Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303

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

Noticeboard archives


Doxxing: how fast did we react?[edit]

It appears that (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recently doxxed US senators Lee, Graham and Hatch on Wikipedia. As usual, the personal information was quickly removed from the history.

I am interested in our response time on high profile pages. Could someone who can read the deleted history tell me:

[1] How much time elapsed before it was noticed an reported?

[2] How much time elapsed before a revert?

[3] How much time elapsed before a revision deletion?

[4] How much time elapsed before oversight?

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: While I, a non-admin, cannot see all of it, I can tell that:
On Lindsey Graham:
  • Original edit made on 21:13, 27 September 2018‎.
  • Gilliam reverts the edit that same minute the edit was made.
  • K6ka RevDels the edit at 21:22, 9 minutes after.
  • ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)
  • Suppression occurred at 21:23 one minute after the RD, 10 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
On Orrin Hatch:
  • Original edit made on 21:25, 27 September 2018.
  • Oshwah reverts the edit on 21:29 (4 minutes? Considering him, that's pretty slow) and RevDels it that same minute.
  • ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)
  • Suppression occurred at 21:31 two minutes after the RD, 6 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
SemiHypercube 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I will wait for an oversighter to answer the last bit. Related question: David Reaboi[1] says that (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the same person.[2] Do we know this to be true? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The same vandalism came from multiple IPs. The IPs are almost certainly NAT'd, and claims of traceability (from the outside) to a specific office or person are going to be a nonsense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me just say that I encourage ALL admins to be as proactive as possible in suppressing that kind of information. Reverting is one thing, but these kinds of edits call for immediate revdeletion/suppression. Now, if that damn bot retweets immediately, we're screwed no matter how fast we act. For the record, I agree with this edit summary. Apparently the bot's creator's intention was not to "belittle our elected officials"--well, great, but he's doxxing them. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, the bot operator isn't doxxing them, the editor using the House of Representatives computer is doxxing them.
As a technical question, in case I'm missing something, if the bot operator ceased operations, the person interested in doxxing could simply post to a twitter account. Am I missing something? Is it possible the HOR computers can access Wikipedia, but not Twitter?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just in case some outsiders are reading this, I saw some discussion about this issue elsewhere and someone thought we should be using a filter to stop the posting of personal information. My response was that such an edit filter is far harder than one might imagine, but I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback from editors with edit filter experience. (I understand there may be some limitations, per beans, about what can be said.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: edit filters need to have something to actually "match" on, and are mostly limited to the content of a single edit, patterns can be used. So for example we could make a filter that looks for the addition of a credit card number with high confidence (it has a fixed format, and would rarely be a "good" edit), filtering on something like a "home address" is much harder - for one, the format varies -but the big thing is that it would be very hard to tell the difference between a home address an the address of a company for example. — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-administrator, since these doxxing and various disruptive edits have been being made from inside a known IP range assigned to Congress, I have a question/suggestion. Is it possible to set editing attempts from within this range to not allow anonymous editing but to force a login? I realize that a determined vandal could simply create a bogus account and login using that, but this could be useful in deterring a more casual vandalism attempt. Blackfyr (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Blackfyr - Yes, that is the default setting when blocking an IP address or range (as opposed to restricting both anonymous users and non-exempt existing accounts from editing). By default, editors with an existing account can log in from behind a blocked IP or range and edit as usual and without being affected by the IP block. Anonymous users won't be able to edit. This is known as a 'soft IP block' or typically just an 'IP block'. If the option is set to also disallow logged in non-exempt users from editing from behind the blocked IP or range, this is known as a 'hard IP block'. This is detailed more in-depth in this section of the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SIP: we have to be particularly careful when blocking sensitive IP addresses, and congressional IPs are at the top of the list of sensitive addresses. This doesn't mean that we don't block IPs that warrant it, but it means that we consider the situation before doing anything beyond an ordinary reaction to simple vandalism and outing. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to any softblocking unless it's the result of a careful discussion. If that discussion happens, I won't advocate "yes, soft block" or "no, don't soft block"; I just want to make sure that we do everything we can. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I respect that position, but would like to suggest that since this is apparently a regularly occuring situation, this might be the time to have that conversation. Where is the proper place to have that and how do we get it started?Blackfyr (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I happened across this thread after noticing the IP poster under discussion was allegedly doxxed on 8chan. My feeling is that instant-censoring truthful information about senators is not something to be proud of. The "harm", after all, can always be done in other forums, and that kind of instant suppression makes it quite impossible for ordinary posters to see if the information was really something not to be viewed by proletarian eyes. But my feeling is also that an IP account festooned with as many warnings as that one should not be given a royal exemption to being soft-blocked. Since when does Wikipedia offer widely varying levels of privilege and protection to user accounts and article subjects based on their political connections? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIP says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee." Oddly enough, there is no link to the place where either the Wikipedia community or the WMF established this requirement. Where was this decided? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been in the page since it was first created back in 2006 by Pathoschild. I imagine Pathoschild established this requirement then. Wikipedia in 2006 was a bit different to the interminable naval-gazing bureaucracy we have now, people sometimes typed policies into Wikipedia and other editors worked collaboratively with them. Sometimes whole sentences were written without going through a single RFC and they made the decisions themselves! I know, right, what were they thinking?! Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Related question about WP:IPB: At the top is the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" note, but then I see sections with the titles "Policies" and "Guidelines". This seems deceptive to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Fish+Karate 14:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks[edit]

