Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297

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

Noticeboard archives



Hi, I can't create the Azman article because that name was protected 10 years ago due to vandalism. Would anyone please be able to unprotect it so I can create the article? Thank you! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ooofh, the protecting admin, Cobaltbluetony, was the editor who welcomed me to Wikipedia and has sadly been inactive for over two years Face-sad.svg I'll remove the protection - TNT 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you email him, if only to say hi. Who knows, he may come back. Thanks for removing the protection! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We got a troll editor on the loose[edit]

Look at what this person is doing to VeggieTales in the City and VeggieTales in the House I think we should block this person from editing Makkat1 (talk) 10:56, 22 February, 2018 (UTC)

Why? Those edits do not appear to be vandalism. Fish+Karate 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
My reading is that those series premiered on Netflix in 2014 and 2017. I don't think either existed in 2008 so they could not have been shown on some other channel then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
And here's another one. It appears to be a UK series from 2013. [1] Zero reason to think it aired on a US network in 2005. Note look carefully at the dates above, it seems the above articles at least has a history of this silliness. See also [2]. I'm normally the first to yell WP:Content dispute but this does look a lot to me like something which isn't in good faith even if a few of the edits of that IP look okay. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe posting a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television should be the first step. @Makkat1: can you prove how each of those edits constitutes trolling? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if it isn't trolling, it's definitely wrong information. --Jayron32 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Non-mobile diffs: [3][4][5][6][7]
IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

George Soros Discretionary Sanctions?[edit]

Hello Admins. Seems to me we could use DS templates for BLP and American Politics at the George Soros article. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:  Done. GABgab 04:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

One of the sources you claim isn't reliable is the music union responsible for paying who played on the album.
Which is also why guys like Kevin swine Grantt are listed as Mark Grantt. You can't pay fake names, just legal names. (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@ then why does literally no other source on the entire Internet use the name "Richard Madenfort" or any variant thereof? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Allmusic sucks. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. But you seem to be deflecting the issue - you are removing sourced content because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Why is he being paid royalties for songs he didn't play on?
Who is more reliabe - a free site that everyone knows is full of errors, or a site that lists actual payroll but doesn't get indexed by google? (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results. (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A music union website is most definitely not a reliable source. You would do well to actually read WP:RS to see how we define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not going to bother to read a page that says allmusic is a better source than afm-sag-aftra for determining who worked on an album.
So you're telling me that he can delete information found on the album booklet on one album, and the actual work logs of a second... while using one word edit summaries ( ), and that is acceptable.
But a payroll site isn't acceptable? (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Some guy removes an entire personnel section with one a one word edit summary, "no". Then removes another entire personnel section with a one word edit summary, "no". He removes 3 personnel sections with "no". And then, when someone looks, you see its all sourced. But they aren't just sourced, they are sourced from a non-wiki site - the SAG-AFTRA site.
It's not until you look at his editing history do you see that a longer edit summary exists. How are users of one article to know what his intentions are with those one word entries? Does everyone need to hunt his edit history to understand, or does the burden fall on him to provide those edit summaries? And why would anyone not accept sag-aftra as a reliable source?
Basically, entire personnel lists get removed because allmusic(which is full of errors) doesn't list him. And I am the one being given a "only warning" for reverting someone's section blanking of sourced content. All because of some 11 year old report... because it is impossible for someone to get a job in 11 years.
Maybe you're right. Maybe this isn't the place for me. Aren't encyclopedias to be fact-based? Yet, the very people responsible for paying workers is not considered acceptable, but one word section blanking is.
And nobody is answering the question - why is he being paid for an album if he didn't work on it? (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I just punched his name into google (I usually do not use google). The knowledge graph seems to think he was the bass player for Alice cooper. Does this mean Google is also in on the "hoax"? Not that it matters, because I have already been given my 'warning' and am going to lose editing privileges. (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
So, instead of waiting around all day for a response; Pretend for a minute that TenPoundHammer wasn't your buddy. And you saw him "section blanking" sourced content using a one-word edit summary, "no". What would you have done? Then he does it again and again. What would you have done to someone who was not your buddy? 
And then you also see him section blanking sourced content but used a longer edit summary, "clearly unreliable sources, presence of "richard madenfort" indicates that at least some of this was faked", but how does one fake that content from that source? And, as previously asked, why would that source get it wrong? Clearly someone has a personal bias against this person, but the entire personnel list on these articles are being removed. I mean, how many personnel sections cite no source at all, but here you have them being removed for being sourced? 
And then, when this inappropriate removal of content was reverted: I have been called a sock for adding content (I view adding content and reverting content as separate issues). How would you react if I called him underwear for removing the content in the first place? And I was given a "final warning" with the threat of losing the ability to edit. How does any of this make sense? I am in trouble for reverting someone's inappropriate section blanking. And, again, as previously mentioned, a copy of the liner notes and a site responsible for paying workers is considered unreliable? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have no comment on the sources, but as for the IP's behavior...rangeblock, anyone? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To If someone reverts you you open a discussion on the article talk page. It's that simple. See WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. While edit summaries are useful, you should not be using them as a substitute for discussion. And we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here at ANI, so there is zero point explaining why you were right in the content dispute and the other editor was wrong.

