the block reason, the school contacted OTRS and wanted to have Wikipedia blocked entirely for that IP. Not sure what input I can really give, seeing as they requested it and I found no reason to decline their request. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Primefac - I don't see anything wrong with that at all; I'm just wondering about the duration of such blocks and if we should be doing so indefinitely. The past indefinite blocks made many years ago seem quite unnecessary to me. Even if we modified them to a duration of 3+ years from today, I feel that it's better than keeping them blocked forever. Now we have IP blocks that are over a decade old, and certainly don't need to apply anymore - even if it was by request from the IP itself. I don't see why I couldn't go through this database report, verify that the IP is still in fact under the same ownership (and if not, unblock), and change these block durations so that they start counting down. I've already changed a couple from being indefinite blocks to a duration of five years from now. It's still quite a long time from today, but those blocks will at least expire someday, which I think that all IP blocks should eventually do. What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't really give a long thought-out answer because honestly I've never really given it any thought. If a school/institution specifically says "here are our IP addresses, please block them" I think we should honour that agreement until such time as they cease holding that IP. Now, something like 168.11.200.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was a "until we fix the issue", sure, go for a shorter duration.
Maybe for the existing indef's from schools that are 5+ years old we should reach out to the sysadmins and ask if they still want the protection.
Maybe in the future when we receive such OTRS/etc requests, we should ask if they want indefinite protection. My guess is that they would say yes, but at least it would give us justification for the indef.
I guess what I'm saying is that indefinite blocks might not be a bad thing, but I agree with your initial concern that there should be justification for such a move. Maybe a yearly check to ensure that the indeffed IPs still belong to the original "owners". Maybe I'm giving too many maybes. Maybe. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually don't think we should follow the school's wishes here for an indefinite block. If they don't wish students to be editing Wikipedia, that's their business to enforce. If the IP is editing constructively, why should we block it? (If it's not, that's quite a different story.) I certainly don't think we should overrule our usual blocking policy when it comes to indefinite IP blocks at a school's say-so. ~ Rob13Talk 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 - I'm okay with honoring the request from the administrator of the organization if the IP has a history of disruption and abuse and such disruption is currently ongoing, but any such blocks should be temporary and definitely not set to an indefinite length. I agree that we should not overrule our blocking policies (not just in this situation... but in general, really). They're there for a reason. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Ran a quarry to filter some additional indefs, the list is at about 285 with ~15 admins being responsible for a third of the blocks:
  1. User:Orangemike: 15
  2. User:Jimfbleak: 12
  3. User:TigerShark: 12
  4. User:Yamla: 6
  5. User:NawlinWiki: 6
  6. User:Jayron32: 6
  7. User:Mackensen: 5
  8. User:Ponyo: 5
  9. User:Netsnipe: 5
  10. User:Materialscientist: 5
  11. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me: 4
  12. User:Infrogmation: 4
  13. User:Kudpung: 4
  14. User:Good Olfactory: 4
  15. User:Andrewa: 4

SQLQuery me! 00:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many, though not all, of my indefinite blocks were from before WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted. I have reviewed and lifted the six blocks I placed. One (or two?) were at the request of the administrator of the IP address, but I can find no evidence that the IP address is still assigned there. --Yamla (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I probably phrased that badly. Thanks for looking into yours! I'll update the list periodically. SQLQuery me! 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't take offense. It's worth having the blocking admins review these blocks, as a first approach. But I think eventually, other admins are going to have to review the rest. Just getting mine out of the way. :) --Yamla (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like my five remaining blocks were all for open proxies and aren't related to past checkuser activity. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any ideas on how we would even begin unblocking User:00.00.00.00? Software automagically changes it to User:0.0.0.0. SQLQuery me! 01:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
SQL -  Done. I used the API to find the original block log:
...and I used the block ID from the API response as the parameter to unblock the user:
The block log shows that I unblocked 0.0.0.0 and the page is definitely confused... but this was the sure method I could come up with that would actually unblock what was blocked. It's weird, because I went through the block log to find the block of this user, and nothing exists during the timestamp of the original block... So... I think the logs are going to look wrong... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any chance you could publish the full report, SQL? I'd like to review any accidental indefinite blocks on IPs that I placed, but they're not easy to locate. ~ Rob13Talk 08:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 - I just ran the full query and searched the API response for any blocks that were made by you - nothing came back. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are more under Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. The one listed under my name is incorrect; it was reblocked by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply by andrewa[edit]

I can only see two blocks at User:SQL/indefip that I made. I've reviewed both of these and the comments I made at the time. [5] [6] Both are soft blocks of IPs that were at the time assigned to educational institutions. And you don't know this, but both user talk pages are permanently on my personal watchlist.