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.

The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:

Sitewide blocks effect on a user

  1.  Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
  2.  Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.

Partial block’s effect on the affected users

  1. Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
  2. Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.

Partial block’s success as a tool

  1. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
  2. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
  3. Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.

Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Some measurement of whether blocked users attempt to evade their block through new usernames/IPs would be useful, though for obvious reasons that may be difficult to measure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add that to the list as a suggestion. Let me know if you think of a good way to do it! SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes back the following users to the functionary team:

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
erm... Katie, when did the selection process take place? I am surprised I didnt know about it. I had participated in it last year. Maybe it wasnt advertised enough/properly? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It was on both CENT and this noticeboard. And trust me, you should be glad you missed that clusterf***. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: Face-grin.svgusernamekiran(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Disabling thanks spam[edit]

These two three accounts, while blocked, have been spamming multiple admins (including myself) with unwanted "thanks":

Is there some way to disable this? It's more of a minor irritant than a high priority. Thanks, GABgab 23:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There's MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist --Vexations (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe users can thank other users while blocked. All three users you listed above were pestering people with the thanks function before they were blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright/attribution question re: U1 deletion in userspace[edit]

I have a question about deletion and content licensing. Earlier today DBigXray requested deletion of their userpage under criterion U1 (user-requested deletions in user space) and I obliged, because we usually just do these when the user requests it. A few minutes later DBigXray recreated the page with what was essentially the same content as before deletion. Does attribution require the history to be restored? As far as I can tell from the deleted history DBigXray is the only significant contributor, aside from other users reverting vandals. Is it alright to leave this alone? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to be a bit careful though, because someone actually added some content six years ago. Ultimately however, I don't see any real problems with what's already occurred. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for confirming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible troll bot[edit]

Please examine the editing history of Lyhendz (talk · contribs). Has made similar nonsensical edits to the talk pages of several articles, mostly on Russia-related topics. Has ignored warnings and obviously needs to be blocked, but I'm curious to know if this is a bot, and if this kind of thing is common in wikipeda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef; this one IMO is a clear NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well obviously, but is it a bot? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a rogue Wikipedia vandalizing, chess playing robot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They were never offered to pass a Turing test, so that we do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, Troll Bot sounds like the latest must-have toy for Christmas. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: thanks for investigating further, I knew there was something odd going on, this is not just a common garden vandal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Main page photo[edit]

The photo of Paul Romer on the Main Page has the dimensions of the new, cropped photo on Commons, but is in fact the older one. Just look at my sandbox (and I don't know why my sandbox shows two different photos). wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo This parameter "width=100" is the only difference I see between the two images. rest everything is as expected. and After I added it , they are the same. It might be possible that your browser was using an old version of this image that was already downloaded, well clearing the browser cache or checking this link from another browser are two ways to fix it. Cheers.--DBigXray 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: This phenomena can be seen virtually anytime an image is overwritten; it briefly shows the new copy with the dimensions of the old. Some time back, a serial vandal kept uploading the same vandalism photo repeatedly to Commons, and when I would replace the image with text (to prevent it from being added to articles), it would briefly show the text squished to the dimensions that the photo had been. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, seriously[edit]