Also per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it rarely helps support your case complaining about what other articles do. As I said above, WP:Verifiability and WP:RS are very basic parts of wikipedia. If you aren't willing to follow them, if you aren't even willing to get a basic understanding of what they mean by a quick read, you probably don't belong here. Yes encyclopaedias including wikipedia are facts based, but we have found the best way to ensure we have facts is to rely on reliable sources to support these facts, not trust what some random person says is a fact. (Also we don't have to include all facts. As I said earlier, the fact someone's legal name may be ABC doesn't mean ABC is what we will say in the article if they normally go by XYZ.)

Frankly I have no idea why you think TPH is anyone's buddy. AFAIK they have never been particularly popular at the ANs definitely I have never had the greatest impression of them. But that's neither here nor there, most of us at least try to put aside our personal feelings about an editor and look at the locus of the dispute.

When one editor appears to be suggesting that they don't have to worry about sourcing, that editor is never going to come across well. (And the Google thing is particularly stupid. Google just takes their info from various places including wikipedia itself. They don't have to be 'in' on any hoax. The 'hoax' just has to have been wide enough that Google accidentally learnt it. And all this is besides the point since many of us have no idea whether there is a hoax because as I said, we don't rule on content disputes. All we know is that you need proper sourcing.)

Again, use the article talk page. Please don't complain that someone else didn't initiate discussion. You do it. And make sure you understand the basics like what a reliable source is, why we often avoid primary sources, and the need for anything which may be disputed to be supported by a reliable source. Because if you don't and think we should just trust you because you say something is a fact, you are liable to find complete opposition to your proposal when you initiate discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

But he didn't revert my edits. I reverted his! Which, of course, is why he then reverted my edits gave me a warning and brought me here.

He has no business removing information sourced from the album cover. If you guys think SAG-AFTRA isn't a reliable source for information, fine. But an album cover?

So at least get it right - I reverted him. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening[edit]

Moved from WP:ANI: per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE Swarm 10:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.
This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was in charge of English at one time for a group of 47 Catholic high schools in an archdiocese and also lectured linguistics in a Major Seminary. Without any relevance to my own religeous leanings (if indeed I have any), I have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on the fence when having to discuss our guidelines with one of their members. I would appeal to Jzsj to understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community consensus in which he is misiterpreting - in good faith - the way we work on Wikipedia. And as John so often says, the project coordinators at WP:WPSCH are only janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.
If you are going to keep the "etc." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#infobox contents, which goes beyond the Wikipedia official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. @Kudpung: Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as jzsj points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jzsj: I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you
If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.
Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.
In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Wikipedia, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.
1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Wikipedia; far from it.
2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?
3) Common use? Common understanding?
a)[citation needed]
--Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Your (usual) evasive reply would seem to me to reflect WP:IDHT. Try reading all three lines of point number 3. And, again, THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES, no matter what canvassing you do. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Panel requested for a discussion closure[edit]

Discussion closed. Message me, Primefac, and/or TonyBallioni if anyone has any questions. SkyWarrior 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know I already posted this at WP:ANRFC, but I think posting it here as well would give it more eyes (plus this is more of a request to get volunteers together to help close than to actually close it right then and there).

Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown needs closing, and a panel of at least three uninvolved editors is recommended since the discussion is rather contentious. Initially, we had me, Winged Blades of Godric, Ammarpad, and Primefac; WBoG and Ammparad later recused and Primefac said he wouldn't be needed in the decision-making process (though that may've changed given WBoG's recent recusal).

Since I am the only one left and I absolutely cannot close the discussion alone, I am asking for at least two uninvolved volunteers, preferably admins, who are willing to help out. And sorry if this seems like canvassing; that was not my intention. SkyWarrior 15:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If no one signs up, I can take a look. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm experienced with closing RMs, and would be fine dealing with it. If it is to be a panel, I'd prefer another experienced RM closer as the process there is typically a lot more nuanced than in other discussion venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine, TonyBallioni, twist me feckin' arm... Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope others will notice anyway that I've raised this at the RM, but just to save time I'll also point out here that a close might currently be premature, and that a panel might be neither needed nor advisable. But we'll certainly need at least one uninvolved admin to close... again in my opinion. And many of the RM regulars (self included) are involved. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on biography[edit]

There is a malicious sockpuppet who keeps trying to add negative tabloid journalism onto Nam Joo-hyuk's page.