It seems to me reasonable to leave those blocks there indefinitely, in view of the history before the block. And I note that Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (referred to above as if it had modified the blocking policy) is an information page. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

From Jayron32[edit]

Feel free to unblock any of mine. They are all so long ago as to be likely not needed anymore. --Jayron32 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jayron32.  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Ponyo[edit]

It has never been my intent to block an IP indefinitely and is likely a result of choosing the wrong drop down option when blocking an IP and their registered account back to back. Feel free to unblock the 5 attributed to me. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo!  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from The Bushranger[edit]

Huh, I actually have one in here, way back in 2012 when the only grognard editors were pterodactyls. Pretty obvious it was a case like Ponyo's where I mis-clicked the menu, so I've gone ahead and unblocked it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for following up and for taking a look. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Lankiveil[edit]

My only entry is an oversight block, of User:74.143.90.218. I invite opinions on whether this is a dynamic IP and thus potentially safe to unblock. The same IP was used by the same individual over a period of at least a year to post oversightable material, so I'd rather not unblock it unless I am absolutely certain it has changed owners. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Lankiveil - Did you pull a WHOIS on this IP? It's ISP is Time Warner Cable with a 74.142.0.0/15 direct allocation, which looks like a Residential HSI connection to me, so it's most certainly not a static IP. It can certainly stay the same if the modem never disconnects past the DHCP's lease period (typically one week), but the IP can change if conditions are met (mostly with disconnecting the modem or changing services). So if it helps at all: It's possible that the IP can change, but it's normal to see it stay the same for a long period of time. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Time Warner Cable dynamic IPs can stay the same for *years*, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::As a former Time Warner Cable residential customer, just a heads up - I held the same IP for roughly 2 years. SQLQuery me! 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, that does appear to be a static IP assigned to the business portion of Time Warner. See the "biz.rr" in the record here. Cross check indicates that it is static. That IP block was an acquisition from Insight Communications and I believe that the business static lines would have been preserved and not reassigned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Berean Hunter - Ah, shit. I didn't dig that far deep; guess I should have :-). I didn't notice the business registration - thank you for pointing this out to me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Aye, I thought that it was residential home cable, but given that the account was posting the same nonsense over a period of months, I was a bit dubious about taking the block off. Thanks for the information. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

School IPs and block evasion[edit]

How does one typically handle a {{SharedIPEDU}} that's evading a block?

Im4god persistently disrupted Church of God of Prophecy with edits like this, so I recently filed an ANI thread that resulted in JzG blocking the account indefinitely. I just noticed this edit, which is obvious block evasion and would easily lead to a {{uw-sockblock}} if it were made with an account, but for one thing it was a day and a half ago, and secondly the IP is registered to a community college and makes edits on lots of topics. Should this just be reverted and ignored (I already reverted it), or is a block somehow appropriate? This is the first disruptive edit by an IP since January 2016 (and there were several IP edits since then that undid disruption), so there's no way that we should be semiprotecting it right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Close RfC[edit]

Hello, proposing that someone close an RfC located Talk:Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations#RfC:_Whose_photographs_should_be_included_in_this_article? Hopefully this is the right venue to request. I have voted in the RfC so maybe I am not allowed to close it. The RfC is about two weeks old and I think consensus has pretty clearly been reached. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed parts of the RFC, but wasn't sure about the remaining one, so someone else should check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
1. The proper mechanism is at WP:ANRFC. 2. I have replied on the article's talk page, here. ―Mandruss  15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancient User Sub-Pages[edit]

pages deleted. -- Alexf(talk) 18:20, 1 December 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.

Hey all, I came across three ancient user sub-pages from both my account now and predecessor handle "Husnock". These are unused pages and should be deleted. The last one seems to be a page someone else created without my knowledge. Delete them please! -O.R.Comms 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All deleted as a user request to delete pages in their own userspace (CSD U1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 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.