Look at the last line currently under DYK, the bit about reading on the toilet. Is this serious? It almost seems like someone has snuck a joke onto the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bathroom reading is a valid article that met the DYK criteria, so why should it not appear? This is not really something for the administrators' noticeboard, however; perhaps you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Fish+Karate 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dweller had (and has) consensus, so that's not wheel-warring? Fram (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not WHEELing GiantSnowman. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet, Smiley.png but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sheesh. Who knew that whether poop smells or not could be so controversial (this filter immediately comes to mind)... Face-wink.svg Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"In one celebrated instance farting became a source of safety instead of fear. A boy in Jungian analysis used flatulence to create a ‘defensive olfactory container’ to protect himself, skunk-like, against fears of disintegration and persecution and to create a ‘protective cloud of familiarity’ when threatened. The clouds started to lift after the analyst blew loud therapeutic raspberries back at him (Sidoli, 1996)." [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that sounds like a DYK hook I might actually click...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

LDS terminology issues[edit]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [4]. It seems this may have initially been released in August, though there has been a recent influx of Wikipedia updates based on this, possibly due to the recent General Conference. Per our standard practice, Wikipedia does not automatically follow those guidelines. Some parts of it may be applied to articles if they become common usage, other parts may not even in that situation (I doubt we will be updating articles to refer to this group as the unqualified "Church of Jesus Christ" in the foreseeable future). A variety of LDS-related articles have seen updates from well-intentioned new editors that have had to be reverted as a result. I request that administrators consider themselves aware of this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No! I refuse to be aware! :-) Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." Is part of this new? I know they've discouraged the use of "Mormon" for years, but I don't remember hearing discouragement of "LDS Church". Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I did see that in the news, but doubt anyone outside that religious organization will give any heed to it.16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs)
  • funny that they would post that on “”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edit to User:Kiko4564[edit]

I propose that the banned user template on his userpage be replaced with either {{banned user|link=[[WP:3X]]}} or {{banned user}} as the current text is incorrect. I've not posted on his talk page as it's semi protected. (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for catching the error. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edit summary[edit]

Done by RickinBaltimore. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 13 October 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.

Could any admin please delete this disruptive edit summary?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ)[edit]

I am requesting a set of admin eyes on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ) and on its talk page and at User talk:Legacypac. The interchange between the author, either User: SiddiqFarooq or User: DJ Kamal Mustafa (possible sockpuppetry), and the nominator, User:Legacypac, is a little ugly on the part of the author, who is accusing Legacypac of hate. See also in which the author tries to erase the interchange.

Articles for Deletion is often pretty heated, but Miscellany for Deletion can get ugly too. This is just a request for a set of admin eyes for the remainder of the seven days (and of course for closure at the end of the seven days).

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the accounts accused everyone at Wikipedia of hating Muslims and Pakistanis - not just me. I restored the deletion of a whole section of my talkpage, and am managing the situation. The accounts have little interest in Wikipedia except to promote the DJ so I've not sought any Admin action other than a CSD and to force a rename of the one acct. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
JamesBWatson has left a message on DJ Kamal Mustafa's talk. I have left an agf-sock on both DJ Kamal Mustafa's and SiddiqFarooq's talk pages. This may need to go to ANI and SPI. DJ Kamal Mustafa has said Yap i accept that i edit my page with my team what I'm saying is I'm adding notable links of those newspaper who have already wikipedia pages if I'm not notable then those pages shouldn't be too as simple as that.[edit]

by Fox — JJMC89(T·C) 07:36, 13 October 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.

Please block. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 13 October 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.

Change in oversight team[edit]

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Keilana (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Keilana for her years of service.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Rob13Talk 16:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC) x-post: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change in oversight team

Range block assist[edit]

Handled--Ymblanter (talk) 02:31, 14 October 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.

Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock that will cover:

...and more within that range? I've reported this guy before here in June, but this most recent flare-up was brought to my attention by Vivek Ray. The vandal submits gibberish, typically in the form of film titles and actor roles in Indian cinema articles. Often months or dates will appear in the garbage he submits. He is quite prolific. Some examples:

I don't know if he's doing this by hand or has some mechanical assistance, but he's definitely got some kind of a system going on. Anyway, a long-term range block would be appreciated. I'm probably going to have to create some kind of informal LTA page on this guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • has been blocked before; I'd like someone to check for proxying. Not that that really matters much for my block--given that the last one was for three months, I made this a one-year block. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 13 October 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.

Request for Block[edit]

OK. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 17 October 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.