Here is the sockpuppet removing references and adding negative BLP material: [8] After it was blocked, it keeps on returning as IP address to vandalise the page: [9][10]. Looking at the page's history, there has been long-term vandalism of the page by the sockpuppet dating back to last year: [11] by various socks of the same user. Is there a way to protect the page from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, so I've forwarded it to the correct place to handle these requests - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
It's been protected in such a way that for the next 3 months, the only users who can edit it are those whose accounts are over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Off wiki harassment[edit]

Per the new standard, prolific intentional sock-puppeteers are indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:17, 2 March 2018 (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.

Tran9644 (talk · contribs)/EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs)/Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Wikipedia are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a page that was clearly vandalized by them.

Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled. Tamara787 (talk · contribs) certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything. There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock. And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked. It is literally impossible for an English Wikipedia administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that. As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR. Someone there will tell you if it's possible. If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 18:38, 28 February 2018 (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.

Reminder: Help the Anti-Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build[edit]

Hello everybody! Reminder that the discussion to select the improvements to the blocking tools is going on. Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A stub on Somdip Dey. Is it worthy?[edit]

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.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: This is not the help desk. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Somdip Dey's primary work has been creation of several QR code encryption methods, which has been published. He also created the first prototype and led research in usage of QR code in transcripts and degree certificates, which are now slowly getting popular around the world. His work has popularised the data security in the field of QR code. Is it worth creating a stub on Somdip Dey, so that people know his contribution to this field?

Some of his noteworthy work: 1) Confidential Encrypted Data Hiding and Retrieval Using QR Authentication System 2) New generation of digital academic-transcripts using encrypted QR code™: Use of encrypted QR code™ in mark-sheets (academic transcripts) 3) Advanced Steganography Algorithm Using Randomized Intermediate QR Host Embedded With Any Encrypted Secret Message: ASA_QR Algorithm 4) SD-EQR: A New Technique To Use QR CodesTM in Cryptography: Use of QR CodesTM In Data Hiding and Securing

Somdip Dey's Google Scholar: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (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.

Topic ban appeal[edit]

Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) is no longer banned from editing disambiguation pages and their respective talk pages.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:14, 2 March 2018 (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.

My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). Here in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion:
"Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion: Jwy, Boleyn, Ubcule and Swpb (Midas02 is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board. Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add. As is JFK (disambiguation). Fish+Karate 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:
  1. A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
  2. An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
  3. An explanation of what consensus means on Wikipedia, and what led him to believe he could ignore it
Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. —swpbT go beyond 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk? There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance. Fish+Karate 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. —swpbT go beyond 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, with the understanding that @Roman Spinner: should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-
  • The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
  • @Ivanvector:- "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
  • Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
  • Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. [..] Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
  • The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
  • If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. –Davey2010Talk 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy. Miniapolis 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It sounds like he's willing to follow consensus, even if maybe he doesn't agree with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. (piping in only because I was pinged above) - As I mentioned at some point, I don't DAB as much as I used to. The "Qualified Support" comment above probably comes closest to my opinion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (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.

Block required[edit]

Please block Tran9644 (talk · contribs) and revert all edits immediately. They are a WP:DUCK sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), repeatedly changing song genres to "bro-country" and vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson. I would also propose some kind of edit filter to stop their edits, because I had to deal with one of their socks just yesterday and don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole every time they show up. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like they are blocked and none of their edits is the current revision. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible hateful/vitriolic content in userspace?[edit]


So I found this very old sandbox from 2013 that contains some very hateful content in it. Should it be nuked? The user is indef'd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just gone and blanked it. Leaving it to the admin corps to decide whether it is worth deleting. Or it could go to MFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
...And I lost my innocence. If I were an admin, I'd delete it. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talkcontribs) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It's run of the mill idiocy. But it's also a copyvio so nuked. --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Samee - Automated tool use[edit]

Closing myself. Samee didn't exactly violate policy, and I wasn't looking for sanctions anyway since I think his actions were in good faith. Policy is kind of fuzzy on these. Because these "rescue" edits can swell up an article by 25% or more, they need to be done carefully. Adding well over 100k to the Trump article, for instance, is a perfect example when not to do it. Samee has shown a willingness to be more careful, so really, that is all we can ask for. Any change in policy would have to be done via an RFC, and not here. Dennis Brown - 23:18, 4 March 2018 (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 started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Wikipedia. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
WikiVirusC I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.
Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers.  samee  talk 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert].  samee  talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think MelanieN was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Samee: You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll. Thanks!  samee  talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices. Dennis Brown - 19:20, 27 February 2018 (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.