Srebrenica massacre[edit]

The article Srebrenica massacre has been tagged as WP:POV by a single-purpose account. I have removed the tag, with an explanation and an invitation to the editor, XerJoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), to explain their thinking. They have reinstated the tag. I think the situation could benefit from other eyes than mine. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid we have an instance of WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm already watching and reverted the re-addition of the tag and left a further message on XerJoff's user talk. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2-factor authentication[edit]

Authentication authenticated, AN alert abdicated. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:30, 7 December 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. I have activated 2 factor authentication and documented the numerics that was requested to be kept safe. However, due to mobile resetting my app and the wikipedia related data linked to my wikipedia account have been deleted. Now I have downloaded the app and want to add the information again. To do this I tried to deactivate 2 factor authentication to get a new barcode but to deactivate it asks for a code from the app. It is a catch 22, how can I fix this? What is the use of those numeric codes I have kept? In a nutshell, I need to deactivate to reactive and get the barcode to enter in to the app for future logins. Thanks. Gharouni Talk 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Solved. I have used one of the codes and it worked. Thanks. Gharouni Talk 17:56, 5 December 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.

ACE2017 MMS[edit]

A very large (50000+ targets) mass-message run will be sent out later today for the WP:ACE2017 notifications. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination#Almost_ready_to_send and reply there if you have any concerns. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections[edit]

Has the voting been restarted? I received a notification about the Arbcom elections a few hours ago and when I went to double check that my vote has remained submitted I find that apparently nobody has voted so far. Am I just getting an error or what's the deal here? I know hundreds of us had already voted so I'm confused as to what's going on. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The voting is taking place on the WMF SecurePoll, not the enwiki SecurePoll. You're looking for [7]. ~ Rob13Talk 23:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Thanks Rob. What's happened is that when I click the voting link it takes me to the en.wiki voting server first and then later transfers me to the WMF server when I try to vote. As I'd already voted I went to the results first. So when I clicked "SecurePoll" there it took me to the en.wiki results rather than the WMF results. Good, my vote, along with all others, still exists. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I've updated the header on Special:SecurePoll to reference that the logs may be on the other server with a link. — xaosflux Talk 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request clarification of WP:BLANKING policy[edit]

Resolved

I’ve been an IP editor on Wikipedia for quite some time under various IP addresses, so please don’t question the legitimacy of this thread.

Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I’ve seen numerous blocked users remove content from their user talk page, or even blank it altogether. This is allowed by policy, with the exception of declined unblock requests. However, I’ve seen numerous administrators and other users who have reverted the blanking of a blocked users talk page by the user themselves, often with rollback or another automated anti-vandalism tool without providing an edit summary or other notification. First, that is blatant misuse of rollbacker userrights (in the cases of rollback) since talk page blanking when done by the user who the talk page is for is not vandalism. Additionally, since users are allowed to blank their talk pages, blocked or not, it is incorrect for the admins/users to revert them, let alone revert them as vandalism.

Sometimes, administrators even go so far as to change the block settings to include “cannot edit own talk page” simply due to blanking that did not include declined unblock requests. The most recent example of this that I can find is Special:Contributions/Harry0gle. Admin TheresNoTime revoked talk page access simply because the user removed the block notice and some other content, both of which are perfectly allowed. To make matters worse, the first editor who reverted the talk page did not leave a notification nor an edit summary, and TNT did not leave {{blocked talk-revoked-notice}} upon removing TPA nor an edit summary. The removal of talk page access here was incorrect. Period.

Another, older example of this is Special:Contributions/Ryan_HoganBruen's_life. Again, they removed content from the talk page that did not include declined unblock requests, yet multiple users reverted them and Favonian then revoked talk page access for no apparent reason. At least Favonian left the talk revoked notice, but no notifications were given prior, and, notifications would not have even been needed in this case or the case above since the blankings were perfectly allowed.

TL;DR I would like to request a clarification of the WP:BLANKING policy that allows users, blocked or not, to blank their talk page with the exception of declined unblock requests. I’ve seen admins and other users not allow users to blank their talk pages in accordance with this policy, and therefore I would like to know whether or not the policy has changed and just failed to be updated, or if we are looking at cases of misuse of rollback, or, at the worst, a case of WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. 159.122.86.43 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I think in the specific case of User talk:Ryan HoganBruen's life, I hit the revert button while trying to review the unblock request, though I grant there was an hour from the blanking to my revert. Users are normally free to remove anything they want from their talk pages, with a few exceptions. An exception is a decline for a currently-active block. At least once in the past, I (incorrectly) reverted such blanking when it turned out the block had expired a few hours before. I believe policy should prohibit blanking of block messages, too, not just declined-unblocks. This is particularly true of users like Ryan HoganBruen's life who are blocked indefinitely. I want to be clear, though; that's what I think policy should be. It isn't what our policy currently says, to the best of my knowledge. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree; block notices should be required to stay as long as the block is active. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
See WP:OWNTALK. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yamla I also agree that active block notices should not be removed. You should consider raising this elsewhere. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why Harry0gle's talk page blanking was reverted (twice), let alone revoking talk page access, as policy specifically allows the talk page to be blanked. Perhaps There'sNoTime can explain? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Good catch both, that was a daft TPA revoke in Harry0gle's case - I was asked by an editor to do so, and didn't give due thought to the action. Normally I am well aware of WP:BLANKING, to the point of reminding others to not edit war over the same sort of situation. I've undone my change of the original block -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
For my part, I revoked Ryan's talk page access and reverted, not because of blanking, but because of this silliness – the final confirmation that he had nothing worthwhile to say. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Makes total sense to me. That's just plain disruptive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
For me I must have had a slip up, I honestly recalled the guideline incorrectly an honest mistake and I appologize. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated, intentional copyvios and refusal to remove them[edit]