Hello! I have retired from Wikipedia, and I would like to request a block on my account. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 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[edit]

NO CHANGE the topic ban, which would continue in its present form. Lourdes 10:45, 16 October 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 was topic banned almost two years ago from witchcraft. I would like to appeal this ban. I haven't violated the ban. Once I made an edit but quickly reverted. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you could provide a link to the discussion that led to your ban, that would be helpful to those participating in the appeal discussion.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum (topic ban discussion) Asterixf2 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not plan to edit Malleus Maleficarum. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it would also be helpful to express where you went wrong and show evidence of how you've behaved since the ban. Just saying "I want to appeal the ban" won't help anyone in determining if the ban is still necessary.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I was editing (User_talk:Asterixf2#Malleus_Maleficarum permalink) when I met with the very persistent, strong and, as I see it, irrational opposition from user Ryn78 related to some specific points. This is the last version of the page without the controversial additions by Ryn78: The article has since deteriorated and the "Reception" section is still hidden in an html comment. Since that time I was not involved in any disruptive behavior or prolonged discussions. I failed to drop the stick. Asterixf2 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In attempting to present the case for lifting the ban, you have in fact presented the case for keeping it. You are still exhibiting one of the key attitudes that led to your ban: a conviction that you are RIGHT, and anyone who has a different view from you is "irrational". Also, despite being invited to "express where you went wrong" far from doing so you have dedicated most of your latest post to expressing how wrong you think another editor was. The only token gesture towards indicating that you know what you did wrong is the brief and unelaborated statement "I failed to drop the stick"; as far as that goes, it follows three sentences, together amounting to about ten times the length of that one, in which you express your view that you weren't wrong, and that the problem was another editor who was being unreasonable I'm not sure how you could better demonstrate that even after two years you have still not "dropped the stick", as you call it. In fact, you have done a remarkably good job of showing in a few short sentences that you still have exactly the attitude that led to the ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course I was correct but it was said that being correct is not enough. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Following the imposition of the topic ban, the editor was absent for 18 months. Since their return to editing, they have worked on a few articles. One of those is Martin Delrio, an article clearly related to witchcraft. They have violated their topic ban by making six edits to this article this month. I am very concerned that they will resume and continue their disruptive behavior if they are allowed to edit witchcraft articles without restriction. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis directly above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
One change was reverted before I posted here, quickly after making the change when I recalled I was topic banned. When I recalled I was topic banned I appealed the ban. The other change was made after posting here. I have just lost my attention due to switching between language editions of wikipedia. :) Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see JamesBWatson has helpfully expressed my thoughts better than I could. I agree with his assessment, and I oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 October 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.

RfPP is backlogged[edit]

Handled. Thanks Vanamonde. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 15 October 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 am going to start at the top of the list. If someone wants to start at the other end maybe we can meet in the middle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

On it. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 15 October 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.

Peculiar use of talk page[edit]

Hello admins. Is there anything that can be done at Talk:Terry Hall (singer)? For several months an IP has been making comments about being the article subject's wife. Initially I interacted with the editor, and tried to explain how Wikipedia works (i.e. sources preferred over personal testimony), but I gave up when they started accusing me of destroying their marital status. Despite nobody else interacting with them, this anon editor is continuing to have a conversation (with themselves) about this matter, and the talk page has veered off, shall we say, into uncharted territory. I haven't posted this at ANI because I believe a bit of sensitivity is required with this matter, and I don't think it would particularly help to post the standard editor notification on their page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) I would recommend blocking the IP per WP:NOTFORUM. SemiHypercube 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to clean up the talkpage by deleting the offendingnmaterial citing WP:NOTAFORUM and keep doing so until the IP gets the hint. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel confident that they will get the hint. The term obsessive springs to mind. Can the page not be protected also? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No crystal ball is needed to see that hints will not be taken. I would have deleted the last section (Representations of his family) but others have replied. If deleting the stuff is considered undesirable, the page could be manually archived and further material repeatedly removed with occasional explanations on the current IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As the IP account was making legal threats regarding the removal of this material, I have blocked it for a year. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they were making legal threats as such - they had, supposedly, already contacted the British police and Home Office regarding this, with no impact on anyone here. But never mind. We shall have to see if they start using other IP accounts - they've used at least two so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please check deleted contributions[edit]

They have tagged various pages for deletion (as well as requesting bans for some users), generally without providing any reason. Despite there not being any reason, Wesley Duncan was deleted for a while which I only found out by accident. Can an administrator check the deleted contributions from these IPs to see if any other pages have been deleted? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The only edit that is in either of their deleted contributions is to User:JocelynLPIA/sandbox/Jake Porter. ~ GB fan 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GB fan: thanks. That page is actually about I don't know if he's within the scope of WP:NPOL and what was written on that page, but it may be useful. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki effects?[edit]