Block for review[edit]

Apparently the issue needs to be discussed with the blocking admin first on the talk page of the editor in question. Lorstaking (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2018 (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.

Sandstein (talk · contribs) has blocked MapSGV (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a normal admin action for personal attacks after acting on a spurious report filed by a suspected wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor[12][13] that is quacking loud, but still causing much disruption by taking wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and trying to get rid of the user he wikihounds as soon as its possible.

Reportedly, as per the SPI, reporting editor was disruptively wikihounding MapSGV[14] because MapSGV was working on an article that has been considerably disrupted by the sockmaster of this suspected sock.[15]

Under such evidenced harassment, what really made Sandstein act on a such a deceptive and one-sided report?

I had already described the fallacy of this report on ARE. A good judgement would be if Sandstein had treated the deceptive report as spurious and/or blocked the filer as a WP:DUCK sock. While the block is not ARE related, his comments on ARE are problematic,[16] where he is claiming that those who have low edit count(223) but if they are aware of Wikipedia policies then it is alright to falsely accuse them of being a sock, despite the user in question was editing and was notified of all policies since 2014. Bringing up edit count is also doesn't matter per WP:COUNTITIS.

Why Sandstein didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence, personal attacks[17][18][19][20] and article disruption but singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as Sandstein claims. Sandstein went a step ahead with his misjudgment when he said that MapSGV should be topic banned if unblocked, but we really don't sanction competent editors for safeguarding disruptive incompetent editors.

It seems that civil POV pushing is indeed crossing the heights that you would get blocked even if you are criticizing misrepresentation of sources, disruptive POV pushing, having false allegations of socking and other facing other sorts of disruption from others including socks. Are we actually encouraging such deceptive civil POV pushing and that competent editors should be blocked only because they have been falsely accused of incivility, while they are responding to false accusations by incompetent editors and socks?

For all these reasons I find this block to be a bad block and support unblock. I posted this block review since I had commented on the original report and MapSGV himself requested for an ANI review. Lorstaking (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Overturn clearly a horrible block. Lack of evidence of personal attacks, and I see nothing but only logical responses from MapSGV to those who are engaging in WP:IDHT, WP:DE and WP:NPA. The suspected sock (Elektricity) had also wikihounded my contributions and then filed a malicious report ANI against me[21] which was never taken seriously by others. But I wonder now, maybe Sandstein would've indeffed me because I was being targeted by a Wikihounding disruptive editor who is trying to be a Civil POV pusher. Sandstein will you overturn the block already? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • <ec>I've just come from MapSGV's talk page, where I've asked Sandstein to reconsider the duration of the block. Indef seems too long, even if the block reasons were valid. However, I feel MapSGV was more likely the harrassee than the harrasser, and that the matter needs fuller discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
But he was being wikihounding and the harasser was just engaging in disruptive editing and is likely to be blocked for socking for topic ban evasion. How could Sandstein trust on his deceptive report without looking at reply of everyone else? GoldenRing also assumed that SPI needs to be resolved first.[22] Lorstaking (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural decline unblockThis should be handled by discussion with Sandstein, and we should close this thread until he has the opportunity to discuss it with the blocked user. There is absolutely no reason for this to be brought to AN by a user other than the one who has been blocked when a standard unblock appeal is pending and Sandstein hasn't even had the opportunity to respond. Turning this into a tempest when it can be handled through the normal channels is not good for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: WP:AN was suggested by NeilN,[23] if no agreement has been reached on MapSGv's talk page then we can just reopen this thread. Do you agree? Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Lorstaking: to me it looks like NeilN made a procedural note. He did not suggest you bring it here. Also, I'd prefer this go through the regular unblock template process. There is nothing extraordinary about this to make it require a review at AN, and I think it is awfully unfair to Sandstein for someone who isn't even blocked to be questioning his actions without so much as talking to him. Taking a block review to AN while a unblock template is still pending is highly irregular, and we normally don't review simple admin blocks here. There is no reason to suspect that the normal unblock process will not work in this case, and I'd prefer it be handled that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (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.

And the Edit-War of the Month Award goes to ...[edit]

This seems resolved now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2018 (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.

[24]. They've both breached 20RR (sic), and 4TheWynne, who knows better, has neither reported the user nor engaged in article-talk discussion (nor even remotely explained his reversions). Could someone put an end to this nonsense? Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: John Jason Barrett has been blocked by Ferret as NOTHERE. So we can all relax and enjoy the Oscars (in a few days), for some more interesting Awards. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender, actually, I did – this is an obvious sock, and I've tried to explain this anywhere that I can. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion – it just took ages for someone to actually see it. As for the humour, I'm really not in the mood. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of blocked users are exemptions from 3RR, and the other user is blocked (although not for SP), so I'd say wait for the SPI to conclude and then come back to this. Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I sent the AIV report to SPI. I'm not familiar with the user and it gave us nothing to go off of. SPI is better suited for reports as it will likely have admins who are familiar with the user watching the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (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.