I've never quite encountered a long-time editor such as this fellow, and certainly not one who refuses to remove likely copyright violations and then intentionally puts up more of them as a dare. This concern is regarding User:Director and the following edits as well as the warnings placed regarding each one: copyvio #1, request to remove, response to request results in copyvio #2, my response to second copyvio. Because there was no response at all to this, I left a warning on the user's own talk page here, his response was this and then this at the article talk page with further copyright violations.

The editor has a pretty extensive block log (longer than mine, which one doesn't see every day, admittedly) for edit warring, harassment, personal attacks, and disruptive editing: [8]. I have not reverted the copyvios in question as I'm limiting myself to 1RR and in the event of blatant vandalism, only. If it turns out I'm making something out of nothing and shouldn't have filed this report, my apologies for doing so. -- ψλ 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Its all true. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Blocked (48hr), revdel'd. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, just to clarify something you stated (but has since been removed via your own revert) - is removing a copyvio seen the same as removing vandalism? In other words, would it have been an acceptable use of 1RR for me? Mind you, while I am on a 1RR restriction, I have imposed upon myself my restriction of 1RR to be in the way of blatant vandalism. However you reply, I'm not so sure exercising my 1RR in this instance would have done anything more than raise tensions and possibly start a disruptive edit war on the part of the other editor. Thoughts? -- ψλ 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I blocked partly because of the WP:COPYVIOEL violations, but also because Director was being pointy and intentionally being disruptive with their further replies. We've all linked to a funny image at one time or another, and if you hadn't said anything probably no one would be blocked right now. It was a bad call for you to call them out on their youtube video, but they crossed the line by following that up with multiple minor copyvio violations. It probably wasn't your intention, but they took the bait (i.e. they dug their own hole). I'd be more cautious in the future, because there's no point in this whole song-and-dance when immature comments can just as easily be ignored entirely. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it. And no, that wasn't my intention at all. I never considered it a possibility he would respond like that. Like I said in my initial post above, I've never encountered an editor who has done something like that before. Truthfully, I was quite shocked at the response. -- ψλ 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Director does stuff like that. He's also a master at the not-quite-personal-attack - when you ask him to stop, he dares you to report him. This discussion [9] (the RfC I opened prior to the one that you opened) is just chock full of such antics directed at me:
  • Me: "Do you think it might be possible that you could express an opinion about which photo is the most appropriate to use in the lede without violating the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, or is that asking too much of you?..."
  • Director: "If you believe I've violated NPA, you know where to report me..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As to the question of removal of copyright violations: In clear, blatant, unambiguous cases - yes, they need to be removed quickly - and in my opinion, even while ignoring revert limits; however, before you decide this for a specific case, you need to be sure it is a copyvio - and not text released under a free license (and perhaps copied to an unfree site while ignoring licenses). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And if User:Winkelvi could adjust their signature to something more readable, that would be fine. This is regarding their last sojourn to this noticeboard, where an admin suggested to them that "you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to." Cheers! SerialNumber54129 08:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Director is confrontational and I am sure he knows that but I can guarantee that he knows the rules. In this specific instance I believe that under the prudence concept and for the avoidancy of doubt those images had to be considered copyrighted, but I think that administrating a block to the user because he posted the aforementioned material is perhaps on the hard side. Or at least a warning should have been issued before the block. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, Od Mishehu's point is a good one - I actually stumbled across a case of "reverse Flickrwashing" yesterday (US military photograph, claimed as full copyright on a company's account). There be minefields everywhere out here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Observation Without wishing to rehash the above and not questioning any current blocks, I will just say that if I had a block log as long as Director's, I would tread very carefully in an effort to avoid drawing untoward attention to myself. Yet this editor seems to delight in it. And somehow has avoided a long term block. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite. Director is probably quite lucky that I didn't happen on this one first, because I would have indeffed them until they learned how to actually work collegially. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Tool to see editor to editor interaction[edit]