If account creation is blocked on a certain IP in one wiki, does unified login prevent the creation of user accounts from that IP on any wiki or just the home wiki? DrKay (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just the home wiki where the block is placed. It can also prevent automatic account creation on the home wiki where an account is previously created on another wiki. Global blocks (and global locks) affect all wikis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please evaluate the block of Did Nychypir[edit]

User has been unblocked, discussion about the merits of Ymblanter's editing (not administrative actions) can take place elsewhere, perhaps at User talk:Ymblanter. Fish+Karate 12:59, 19 October 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 blocked today indef Did Nychypir. They registered and made just one edit: [5]. The edit is in a heated perennial discussion and is IMO inflammatory, not really addressing the arguments and merely making a political statement. We have plenty of such users, both from Russian and Ukrainian side, and these are commonly blocked indef per NOTHERE if they have no useful contribution or if all of their contribution consists of POV edits. As far as I know, I am the most active but not the only admin in this area. Subsequently, Hddty suggested on my talk page that the user should have been warned and not blocked. Whereas I did not find their arguments fully convincing, they have merit, and, indeed, it is quite possible that due to abundance of POV pushers (and socks} in the topic area my perception is distorted, and I block indef too easily. I think it would be good if the block gets scrutinized at this noticeboard, and I (or any other admin) unblock the user if there IS consesus to unblock. Note that I participation in the same discussion and accidentally voted differently from the user (which was not a factor in my consideration - I would have blocked as well even if we had the same opinion) but I did not strike their vote merely leaving a note that I blocked them.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) I think WP:NOTHERE should only be invoked if it's a series of edits, not a single edit which isn't much to go on. Sure the user could've been warned, but that's not necessary in WP:NOTHERE cases. However, I do think the block is premature just because it was based on a single edit and should've waited until the user made more edits, which would've demonstrated whether they would've continued editing in this pattern. If the block gets overturned, they can always get blocked again.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah Ymblanter, where do I begin? To start off, if you are going to deliver block notice, let's use {{Uw-nothereblock}} instead of {{indefblocked}}, so technically the blocked user would be informed of how to appeal. In your block rationale, you mentioned "block evasion"; while I agree this is certainly is not a first account (more obvious by looking at Special:CentralAuth/Did_Nychypir), but did you have in mind what the master account could be? If not, it's probably better to approach more cautiously. I don't think this block is wrong, it's just done incorrectly. Alex Shih (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Alex Shih:, what in Special:CentralAuth makes you believe that this is not a first account? All new accounts (who don't come from another wiki-language) get these three additional local accounts at the same time as their enwiki account (see e.g. [6]), so I fail to see what aspect of that page makes it "more obvious" that this not a first account. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fram: I am aware of that, thank you. A brand new account not connected to any other language projects navigating to a RM with 15 minutes of global account creation making a correctly formatted vote citing a policy with a piped link while using clear POV language. Certainly red flags, but like I said, this block is done incorrectly. Alex Shih (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, so simply "brand new account making experienced edit", not something else, got it. Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn (1) WP:NOTHERE should only be used if there is a pattern of edits (preferably a long-term pattern) that present clear evidence that the user does not intend to help WP. A single edit cannot show that no matter how bad it is. (2) You are WP:INVOLVED. You participated in this discussion and even voted opposing to the user in an editorial capacity. If sanctions were needed for this user you should have brought that here or to another admins attention. (3) While I think it is likely that this user has had a previous account, that doesn't necessary mean they are socking. For instance, this could be a WP:Clean start. Also some people read a lot of WP policies before posting anything and can appear to be an experienced user when they are in fact new. If you believe they are a sock of a specific user, go file an SPI, otherwise WP:Assume Good Faith. That means they fall under WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, and shouldn't have their first mistakes lead to an indef block without a warning. Give them a little rope, and if they really are as abusive as you suspect they will hang themselves. -Obsidi (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn, would have been a bad block if an uninvolved admin had made it, and especially here as Ymblanter is clearly involved. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. What the hell, Ymblanter? You blocked merely because of a minority !vote in an WP:RM? Undo the block immediately, and restore the !vote if it has been blanked. No wonder outsiders hate Wikipedia. No wonder we lose so many newcomers. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks everybody for the feedback. I unblocked the user and will never block them again though I remain convinced that this is not a user in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps time to take more care with all your editing? Your edits right before the unblock were to Nikolai Rozenbakh and Nikolai von Rozenbach, which are now both redirects with the actual article deleted. Your edits right after the unblock were to turn Charyshkoye, Charyshsky District, Altai Krai into a redirect to itself, hours after creation, and to create Charyshkoye, Charyshsky District, Altai Krai. Why you couldn't simply move the other page to your preferred name is not clear. You then go and berate the editor of that page[7], for what was basically a small typo taken from a redlink (you make a big deal of his lack of "minimum standards of quality", but don't indicate anything that is wrong except the small typo). On the other hand, you give the locality a population of 8,815 while all sources, including the article you rejected, have the apparently correct number of 3097.