Ban appeal by Twitbookspacetube[edit]

Appeal declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2018 (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.

An appeal request copied from User talk:Twitbookspacetube's talk page:

First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This user was banned in August 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbookspacetube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) copied from usertalk by power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose You've lied repeatedly and have done nothing to show you can be trusted. A handful of edits elsewhere demonstrates nothing. Further, you have failed to speak to the many reasons you were banned initially, including this lovely message. Nihlus 07:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    Additionally, I oppose any lifting of his restrictions. If he were to be unblocked, there need to be more restrictions. Nihlus 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support after discussing on IRC, I feel like he's genuinely trying to contribute, but doesn't have the slightest idea how to set up restrictions that will allow him to do so without being disruptive. I propose:
    • A ban from all pages in the Wikipedia namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
    • A topic ban from all American politics articles.
    • One account limitation.
    • These three restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
    • All other previous restrictions are lifted.
This may let him engage in productive anti-vandalism activities without causing drama. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments last time. Barts1a isn't some good-faith editor who just needs the chance to prove himself, he's a long-term troll whose various accounts wasted huge amounts of other peoples' time owing to his hobby of loitering on talkpages trying to provoke fights, and then lashing out when challenged. If we do unblock him, I'd strongly oppose lifting any of the restrictions, which were there for the express purpose of preventing him from dragging other people into timesink debates and from abusing the undo function to rack up his edit count blindly reverting edits at high speed regardless of their validity. At minimum I'd expect a total ban from AN and ANI and from all pages relating to dispute resolution, strictly-applied 1RR everywhere else, and a no-exceptions restriction to a single account; I'd be inclined to retain is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages at minumum from his existing restrictions as well (the restriction on Huggle is moot, as that requires rollback and no admin is ever going to grant that). User:Worm That Turned, you were his mentor way-back-when, do you have any thoughts on this? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support – (1) Sporadic editing of simple wiki is an understatement. 10 edits in just over 6 months is under 2 edits per month. This doesn't show me any sort of commitment to improving the encyclopaedia. The risk vs potential reward is heavily skewed towards risk with no reward. (2) The upshot, however, is that TBST has written an appreciable appeal, and responded to my query in quick time. Extending a fair amount of good faith and assuming sincerity on their part, there isn't a reason for me to assume that they will be looking for trouble. Note: I've interacted with TBST, but not any of their other accounts. (3) Power~enwiki's suggested restrictions are severe, but reasonable. Possibly with the exception of the AP2 TBAN as I'm not sure what prompted it, but I'll support it anyway as I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists is seemingly mutually exclusive with American politics articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What were his previous restrictions? !dave 13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is not allowed to use Huggle, is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute, is topic banned from all noticeboards, including ArbCom case requests and cases, is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages. They're listed at WP:RESTRICT under the main account's name, Barts1a. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The combination of socking and a threat against admins per Nihlus above is a bit much for me. Add on that the unban request is only a half year from the ban, the bare minimum, and I see a another colossal editor time-sink if this problem editor is unbanned. Their request should be rejected with with prejudice- in my view it must be years, not months, before this banned editor should be even discussed in the context of an unban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the fact that he is already under so many restrictions, and, like Nihlus, I would not support a lifting of the current restrictions in place. You have only made 22 edits in simplewiki, and not a single one in more than fifteen days. You should make more than just token edits: show us you can properly contribute somewhere else in the confederation. !dave 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support User:Power~enwiki. This project has a history of second chances and we have processes to deal with problems. We issue blocks to prevent damage, not to punish. In the spirit of our ability to forgive, I support unblock with Power~enwiki's conditions.--v/r - TP 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unbanning at all, but deeply oppose unbanning with any fewer restrictions than they had when they were banned. Long term disruption, dishonesty and socking, and inability to follow clear and simple and necessary restrictions; why in the world would we think it a benefit to try yet again? And why oh why oh why would we think that reducing the restrictions further would result in less disruption? If this is actually accepted, he needs to be kept away from all sources of drama, not just specific sources, and if anything we need to carefully think of more strict restrictions. But after all this history, it makes much more sense to say "no thank you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unbanning and Oppose restrictions - This editor has had multiple accounts and seems to have fucked up his chances on every single one, I'm all for second chances but I feel with this editor he will blow his chance and as such I oppose any unbanning or restrictions. –Davey2010Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel there's no point in unbanning with a 1RR restriction; if something like that is felt to be necessary I think 0RR will be more effective. As far as "all contentious articles", I think that's too vague to be useful. I do agree this appeal would have been more convincing if he had more than 8 edits on simplewiki to show constructive contributions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Stated on IRC that if we don't unban them they are just going to start socking. I don't take too kindly to threats and neither should the rest of the community. Incredible "woe is me" attitude. Blaming everyone else for their problems. We don't need that. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see absolutely no advantage to the community in lifting this ban. Barts1a was a pain, no matter what ID he used, and earned the ban honestly. If Majora's report that they have said that they will sock if the ban is not lifted is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, that just puts the icing on the cake. Giving editors a "second chance" is all very nice, but it's more important to protect the encyclopedia and its editing community from disruptive editors than it is to give proven disruptors another opportunity. There are numerous things he can choose to do with his spare time in place of editing Wikipedia, let Barts1a find one that suits him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding their edits to Simple English Wikipedia, between August 24, 2017 and today, they made exactly 10 edits to articles there. [25]. One was an article creation, the majority of the rest were obvious reversions. The rest of their edits were notifications of reversion on editors' talk pages, and "Welcome" messages to new editors, and such. [26] In short, their editing to SEW is of no use at all in evaluating their request - it appears to me to be totally pro forma. They didn't even bother to put in the energy necessary to make a case for their ability to edit non-disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The history presented is filled with dishonesty and deception by Twitbookspacetube There is no reason to trust that they have sincerely changed. If they had spent the last six months making significant contributions on another site and demonstrated they could resits the urge to contribute to chaos and drams then, maybe, there would be enough to confidently believe they had changed. As it is... nope. Jbh Talk 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unban: I also talked to Twitbookspacetube on IRC, and the statements they made there completely invalidated the apologies they made to start this discussion. Claiming that everyone down to Jimbo himself is corrupt and trying to preserve their own power is not the way to request an unban. The threats of socking also don't help. They clearly can't work collaboratively (at least in the English Wikipedia community). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

After his latest talk page post, I think an admin can close this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "IRC" being used as a reason for decisions made on-wiki. MPS1992 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2018 (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.


The initial question appears to have been more than adquately responded to, and the “offended” editor isn’t offended, so it looks like we’re done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2018 (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.

What do I do if I'm in an IBAN with someone, and I accidentally used the thanks option on one of their edits instead of another editors edit? I came here directly, as I realized my mistake as soon as I did it. -- AlexTW 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can't unsend it (I just checked that), so coming here is the right thing to do. Naturally, don't interact further. (Non-administrator comment) Bellezzasolo Discuss 05:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Start by hoping they don't notice, or are kind enough or busy enough not to care. Continue by apologizing (here) without mentioning to whom you are apologizing. Continue further by hoping no busybody here were sad enough to go through all your thanking entries to work out who the accidental target was. MPS1992 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Bellezzasolo, as did I, that's why I wanted to come here as soon as I realized and just make sure - even if it wasn't anything major, I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry. MPS1992, thanks for your help. In that case, I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor. -- AlexTW 05:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Going forward, it would be helpful to provide specifics, so that we don't have to do all the legwork to try to figure out what you did, where, and which ban you're referring to. Having done that work, am I correct that you're referring to accidentally thanking Jack Sebastian a little while ago, a user with whom you have an interaction ban?
While the log doesn't (as far as I know—I don't play with the Thanks Log very often) show the diffs for which an editor was thanked, I note that there is an intersection between your editing in the last 24 hours or so and Jack Sebastian's at The Flash (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Your edit and Jack's are both minor edits related to the character Izzy Bowen, which may raise concerns with respect to your IBAN. (AlexTheWhovian's edit came first; Jack's first edit came about for hours later; there were no intervening edits.) Jack's edit was subsequently reverted by another editor Joeyconnick. Both Jack and Joey ultimately reverted each other twice.
Now, would I be incorrect to guess that your "thank" was intended to be directed at Joeyconnick, expressing appreciation and support for his edit war with Jack? If so, giving out pats on the back to other editors who revert your nemesis most certainly is a violation of the spirit of your IBAN, and might plausibly be interpreted as a violation of the letter (see WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to...make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." My emphasis added.) In other words, even if you had thanked the editor you intended to – instead of the editor immediately before or after, with whom you have an IBAN – you were still skating on very thin ice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The thanks was most certainly not in the spirit that you portray, but to prevent further drama, I will nod, give my thanks to your view on the topic, and be on my way. -- Alex[[User talk:#top|TW]] 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I notice that immediately after posting to this board, you went ahead and thanked Joeyconnick twice—I'm assuming that's one thanks for each revert of Jack Sebastian. It's not a good look. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I stated in my second reply that I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor, in relation to their intended edits. Thank you for your reply to my general question. -- AlexTW 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
See what I mean? So, User:AlexTheWhovian, I strongly suggest that you should be (1) trouting yourself for behaving in such a silly fashion and thus finding yourself in such a silly situation, and (2) learning not to be even watching or editing articles that are of interest to someone with whom you have an interaction ban. MPS1992 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I do see what you mean now, editors do indeed go in to look for the specifics for a general question. I follow the article as I'm an avid watcher of the series, but I'm remove it from my watchlist so issues don't this don't arise. -- AlexTW 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, those 3 edits today by Jack are his only edits to the page. Ever. Instead, Alex has been editing the page since August 2017, so if anybody is the issue in that regard it is Jack. Bellezzasolo Discuss 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should all run away as quickly as possible before anyone thinks we might care about who is editing or watching articles about television programs about comic characters. MPS1992 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I did note that Alex's edits preceded Jack's, and I agree that neither editor comes off looking good here. Had Alex come here to report a concern that Jack was violating the IBAN – instead twice thanking another editor who reverted Jack – this discussion might have a very different flavor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The relevant AN/I thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Jack Sebastian's edit-warring, personal attacks and hounding/stalking - not too hard to dig out when it's the only IBAN to which Alex has been subject. Bellezzasolo Discuss 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the interaction between the two editors, it looks like they have largely overlapping areas of interest. Since January 1 (i.e. under the ban), there's been some editing of the same articles, but largely not. For example, [27] is a directly subsequent edit, but not a reversion. Note that Alex edited the page on 19th December, whearas Feb 3 was Jack's first edit. We also have [28] followed by [29], but again, not a reversion, and again, Alex was a well established editor on the page by that point. And finally, [30] followed by [31] - again, Jack edits for the first time, again, not a reversion. Whether this is WP:HOUNDing in an ingeniously subtle form or just a style of editing? Well, by WP:AGF (and a bit of WP:FRINGE), we have to take the latter option. Bellezzasolo Discuss 06:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── So, I go off and have a bit of fun in the sun and a big bag o' crazy happens in the meantime. I noticed Alex' thanks, and subsequent doubling-down on the thanks to Joey, but wrote it off as a 'what dafuq?' with a shake of the head. Yeah, Alex and I have a lot of interest overlap and were he not as prickly an editor as he can often be, we'd probably get along like gangbusters. But we don't, and I am not looking for his edits. He's off my watchlist, and those pages where i know he prowls, I am a bit more careful about any edits I do there.
So yeah, I am pretty amazingly ingenious (and humble, too) but editing where AlextheWhovan also happens to edit is not part of a plan. I understand and observe the spirit and letter of the IBAN. I'll continue to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2018 (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.

Review of my reversal of another admin’s actions.[edit]

Trout was granted and accepted. --Jayron32 12:59, 5 March 2018 (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.

The other day User:RoySmith blocked User:Sandals1. The logged reason for the block was Abusing multiple accounts: Based purely on contribution history, must be a sock. True new users don't find their way to AfD first thing. I questioned this rationale at User talk:RoySmith#block of User:Sandals1. They both defended their action and said to reverse it if I disagreed. I’m pretty sure being an undisclosed alternate account is not in and of itself a instantly-blockable-with-no-discussion violation of WP:SOCK, and it is entirely possible that this is a WP:CLEANSTART account, or the account of someone who used to edit as an IP, but Roy seems to feel that this comment, which admittedly may contain a lie or at least a half-truth, makes all those considerations null and void.

I have already unblocked the user as I do not believe the block was valid. If you can’t identify who is doing the socking and their edits are otherwise ok, I do not see how Wikipedia benefits from this block. Since it seems clear that one or the other of us is wrong here, I would like the community and our fellow admins to review this series of events and provide feedback. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If another admin says you're free to reverse the block, and you do it, you're on safe ground. On the handful of occasions another admin has disagreed with a block (and I can count them on the fingers of one hand), I have said I am fine for them to just undo it and discuss. It seems to work well. As for what action to take next, I think Roy should file an SPI if they haven't already done so, and let the results of that play out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I can’t see what SPI could do without having some idea what previous identity this person have edited under, I would fully expect that the reply would be fish CheckUser is not for fishing. This is rather the crux here. It seems likely to me that yes, this person has editied Wikipedia under some identity before, but is that a block-on-sight offense or isnt’ it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Spending all your time at AfD to the exclusion of everything else is a little odd, but I don't think it's blockable without a consensus on ANI first. I simply mentioned SPI as an avenue that could have been tried instead of a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll admit I probably over-reacted with my block. I still can't think of any possible scenario for a new account working immediately and almost exclusively at AfD other than being a sock. Beeblebrox was right when he said on my talk page, perfectly normal particpation in AFD discussions, but in some ways that makes me more convinced this must be a sock. People learn to make sophisticated arguments through experience. If somebody came up to me here in New York, claiming to have just moved to the US from China earlier that day, but speaking in perfectly fluent, unaccented, and idiomatic English, displaying a detailed knowledge of the subway system, and offering cogent opinions on the relative merits of currently trendy bars, I would suspect they'd been here longer than a day. Was I being WP:ROGUE? Perhaps. But, also consider WP:PACT. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not just talking about suspicion they'd been around before. Unless either the new account is engaging in disruptive behavior, or you have good reason to believe they're evading a block or ban, there's no prohibition against simply using an alternate account. And realistically, I probably sounded more "sophisticated" than your average new user when I started editing, because I had edited before—as an IP. I don't see that alone as meriting a block, though of course it would be reason for heightened scrutiny if they do start to behave disruptively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
But, did you start out with your very first edit, like this one, where the new user stated, This is my first edit? If you're going to go to the trouble to mention that, I would think you would say, This is my first edit as a named account; I used to edit anonymously. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they said it was their first edit... because it was their first edit? A lot of my first edits were to AfD too, it's just an interesting behind the scenes area. You don't have to edit to read the guidelines. – Joe (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I got started on Wikipedia when I noticed an AfD template on an article that I was reading. The AFD template says specifically, "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." and so it is quite plausible that a reader will follow this invitation. The surprising thing is that it doesn't happen more often and this mainly shows how awful our interface is. Kudos to User:Sandals1 for having the gumption to get started and for improving an article with their second edit. And kudos to Beeblebrox for assuming good faith. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I stand trouted. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2018 (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.

April fools cleanup[edit]

I am proposing that editors with the requisite tools help by clearing out previous years April fools jokes. I have no doubt another batch will reappear next month. But in the meantime could last years either be moved to userspace or deleted. If anyone wants to collect the best jokes for something then go ahead.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And the numerous other pages listed at:

And if people think it's worthwhile, there are hundreds more at:

etc... back to

It may be worthwhile arranging the jokes in advance or something since many of these appear ill conceived or unfunny, which rather defeats the whole point of the exercise. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Prince of Thieves, it's likely you would need a wide-spread consensus to delete all of these pages, and to get that consensus you'd likely need an RFC at one of the Village Pumps (likely Proposals). I don't think just requesting it here is sufficient. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
I have a distinct feeling, that any such proposal, would go down like a lead balloon, as it always has in the past... --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
We G6'd the AfDs that no one thought funny enough to comment on last year as they prevented the AfD log page from loading. I see no need to G6 the remaining ones, but also think we'll likely just G6 the not-funny ones again this year after it is all done. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternate Account[edit]

As I create an account named MustafaAliIsAPakistaniWrestler for the reason given at user page, simply I need to know that is it permissible to create alternate account? Second, I need to know about this alternative account I've created that:

  • Does it resulting any violation of Username policy?
  • Are these added tags and userboxes ok or I have to remove them?
  • Will it result in losing any editing privileges?

Thank You. CK (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • WP:Sock puppetry (and WP:SOCKHELP to a lesser degree) have the how tos. You need to link them on each account page. Generally, it isn't a problem to have two accounts as long as you never edit at the same time on the same article using the two accounts. That makes it look like two people are doing so. The key is insuring you never use them to make it look like you are two different people. If you commented or voted at AFD using BOTH accounts, for instance, you would be blocked. Dennis Brown - 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I really don't see how you would be using that alt. account. You mentioned that you want to stop edit wars at Pakistani-related BLP topics. Why couldn't you do that with your main account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see anything in WP:VALIDALT that could be applied here. byteflush Talk 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed this makes no sense, and also you can’t use the name of a real, well-known person in your username, so I’ve blocked that account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
After loking around a bit I feel compelled to formally ask @Broken nutshell: to voluntarily restrict themselves to one account as they do not seem to have a solid grasp of what is and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: I agree with you that you have blocked my alternative account and I got it because of Naming violations. No matter about this. Pakistani related BLPs are especially for those articles that related to OVERSEAS PAKISTANI who were born to a Pakistani Family but outside Pakistan, recent edit warring was occured in mid February at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) that he is Indian, Declaring Pakistani person as Indian appears to be incorrect as I've warned 2 IP editors for this thing, You're right at your blocking reason, as I've already appealed protection raise for that Mustafa Ali article.

RE: @Byteflush: You say "Someone Correct Me", I can understand everyone's message as you don't needed to be worry about it I clearly got your message too. By the way, Thanks for helping, at least I got what is right or wrong here.

CK (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Broken nutshell: You don’t actually seem to have answered my question above, so I’m going to ask again: Will you agree to limit yourself to one account? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: Yes I agree and from now I've decided to keep myself in one account. CK (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]