I think there is a tool that can show where two editors have intersected in edits, but can't seem to find the specific tool. Can someone provide a link? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users&startdate&enddate&ns=%2C%2C&server=enwiki --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, good sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Transient elastography[edit]

Protected this due to multiple COI accounts editing the article without disclosure. Wondering other peoples thoughts regarding protecting articles when blocked paid editors move to IPs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable response to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requests for protection[edit]

Can we get some administrative assistance over at WP:RFPP, please? Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

All caught up. Cyberbot says "3 pending requests remain" but I don't see them, maybe the bot is malfunctioning? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Ivanvector It was at 35+ last night, when I left this message. Regardless, thank you to the admins for your swift action. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Errant punctuation causing confusion?[edit]

New AFD started, awaiting reasons Primefac (talk) 01:39, 7 December 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.

Masreliez's_theorem is recreated content that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem. I CSD-marked it, but it seems that the admins cannot figure this out. Can someone here do so?

jps (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've declined your CSD because this new version is significantly different to the one deleted in 2010. The close for that discussion also stated that "a new more focused article might be more acceptable". If you think it should be deleted I think you will need to seek a fresh consensus. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the original AfD was seven years ago, and it was different content. I think declining this was a legit action to take. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Um, the version is almost exactly the same according to the cached version I can see. However, we can't start a new AfD because the page already exists because I had to create it to try to achieve the proper linking in the CSD notice. Also, this was created by a globally locked account and a banned user. So are you both saying you're taking responsibility for the recreation of this deleted content? Because that's what I'm seeing here. jps (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The AFD page already existing can be overcome. While it is true the content isn't almost exactly the same (you may be looking at an incorrect version of what it looked like when deleted). However, it is much less well developed than the deleted page, and doesn't address any of the problems the original article had that led to its deletion. It isn't more focused, it's just shorter. I don't understand why a new AFD would be needed. The original author is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and no one has substantially edited the article. It appears the globally locked editor was likely a returning blcoked/banned user. Why can't it be G4'ed and G5'ed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I am super frustrated with this, though. I thought I was just doing normal housekeeping, but now I'm all confused. jps (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, I cannot look at deleted content, but I think if you go back in history you will see that this was the version of the article that used to exist at one point. jps (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The red-link problem is due to the fact that a curly apostrophe was used in the original and the recreated articles, but the recreated article was moved to Masreliez's theorem (straight apostrophe, lowercase t). Meanwhile, jps made a redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's Theorem) with a straight apostrophe but an uppercase T. If CSD is not satisfied, a new AfD is needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem (2nd nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the issue is regarding the creation of the AFD nomination. For what it's worth, consider this an endorsement of the decline of the G4, because it is a substantially different article than the one that was deleted. I've created the AFD page here. ජපස, please feel free to replace my text with your own. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 7 December 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.

Requests to secure Anatoly_Shariy article from user Goo3 who harms and leads illegally[edit]

We don't need this at two places, and the ANI one has attracted response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 7 December 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.

Please! He came from Ukarainian Wikipedia, user Goo3 harms and conducts illegally in relation to this public person, and also he leads edits wars, as in the English version, and in the Ukrainian! Block him from this harasmetn! -- Westmclaren 18:00 December 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add: OP is indef blocked here and account is now globally locked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 7 December 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.

Mass U2/G6 deletion request[edit]

I have created User:Train2104/bad userspace moves off quarry:query/23382, which is a list of all redirects from userspace to mainspace where the page name of the origin is the same of the target, and the user account does not exist. These are most/all the result of pagemove namespace-mistakes. Could someone please delete them all, as U2 and G6 obviously created in error? (feel free to find-replace the noredirect templates to plain wikilinks, if it makes your script easier to handle) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Doing... (want to check whether they are all indeed U2 eligible) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The database claims so... This list is those whose eventual mainspace target is different from the redirect name, perhaps the result of two moves. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
For example this one is not U2-eligible. I would say it is also not G6-eligible (probably needs to go to MfD)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yea, bunch of actually existing accounts there. And there is no magic word to tell whether an user exists... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's really strange. I joined the user table to see if there exists a user name by that page name, and it reported no. That's bizarre. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It is still very useful, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The usernames the query reports as existing all contain no spaces. Could it be something to do with the way spaces are stored or processed, possibly that underscores are returned by the page name query and the usernames contain spaces, not underscores? Peter James (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
A quick way to tell whether a username exists is to look at the "Tools" menu on the left when you're viewing the user page - if the account exists there's a "User contributions" link, and if it doesn't there isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(I've looked at about a dozen in the list, and only three of those accounts do not exist - the rest do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC))
It also shows when you try to edit the user (talk) page. But in this case Train2104's list does not show this information, making reviewing these requests a pain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I have already done everything down from H, and Jo-Jo Eumerus has done A and B, so that we only have five letters to handle.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There's a part 2, but it seems to contain more false positives. I'm going to try to see how to better filter them. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Filtered. Thanks to @Bradv:'s Quarry query for the join fix. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Ya, that was much better. Acted on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! – Train2104 (t • c) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd AE sanction appeal[edit]

An AE case was opened against me yesterday[10]. I violated AE 1RR sanction on Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations here [11]. The AE case cited AP2 as the underlying Arbitration case. However, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted that he had placed the 1RR restriction per the BLP arbcom case, not AP2. BLP wasn't raised as an issue in the AE discussion. For the 1RR violation on the article, TonyBallioni unilaterally proposed a 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. In fact, Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented that he considered that my edits were furthering the cause of BLP but not beyond 1RR infraction. I asked TonyBallioni for diffs related to BLP as DS are not arbitrary and must fall within the scope. He did not answer the request, rather he closed the AE with DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. and logged it under BLP discretionary sanctions.

This seems rather Kafkaesque in that the punishment is to stop BLP disruptions but the infraction was edit warring over non-BLP contributions and no BLP issues listed. Putting aside the current debate about 1RR as a DS, creating a BLP topic ban over non-BLP edits seems to overreach. No other admin proposed a BLP topic ban. It seems odd that Roy Moore was placed under a 1RR AP2 DS by TonyBallioni while Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations was placed under 1RR BLP DS and the sanction was a topic ban on American politicians. Anyway, the sanction didn't seem to have consensus on the AE page and it looks to me as if the punishment was created to fit a poor DS choice rather than to address the violation. Imagine I edit warred on Roy Moore with exact same edits, no reasonable admin would issue a BLP discretionary sanction because BLP wasn't applicable, they'd just block for edit warring. Common sense would dictate that the same thing on a page that isn't a biography warrants similar treatment, not imposition of an out-of-scope discretionary sanction. This is the admin version of CRYBLP when it doesn't exist.

Please remove the sanction. I don't plan on editing that article again. --DHeyward (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: If you're not editing the article again, why do you want the sanction removed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Because it prevents him from contributing to other BLPs. It's a very broad topic ban considering this one is the only one he is cited for.--MONGO 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@MONGO: DHeyward is a big boy, he can answer his own questions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
'unconstructive' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talkcontribs)
Please don't hat my questions, DHeyward. If you want a topic ban removed, you should be able to answer questions like 'why do you want it removed'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than 24hrs on an article that's under 1RR. Yes, BLP came up, though indirectly. The "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions" means it's up to the closing admin to decide what sanction works best. If this had been taken to 3RR you might have gotten a two week outright block. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It was logged as a BLP sanction because I had placed the article under 1RR/consensus required to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article was "highly visible" under AP2, when the article was obviously a sensitive BLP article that would likely be subject to content disputes. DHeyward had a 3RR violation on a 1RR article and his self-revert appeared to be gaming the system by removing all of the content he objected to. When he responded to the AE post, he didn't see how his edits were about a living America politician (despite being on an article about probably the most visible American politician BLP scandal around). Given the large violation of the sanction (4 reverts on a 1RR article), and then a "self-revert" that removed all the content he objected to, this was a flagrant violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page, with no realization as to why they were an issue. Because of his response at the AE page, and here, focusing on the technicality of what was reverted rather than the broader disruption issues, I went ahead and made this a topic ban rather than 0RR.
    Re: logging it as a BLP sanction and the wording: since the page sanctions were placed under the BLP case authority, I limited it to living politicians rather than a broader post-1932 ban, which would have covered much more than this. If DHeyward or the community would prefer that this be logged as a AP2 sanction, I'm fine with making that adjustment, but I would have made the same topic ban either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever reading an admin threatening to increase a sanction when their actions were questioned. And no, it wasn't