So surrounding the undo of your poor block, you deleted one article while trying to move it, created an article where a simple move would have been enough, turned the other article into a wrong redirect, berated the editor for it, and meanwhile changed correct population information to wrong information. Fram (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Nikolai Kurbatov, they just create stubs in a robot-like manner, which contain incorrect or partially correct information. For example, Tyumentsevo is not exactly a village, and it is a district center which they did not mention in the article. This is not the first time, and they know that but for some reasons continue to create dozens of such stubs. As for Rozenbakh, I will see now what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Which hardly explains why you removed their correct information (with a small typo in the title), turned it into a redirect to itself, and created your own incorrect stub instead. That someone else may or not be a problematic editor (not in this case at least) is not an excuse to make enwiki actively worse. Fram (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I first created a stub (my workflow at the first stage leads to articles like Kosh-Agach and on the second stage like Nebolchi on the second stage). I then tried to liked it to the Russian article and discovered that the Russian article is already linked to a stub with an incorrect name. Well, at this stage one of them had to be turned into a redirect. My laptop died on Monday, and I am editing from amn ipad until (hopefully) tomorrow which indeed sometimes leads to stupid mistakes such as redirecting an article to itself (happened twice to me today and, as far as I remember, it never happened before), and this is unfortunate, but I am sure I would have discovered and fixed myself both today - the same as I have already fixed the population since it is in the workflow anyway. Now I obviously know that with two remaining redlinks for district centers of Altai Krai I have to be extra carefuland will check them before creating. Btw the user already created a duplicate of an existing article this week which I had to redirect to a correct article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You could easily have history merged the two (delete yours, move the older one, restore yours) instead of redirecting the older one to your new one. And it's hardly helpful to complain to an editor about their lack of quality standards without indicating what it is that they did or do wrong. You can't expect them to improve simply by stating that their work is not good enough, and even less so if you then produce work that is even worse. If you have problem editing with your ipad, then wait until you again have a better machine instead of making further errors regardless. Fram (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can still merge the histories. I do not particularly care who created the article, as soon as it gets improved (and the current version is clearly an improvement). The user got sufficient feedback over time, and so far they listened, so that I expect them to listen this time as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree about the "clearly an improvement" then, the massive block of sources which are inaccessible to the vast, vast majority of readers, and not really indicate what they source in the first place (you now have three refs and two sources for a one-line stub) are an eyesore (never mind the 7 refs and two massive sources at something like Kosh-Agach, also a on-line stub). The only imporvement is the change from village to district center (oh, and can you please correct the 107 instances were you wrote "an rural locality"?) Fram (talk) 12:54, 19 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and weigh in there if you feel the need. It's not helpful to have multiple concurrent discussions in different venues. This is obviously an issue where people disagree emphatically, but disagree emphatically in the correct venue please. GMGtalk 21:26, 17 October 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.

Can we have an uninvolved admin judge the consensus in this MfD? It caused a lot of fighting while it was going on. But it needs to be closed (its been around for 10 days) now and has not been edited since the 14th. funplussmart (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've closed it. Alex Shih (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In what universe is that not a POLEMIC or BLP Violation? Saying "Trump is racist" (..." but it is an undeniable fact that he is corrupt,[21] dishonest,[22] untruthful, a racist, a misogynist, ...") is not allowed in Wikipedia, and it's funny in a way because I was "warned" about an American flag on my page, but this crap is allowed? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh, sometimes feelings are more important than policy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, in this case, policy is more important than feelings. --Calton | Talk 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What's interesting even more is that 21 and 22 are opinion and polls. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Well clearly, there was no consensus to delete and it would be wrong to close as delete as what, a supervote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Y'all I'm going to reclose this and point you the way to WP:DRV if you disagree. Butting heads here won't change a thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't get to bloviate before this got closed again! That's not fair! Wah! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

May i recommend a good COOLDOWNBOCK-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder what the consensus would have been if he had said similar things about Hillary Clinton. Is there an "allowed if enough people agree with you" exception to WP:POLEMIC?
(Full disclosure; I have equal animosity towards both major US political parties, and would like to see a green or libertarian elected on the principle of "it's time to be disappointed by someone new".) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder what the consensus would have been if he had said similar things about Hillary Clinton
You might just as well wonder what would happen if JzG were to sudden sprout butterfly wings and fly off to Mars, since such a thing would as equally likely or reality-based. For the "whataboutism" thing to work, you need an actual "about" to "what". --Calton | Talk 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Guy Macon: Fair point. I do recall that in the discussion an editor brought up the question of Does anyone here belong to the group JzG describes? I do feel like some of the "Keep" !votes may have been skewed by political beliefs, causing people to ignore the fact that the page straight up says "If you believe that a corporation can have a sincerely held religious belief, I think you're an idiot" (no, really. Use Ctrl+F or a similar shortcut and search for it) which is an obvious violation of WP:POLEMIC. SemiHypercube 20:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Pointing someone to WP:DRV when there is a clear WP:LOCALCON to violate a Wikipedia policy is rather unhelpful, as is closing down an active discussion about the violation of policy. The same local consensus that it OK to violate WP:POLEMIC that we saw at MfD will of course also be found at DRV. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You're missing the point. There was "no consensus" that policy is violated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Two issues, 1 is POLEMIC, which is quite clear a violation. the 2nd issue is BLP, which is also quite clear a violation. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

And now the DRV was closed. It's quite clear the biases of Wikipedia and it ultimately ruins Wikipedia, not helps it. Wanting people to not violate POLEMIC or BLP is now considered, "not dropping the stick." Sir Joseph (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Reopened this as obviously not closable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Now at ArbCom, for those interested. Perhaps we can close this here now? If nothing else, ArbCom rules will force everyone to condense their comments into a certain number of words, so people won't say the same thing over and over and over and over, like they will if we leave this open here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Have the agreed to hear? This opening and closing is making me dizzy.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, FFS. I closed the DRV, as DRV is meant for examining an assessment of consensus, not to relitigate an MfD. Open another MfD, if you feel so inclined. FWIW, I personally think the best way out of this would be for JzG to just remove the material in question: a statement of personal views is useful from an "acknowledge your bias" perspective, but the level of detail here is unnecessary. Why the heck are we taking this to ARBCOM? We have not come close to exhausting the community's ability to handle this. Vanamonde (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, yes. We have tried an ANI post and MFD. Now we are off to ArbCOm.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:06, 17 October 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.

Spelling error in template[edit]

There's a spelling error in the boilerplate template for extended-confirmed protection, you can see it at WP:RDM for examples, which says "unconversial" where it should say "uncontroversial". I'm as useful as tits on a bull here; if someone can find the source of the text and fix it, that'd be great. --Jayron32 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That should do it, I think. Writ Keeper  18:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Allen dies at 65[edit]

Paul Allen just passed away. Article is probably going to be getting fairly busy, especially given that he was a Microsoft co-founder & owner of a couple pro sports teams. Just a heads up to everyone. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to copy history from draft to newly created article[edit]

Done by other admins, since the history is now in the right place under Spear Operations Group. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 20 October 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.

Could an admin move the history from Draft:Spear Operations Group to Spear Operations Group? Someone directly created a new article by copying the text of draft I'd submitted, but they didn't move the page so none of my edits are there. I don't want my edits to be lost when the draft is cleaned up. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:03, 19 October 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.

Protected Risperidone[edit]

New user was trying to edit war bolding into the article and has now switched to multiple IP accounts. I have protected the page for 10 days. As I have edit the article a fair bit before am posting here. People are well to change the protection as they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving a user talk page back[edit]

In what looks like several good faith attempts to archive their user talk page, Idraulico liquido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has moved the page several times. While I could swap the page back and tag the the redirects for deletion, I think this job is easier done by an admin. Sam Sailor 07:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Idraulico liquido:Talk in main space needs deletion as well. Sam Sailor 07:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The bulk of the history is at User talk:Idraulico liquido/2009-2018. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ITNC needs attention[edit]

Never mind. The nomination has now become stale. Apologies to the many editors who helped work on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 21 October 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 nomination on the recent church schism near the bottom of the page needs admin attention and I am INVOLVED. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 21 October 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Act 2 Cam[edit]

Hi, can an admin please check this AFD out as it appears an editor has been outed by an ip as they only declared their identity after the event. Also the ips mentioned there seem to be acting in concert and it is also suspiscious that the editor criticising the sources hasn't actually voted delete so perhaps they are all connected, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

There're no IPs in the edit history of that AfD, unless those edits have all been suppressed already. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I see it; I've redacted it for now. I'll be getting in touch with someone for RevDel. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also redacted the info at Talk:Act 2 Cam and have contacted admins for RevDel. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: please don't report outing here. Follow the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm an sysop on the French project. We deal with a specific situation and I'm looking for some type of "jurisprudence" in my own project and elsewhere in order to come up with a solution. We have a user that insults other users through Twitter. Our general policy is that we do not deal with issues that aren't taking place on fr:wiki and I guess this is also the policy here. Yet, the situation is very disruptive and it's really a case of "gaming the system". Hence I was wondering if you had specific examples where the en:wiki sysops decided to take action against a user for offwiki misbehaviour. Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • One that immediately springs to mind is this case, where an editor was banned for outing another user on their personal blog. I believe there have also been sanctions related to comments made on IRC. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the official IRC server was long-considered "half-on-wiki" and kinda-ish like a sister project; a lot of on-wiki policies applied there as well and the reverse was true. I'm just saying it's quite different from a completely external service like Twitter. Ben · Salvidrim!  03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Another well known example is this, where an admin was desyopped and banned for off wiki harassment (he later was unbanned after an arbcom appeal). I believe prolific editors Tarc and TDA were banned for similar reasons by arbcom.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank y'all :)--Kimdime (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Bon courage Kimdime, et ne laisse pas les trolls gagner. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Another thing to consider is the possibility of joe jobbing -- unless the user confirms on-wiki "yes, this twitter account is me", there could always be a possibility that whoever is tweeting might only be pretending to be the same person in order to implicate the editor. My way out of this is usually simple: if you say the Twitter account isn't yours, post a screenshot of you reporting the Twitter account for impersonation ;) Ben · Salvidrim!  03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Could happen but not the case here. The editor isn't trying to hide her Twitter account. She actually believes there is nothing wrong about insulting people on Twitter :)--Kimdime (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Youtube is down[edit]

Youtube is up now. No admin actions needed. Stale. --DBigXray 12:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

For your information, Youtube appears to be having a near-complete outage and it's generating heavy traffic on related articles, such as Susan Wojcicki, which has had to be protected. Guessing general vandalism will probably spike anyway since there will be many with nothing better to do for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought it was a problem with my home network. Thanks for the heads up.--Jayron32 02:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That is why I could not get anything to play in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
$10 says PornHub traffic is spiking right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Works for me.[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Me too. L293D ( • ) 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on PornHub's status, guys!—Now, what about YouTube... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It's been up and down for me for the last hour. Presently working tho. SQLQuery me! 03:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: It possibly did although probably not by an extreme amount /insights/youtube-outage] [9]. [10] may be of interest too. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: HA! That's awesome. And what's actually interesting is that the biggest search term growth wasn't porn-related, but youtube-related. Pornhub has been something of a fascination of mine (feel free to tease me about it mercilessly) as a porn website doing everything it can not just to beat the competition, but to go fully mainstream. Their non-porn content ranks them right up there with Vevo and World Star Hip Hop as mainstream youtube competitors. Though of course, yt is still top dog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:01, 20 October 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.

Why am I not extended confirmed?[edit]

Access was restored. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 22 October 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.

Hi, I was trying to post a query on the reference desk but it is protected so that only EXCON accounts can edit it. But I've been around for (well) over 30 days and have (way) more than 500 edits so why aren't I extended confirmed? Can anyone help? (Sorry if this is the wrong place to post but couldn't think of a better one.) Amisom (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

When you were blocked, the extended confirmed (and rollback) were removed. When you were unblocked, these were not restored. I have done so now, so you should be able to post at the reference desk. Maxim(talk) 14:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! Amisom (talk) 14:11, 22 October 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.

Cleanup of Sander.v.Ginkel (talk · contribs) articles[edit]

Resolved: all deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock du jour Dilliedillie has created the following: