Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308

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

Noticeboard archives


User talk:Vlad Sandulescu[edit]

User blocked by ST47 (log entry) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2019 (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.

User:Vlad Sandulescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of this editor's contributions seem to be to their user page and user talk page. Many new editors similarly focus on their user space and it's hoped that they will eventually move on to editing articles, etc. This particular editor, however, seems to be moving into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory particularly with respect to their user talk page. The revisions made to the Teahouse welcome template added by HostBot and the self awarding of various barnstars seems strange. Some of the content is not in English so I'm not sure what it says, but the stuff in English seems to be WP:UPNO stuff which shouldn't be on their user page yet alone his user talk page. So, I'm wondering if a few admins could look at this and see if something needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the text is in Romanian and could be construed as antisemitic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted from his talk page at [1], reason: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggesting closure; any appeal needs to be made on User talk:Vlad Sandulescu anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2019 (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.

Legal Threats[edit]

Aren't legal threats RevDeleted or Oversighted? Here a legal threat was made and is still there - 1125.63.105.110 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. It's sufficient for the user to remove it but it doesn't need to be revdel'd. --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IP talk page[edit]

I was unable to create User talk:2409:4072:6192:7597:0:0:297F:B8A1 to warn the IP after reverting recent edits. It isn't clear to me why the IP's user talk page is blacklisted. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Humorously, that IP matches a wildcard blacklist entry for an Indian spam phone number. Whoever manages the blacklist should make sure it excepts User Talk pages, maybe? --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This type of spam often pops up on talk pages, so I'm not sure that's a viable solution.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
David Biddulph, I welcomed the IP with an appropriate message. You should now be able to edit the page if you want. Home Lander (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Since November 2018, six accounts have been desysopped under the Level I desysopping procedures as compromised administrator accounts. The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." The current policy on security of administrator accounts provides that "a compromised admin account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security" and "in certain circumstances, the revocation of privileges may be permanent."

The Arbitration Committee resolves that the return of administrator privileges to a compromised account is not automatic. The committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Removal of permissions, subsection Return of permissions, is replaced by the following:

Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once if a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account; whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; whether the administrator had enabled two-factor authentication; and how the account was compromised.

If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts

Closing a discussion[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion?
Link: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Proposal:_Remove_WP:USPLACE_from_subpages
Mstrojny (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Moura[edit]

Not sure where to post this, the last editor put a mobile number in the summary, I assume you're not suppose to do that. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I was planning to revert it myself, but I was stuck between good-faith, and the contrary. However someone else reverted it. I'll warn them if they do it again. The Duke 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been revdeled. In future, please note the warning that you see when you edit this page: If it's a privacy related matter, please email it to Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
k, cheers, Govvy (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ST47: Normally posting on this noticeboard is pretty effective at dealing with issues, I might forget about that oversight email, Govvy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
If the matter involves privacy, WP:AN is just about the least-private forum. Please, do not post it here. Just remember Oversight and click the email user link. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request for User:Musa Raza[edit]

Musa Raza is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:
  • They must not edit from any other account for a period of one year after unblocked. After that time, they will be able to use multiple accounts per the restrictions at WP:SOCKLEGIT or create a WP:CLEANSTART account.
  • They have agreed to work with User:Boing! said Zebedee on cleaning up COI articles created with this and other accounts and this commitment is accepted in good faith.
GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2019 (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.

There is an unblock request at User:Musa Raza (aka User:Mnaqvii), who was blocked for various offences including socking, and several admins (including the one who restored talk page access to allow the request) believe this should be a community decision. It's quite a lengthy unblock request and there is already some relevant discussion, so I won't copy it all here. I ask people to examine the request at User talk:Musa Raza#Request to unblock and then offer their thoughts here. Technically I guess it should be the User:Mnaqvii account that is unblocked if any, but that would depend on whether the editor is still able to access it. I have a few thoughts myself, and I'll offer them here shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support unblock with conditions. The unblock request seems to me to be as full and frank as we could hope for, and it sounds genuine - I've seen plenty of "say what they want me to say" requests in my time, but this does not look anything like that. The other major point for me is that it seems we're looking at a teenager who has turned 18, and young people mature enormously in the short space of time of a few years - and the unblock request and following discussion are clearly a good deal more mature than earlier interactions. The desire to face up to previous misdeeds and openly seek unblock rather than sneaking back quietly is also commendable.

    Turning to conditions, which build on the discussion I've had at the talk page. I'd like to see a CheckUser check to make sure there's no recent socking (though I know that can only check the last couple of months), and I'd impose a one-account restriction for at least a year. The discussion talks of vanishing of old accounts, and I'd decline that for at least a probationary period before it is considered. The same goes for the possibility of courtesy blanking any old talk page content (which I can understand could be embarrassing for a now more mature person). Next is the problematic COI articles that Musa Raza has confessed to, with a commendable request to have them deleted. Reviewing those articles and rectifying the COI work would also be one of my conditions, and I would volunteer to work with Musa Raza to sort all that out - it might be something better worked out off-wiki in case there are any BLP aspects, but that's a detail I'm happy to work on. I don't think it really makes any difference whether User:Musa Raza or User:Mnaqvii is the account unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - when this was at UTRS, before I restored TPA, I asked for CU comment who said "With the limited info available I don't see any obvious signs of recent socking". Just Chilling (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Unblock - I think an unblock could be sanctioned - As already said, the editor does seem significantly more mature and certainly is fairly blunt about listing the issues. Equally clearly, they can be of significant utility to the project given their activity in their 2nd wave. Various criteria should apply:
  • SOCK TBAN - this (or one other designated account) is to be the only account used - no IP editing, or the standard usual legitimate alternate accounts. Appeal-able after 6 months (n.b. I am specifically against a longer length TBAN)
  • Probationary clean-start - the editor has repeatedly requested clean start on the various other accounts. This isn't unreasonable, but I'd say it shouldn't take place until a probationary period is over, which logically should end when the above TBAN does. In the meantime a courtesy blanking of the talk pages would be reasonable.
  • Identification of all known former socks - I'm aware they might not have a perfect knowledge given the timespans, but confirmation/refutation of the various noted sock accounts used beforehand should be undertaken, so far as possible Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the accounts I have created were caught and are mentioned here. There are no any other accounts however after getting blocked I edited as this IP and submitted drafts. But User:Ponyo deleted all. The IP was temporary blocked. Suspected users User:Xoloa500s and User:Asadkharal are not my accounts. I do not know when Xoloa500s was created and I was never asked or told about it. I discovered it in the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mnaqvii and I once, while blocked, said that it’s not my account.-Musa Raza
  • Strongly support a clean-start unblock. This situation is a near spitting image to mine, and judging from my experience, people can come over leaps and bounds, and mature greatly over the course of a few years. The user has written a very convincingly unblock request, and since they have requested mutiple times for a clean start, and since they have displayed a great level of maturity over their past, they should be granted that. The Duke 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock per B!sZ. Good to see that the editor seems to have matured. Miniapolis 02:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock. The editor seems remorseful for their past disruption and they put forward a sincere unblock request now. Time to give them another chance – Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock - but with a probationary period of 12 months. During that period there should be a one-account restriction and no clean start. After 12 months they can come back here for these restrictions to be lifted. Just Chilling (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support unblock -- Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2019 (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.

Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities[edit]

The underlying editor is blocked. Misuse of the CU tool would be best presented to ARBCOM, or ombuds. Both of which are actually able to look at, and act on the evidence - something most of us looking at AN cannot. There is no actual evidence presented of misuse of the admin bit. SQLQuery me! 07:16, 10 April 2019 (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 have been dealing with a constant vandal/sockpuppeteer (main account: Demoreasimpson16) for about six months now. The main Demorea account was blocked by Bbb23, so when I began the SPI linked prior, I messaged him per rules and as a courtesy. Plus, since he is a CU, I wanted to get rid of any sleepers before they popped up.

To me, this is a disturbing use of Bbb23's admin and CU powers (or lack thereof on the latter) to basically stonewall any CU discussion or suggest CUs aren't necessary for an Demorea sock. To me, a CU should be performed when you are playing whack-a-mole with a sockpuppeteer this many times. For an admin to actively shoot down and request, shut down any discussion, and refuse to discuss anything regarding the user (regardless of if I was being cranky or not) speaks volumes and it ain't good.

I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along. If so, then I know I'm not just seeing things. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:55 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

  • If a Checkuser is telling you that CU isn't helpful in a particular case, then stop requesting it. If you're playing whack-a-mole, as you note above is the case, then checkuser is pretty much useless as the IPs are likely varied, large, and dynamic. The socks listed here appear blindingly obvious and most Checkusers would decline to check in such cases. Coles Notes: If the Checkuser running the check asks you to stop requesting checks as they're not neceassry, then stop requesting CU.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, stop bothering Bbb23. "I alerted Bbb23 per rules" – what rules? There is no rule that you have to badger Bbb23 every time you file an SPI case. He already asked you to stop posting to his talk page. If you ping him again or post to his talk page again, I will consider that harassment, and I will block you per rules. Nobody should have to put up with this kind of badgering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer:, you are not required to notify the original blocking admin every time you file a new SPI report. From what I can tell, the last sock aside from the one blocked the other day was active in December. That's hardly constant, and since there is only one non-stale account, any CU or SPI clerk would have denied the CU request. I suggest you drop the stick. Sro23 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer Years ago when I got crosswise regarding checkuser one person explained that it is not magic fairy dust that can reveal everything. It has limitations. There also limitations as to how and when it can be used. Please try and understand this. I know how much you want to protect the 'pedia but if you take what you are being told on board you will be able to let this go and get back to editing articles. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Quoting Bbb23 as saying "I don't think a recheck was necessary..." when the full sentence was "I don't think a recheck was necessary, but I found nothing." is a rather misleading representation of Bbb23's involvement and investigation. Indeed, it looks like Bbb23 checked batches of accounts not once, but twice: first on 24 November 2018, and again on 01 December 2018; despite that, you claimed incorrectly in your "due respect" remark yesterday that he had not. (Incidentally, just saying "due respect" isn't actually a get-out-of-jail-free card for being disrespectful towards other editors.) While there may be a problem here, it is not with Bbb23. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Courcelles did the CU on the December 1, not Bbb23. Plus, as a "general user" (my term), I have no proof he did anything on any day. He could have posted that on both days and said he did and did nothing. I can't independently verify that because I don't have access. I have to take his word he did it. That doesn't really work. I can say I'm the King of England and live in a million dollar mansion, but doesn't make it true. Citation needed. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:09 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with the above statement I don't know where to begin. Neutralhomer, you have lost the plot here. You are quoting policies that don't exists, insisting on action that cannot or should not be actioned, and casting some pretty horrible aspersions regarding Bbb23's motivations and edits. Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal. Plus, remember he said "Not going to happen" to my request for the CU on the first SPI. But claimed he found insufficient evidence to check the other users. So which was it? Found insufficient evidence or wasn't going to do the CU? Can't be both. You see why I have an issue with not trusting him when he says he actually did something. Plus with you all coming at me, I'd like proof instead of his word. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:43 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to address these in general. So, if a CU isn't necessary in November, it still isn't necessary in April? How is logical? Clearly the first block didn't work, another sock was created, then others (more were created prior to the SPI thread). So?? Also, NinjaRobotPirate (kudos on the SpongeBob reference), you are required to notify the blocking admin when a sock of an account they have blocked has popped up. Plus, before pings, notifying someone of a thread regarding them was required. I don't always ping, so I do talk page notify. I pinged him and talk page notified for this tread so block away. @Ten: I said "due respect" because I was trying to be nice (flies, honey). I definitely have very little respect for Bbb23. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:04 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
    • you are required to notify the blocking admin when a sock of an account they have blocked has popped up. [citation needed]DoRD (talk)​ 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Long as I can remember and I've been here since 2006. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:17 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
        • I've been here since 2005 and this is the first I've ever heard of this rule. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, I think before now someone would have told me it wasn't a thing. But we are way off topic. Continued behavior by Bbb23, lack of CUs, shutting down SPIs before CUs are done (even by other users). That's our topic, not me and what Neutralhomer did this week. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:26 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
            • CheckUsers don't "owe" you a check just because you demand one. Several times in this thread, you've accused Bbb23 of lying about having performed a check. Since I hope we can all agree that that would be a serious allegation, can you present your evidence, please? Or if, as I think we all suspect, you have none, then I think you should withdraw that accusation. ST47 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
              • You know I don't because I don't have access to that part of the project. No, I won't withdraw. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:44 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
            • You might recall your being told in the discussion in December: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305#Issue with Bbb23 isaacl (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Actually, I see it as evidence of an ongoing issue and admin attacking anyone who attempt at bringing up Bbb23's behavior. But, you all do what you want or, you know, you could look at the evidence. Oh, ST47, if Checkusers don't "owe [us] a check just because [we] demand one", then why did you keep the SPI open and let's just do away with the whole thing since it feels optional. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:53 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • Damn it I swore off this board but I just had to opine on this. Bbb23 is one of the best admin and CU I've experienced in my dealings with Sockpuppets in the 10 years I've been here. I trust their judgement when they say it isn't merited. You can always ask for a second opinion but the experiences I've seen and been party to show a thoughtful person in that arena. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually I did request a second opinion (which ST57) says I am not obligated to even request, but I did and Bbb23 closed the discussion before one could be even found. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:53 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, please understand I make no judgement on your complaint or your editing, I just wanted to opine on my experiences with Bbb23 in this arena. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Understood. I thank you for being the only one who ventured into this with an open mind. Thanks! - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:50 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't need to open up an SPI for a sitting duck. Any passing admin can just block without CUing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ((edit conflict) with close) -- I have found Bbb23 to be somewhere between rarely and consistently aggressive, arbitrary, authoritarian, and unaccountable. The unwarranted and rude "Not going to happen", without any semblance of helpful explanation, is a classic example of this problem. But that does not make him the only CU. If any admin or user has made it known that they are not willing to help you, the burden of guilt shifts to you as you continue to pester them. This is downright harassment. Bbb23, just like every administrator, is not required to assist you upon your request. If one admin is not helping as requested, solicit another. You can't complain about an admin failing to take action, even when it would be warranted. Per the intro to WP:ADMIN, nobody is ever required to do anything with their tools. If you're under the impression that you're duty-bound to pester Bbb23 upon every new SPI, you're mistaken, so you shouldn't have this problem again. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, at least you experience the same behavior so I'm not crazy. But this is closed, so... - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:25 on April 10, 2019 (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.


Given NeutralHomer's last post below, I think we can consider hs complaint withdrawn and the matter closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2019 (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 know this was closed, but IMO it's already over the line for a boomerang block. First as was sort of pointed out above, Neutralhomer said above

Well, I think before now someone would have told me it wasn't a thing. But we are way off topic.

However in the previous AN they opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305#Issue with Bbb23 they were told there is no such rule. User:Betty Logan and User:Agathoclea said they weren't aware of such a rule. User:Bbb23 and User:Beeblebrox in their closing statement, explicitly said there was no such rule. User:Johnuniq said to stop pinging Bbb23 implying there was no such rule. User:TonyBallioni and User:Nick-D said that reporting directly to one admin may not be the best idea implying there was no such rule. Even the only other remaining participant User:SQL almost said that. Neutralhomer seemed to acknowledge many of these messages when they said

OK, so it's not required to ping the blocking admin. I've always been told to ping the blocking admin per rules, but whatever, we'll table that.

From what they said above, Neutralhomer hasn't pinged Bbb23 since then but it's concerning that they're still implying no one told them there was no such rule when nearly everyone in the previous discussion indeed told them that. I'd like to AGF that Neutralhomer simply forgot the message of the previous discussion, except that when Isaac pointed out they had been told, they just talked about a pattern of Bbb23.

As TOAT pointed out above, Neutralhomer also misleading quoted Bbb23 implying they did not run a check when they did. When TOAT pointed this out, Neutralhomer again misleadingly said

Courcelles did the CU on the December 1, not Bbb23.

Except that as TOAT had just pointed out, clearly Bbb23 message meant they had also run a check in addition to Courcelles. Of course they also said that maybe Bbb23 was simply lying when they said they ran a check.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I've notified everyone I mentioned. I included existing participants since they may assume this thread was still closed. Also, I should mention I recall one dispute I had in the past which I believe involved Neutralhomer, concerning interpretation of WP:OR as it pertains to radio station coverage/reception and FCC data. I'm hoping my view here is not coloured by that but have no way of knowing. Also in relation to one of Neutralhomer earlier points, I don't see this as off-topic. Neutralhomer's behaviour in this dispute is on-topic, as the behaviour of all participants in a dispute always is. And from my POV, whatever Bbb23 may have done wrong, Neutralhomer's behaviour has been terrible enough to justify a block. I recently interacted with Bbb23 in relation to a different matter, but have no strong opinions of them. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has a shockingly extensive block log, and this increasingly looks like a pattern of complaining about (or harassing) Bbb23. I've filed a few SPIs and dealt with Bbb23, and he is unfailingly laconic, and sometimes outright curt, which I know many interpret as aggressive or rude. The more you ignore what he says, though, the more likely you're going to get curtness or even silence as a response. Given that Neutralhomer wants to reject everything Bbb23 tells him, it's no surprise he's been getting that sort of response; badgering Bbb23 just reinforces that outcome. I don't know if a block is necessary, but maybe Neutralhomer should be subject to a one-way IBAN in order to ensure he just leaves Bbb23 alone. Grandpallama (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A shockingly extensive log with two indefs! Blimey. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The comments here are misleading, look at the block log two recent blocks last year and prior to that in 2012 or before that is not a shocking record. It shows an editor who for six years worked hard with no blocks to be found. Let's not try and bury Nuetralhomer with things that don't actually deal with this incident. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thoroughly disagree. Admittedly, the recent block log is more clean, but the older blocks are for exactly the sort of behavior I think we see on display in this AN report. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion but the blocks I see are for 3rr, sockpuppetry and incivility. I don't see him socking, I don't see him edit warring and for the most part he has remained rather cool in this discussion. An argument could be made to i-ban them from Bbb23 but I wouldn't think that was nec either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
He's made accusations (or at least strongly implied) that Bbb23 lied about performing CU or following up on cases, he's falsely (as Nil Einne has demonstrated) made claims about his understanding of the supposed need to ping Bbb23, and he's on his second trip to a noticeboard in less than six months to complain about Bbb23 being somehow derelict because Bbb23 won't do exactly what Neutralhomer wants. As far as I'm concerned, that's incivility, tendentious behavior, and harassment, all of which he was repeatedly blocked for in those earlier blocks. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I think maybe you should research those blocks, I have and they are much different then what you seem to think they were. I don't mean he was in the right because blocks should have happened in some of those cases but apples and oranges to this situation. Ugh I swore off this board because of a lynch mob mentality here but this is exactly what this thread devolved to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I do think we're reading things differently because I see over five blocks for incivility and hounding/harassment, including off-wiki, with what I can still see of those interactions (to the degree I dug into them) pretty damning. I don't think prior blocks themselves in any way invalidate a legitimate complaint about another user (which is not what has happened here, by the way), but they do indicate a user with a history of engaging in ongoing harassment against other users, including admins they didn't care for. It's hard not to see the repeated attempts to smear Bbb23 as being in the same vein, and also necessitating a lower tolerance level for this user's current behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Grandpallama, my last comment on this would be that just because a block says indef doesn't always mean it was justified. I was indef'd once and the reason was given that it was for harassment [[2]]. Read this and tell me what you think [[3]]. If that was harassment I'm a monkey's uncle. I was owning up to my own misbehavior and some of us really fall into editing without intending it. I did, I didn't come with the intention of building the knowledge but after that indef I sure cleaned up my act and started writing new articles and filling in redlinks. I have had my warts on my record that were well and truly my own contributions but I dislike someone trying to use that rough entry to say I was a detriment to the project Some of the blocks like saying people should be executed were beyond the pale but overall I see a productive editor with some imperfections and this is the second thread in 6 months? Hardly indicative of a problem needing a remedy other then what has already happened here. Again though reasonable minds can disagree and I don't mean my lynch mob mentality comment to focus on you or User:Lugnuts just my own bias and interpretation of both users who I have had involvement with here and by reading various actions over the years. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd never been aware of NeutralHammer until this thread, and I was mearly noting that they had two indef blocks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The section above was closed with the comment "The underlying editor is blocked", but the filer (Neutralhomer) does not appear to be blocked.[4] So who is the underlying editor? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, that was weird. I assumed maybe it was in reference to the sockmaster that Neutralhomer is concerned about? Grandpallama (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    The sock Neutralhomer was dealing with has been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Neutralhomer is exasperated from dealing with a persistent sock. I am very sympathetic about that because there are situations where anyone can edit looks pretty silly given the ridiculous amounts of maintenance with little support that can result. However, at least Neutralhomer (presumably) only has to deal with one idiot. Consider Bbb23 who spends much of his life up to his ears in idiots. I hope Neutralhomer can give a clear statement guaranteeing that they will leave Bbb23 alone from now on. Post at SPI and if Bbb23 responds that's fine. But don't mention him or contact him in any way. If such a statement is forthcoming I don't think a sanction is needed at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Honestly, Johnuniq, that just sounds like a voluntary IBAN, so why not make it one and log and enforce it? Grandpallama (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I do confess to feeling completely and utter frustrated with Bbb23 in the past (eg: "for f***'s sake will you stop blocking everyone!") but when I can actually get a conversation out of them, it's reasonable. All I can really say is that if you spend all your day dealing with serial sockfarms, you tend to be unable to see the wood for the trees when you make a mistake on genuine good-faith stuff. I can't find the diffs, but I'm certain I have overturned at least one CSD G5 of Bbb23's on the simple grounds that it felt like a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Also, I have in the past criticised the odd block of theirs and got it overturned. I think reverting people's comments on their talk page "because sock" is not helpful; it makes third parties looking at the matter think that WP:ADMINACCT is not being followed. He doesn't have to be "Mega Checkuser Guy", there are others who can help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm very disapointed to see this here again, as I'd thought we'd closed this book three months ago. Look at the stats. Bbb23 is far and away the most prolific user of the checkuser tool on this project. He isn't shy about using it if there is any cause to do so. If he's repeatedly said there is no utility in employing it against a particular sockpupeteer, he's almost certainly right.
I don't know what NH hopes to accomplish by pretending it is otherwise, or by continuing to pretend that they did not know notifications of previous blocking admins are not needed. I understand all too well the frustration of dealing with long-term abuse and prolific sockpuppeteers, but I don't understand harping on about one CU's reluctance to use the tool in cases where it appears not be needed. This seems to me a clear case of failure to drop the stick, and I don't see that Bbb23's somewhat curt attitude in any way mitigates that. I know it can be frustrating dealing with a process like CU you can't actually see the results of, but that's how it works, and over-explaining why CU isn't needed is WP:BEANS for the sockpupeteer. I would strongly advise Neutralhomer to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To everyone, I am dealing with something alot more important than this. My cat is dying (the vet is coming over, I bet you can guess why) and I could truly care less about Wikipedia nonsense right now. But, since others have asked, I am not going to SPI any Demorea sock as it clearly isn't worth my time and energy. Dealing with Bbb23 isn't worth my time and energy either. I tried to have a conversation with you all about this user's behavior and surprise, I get attacked. But wait, Swarm and Ritchie333 (thanks to you both, by the way) have had similar incidents with Bbb23 (don't see them getting attacked or threatened with blocks). As I said, I have much more important things to deal with, so please do whatever you all want. I really don't care at this point. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:56 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your cat, NH. Levivich 21:44, 10 April 2019 (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.

Clouded leopard moved without discussion[edit]

Hi everyone, Clouded leopard was moved to Mainland clouded leopard with no discussion among editors. I wasn't sure if this could be a simple redirect or not it was done by one user randomly with no discussion. Thank you for your time and help this needs a fast fix.Mcelite (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved back to Clouded leopard and will leave a note with the mover... GiantSnowman 15:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mcelite: I note @Elmidae: has also raised this issue and raised at WP:RMT. GiantSnowman 15:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for sorting this out. I have removed the two requests at WP:RMT. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you guys it so random and shocking to see the move this morning. Thank you for fast response.Mcelite (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible competence issue with a new user[edit]

Hi admins, While monitoring my watchlist I have come across a user by the name of user:Petejmarsh who appears to have a problem re competence, (and their language IMO) and doesn't appear to respond when asked to explain reversions of valid edits. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see if any action is needed at all? Btw I did think of taking this to ANI but didnt think it was appropriate as nothing major has (yet) happened, but happy to be corrected and/or moved if need be. User will be informed momentarily has been informed. Thanks all Nightfury 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see problems here, yes, but I also see a new user just hit by warning templates rather than any friendly attempt to explain things to them. I'll try offering a few words and see if that helps, and I'll watch for how they respond. Feel free to let me know if there are further problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee It appears I may have spoke too soon. They appear to be related to IP, I see you have blocked them already. Nightfury 14:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I spotted likely IP editing when I examined their behaviour, so I watchlisted all of the recent articles they'd edited - and the same IP pops up again to repeat one of Petejmarsh's reverts. As you've seen, I've blocked the IP, and I've also left a warning at User talk:Petejmarsh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to update, User:Petejmarsh has continued edit warring and bock evasion, so he's indef blocked now and a couple of IPs he's used are blocked too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please review these well-written or well-revised articles that are, IMHO, mistakenly labeled.[edit]

This isn't a matter for administrators (who do not have a role in assessing the quality of articles, etc). Please start discussions regarding the tags on each article's talk page, or just remove the tag if you think that doing so would be uncontroversial. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2019 (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 have been reading dozens and dozens of Wiki articles during my current road trip and have come across a handful that I believe don't warrant the warning or censure they each have at their pages' tops. Please reconsider the following:,_Jr.

Thanks, JL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F517:A966:8E61:11DD:29F1:2084 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2019 (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 review of KeithCu by Feezo[edit]

Enough of this. Per the massive red editnotice this is a noticeboard for "matters of general administrator interest", not a chatroom for anyone with a personal grudge to vent. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 17 April 2019 (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.

They may make an unblock request themselves through the normal means. There is nothing requiring a third party appeal when talk page access is still available and one appeal has already been declined. They may appeal via the normal means. There is also still an open ANI thread where this block/the behaviour behind it is being discussed, and the community can review it there as a part of that process. Splitting it into three possible places does not make sense, and isn’t normally how we handle unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2019 (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.

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#439_posts_by_53_users_in_the_last_three_days there is a discussion of suspected meatpuppetry and KeithCu's name was mentioned in a list of names of those who hasn't edited in a while and then showed up at the page. He posted on the AN/I page that he doesn't know what meatpuppetry is but he edited because he wanted to and he felt the current version didn't reflect the truth, whether he is right or not can be discussed, he was using the talk page and was not disruptive.

During this time, he has not edited in the mainspace and was utilizing the talk pages. There is a RM discussion at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) if the title should be moved to a different name and he wrote that it should be. After KeithCu commented at AN/I that he is not a meatpuppet, Admin Feezo blocked him for NOTHERE. I asked Feezo to clarify why he was blocked and I was told that "Defending Breitbart as a reliable source and IDHT advocating of conspiracy theories are both clear evidence of NOTHERE." However, it is clear that Feezo hasn't seen the talk page of the article since there is an RM discussion on whether or not to call it a conspiracy theory or not and it's not just Breitbart, as others have pointed out, mainstream media is covering this. Regardless, 4 edits on a talk page is not IDHT and NOTHERE territory and the block, IMO is admin overreach that IMO is trying to push an agenda.

These are the four diffs of KeithCu on the talk page: diff, diff, diff, diff

This is his comment to AN/I: diff

Here is Feezo's comment: diff

Bottom line is he was not disruptive, he was using the talk page and should not have been blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2019 (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.

I've been looking into Feezo's administrative actions activity levels over the past 7 years and they do not give me confidence that they should still have access to the tools. KeithCu may not have been aware of the community's stance towards Breitbart, and the first step, to me, would be to let that user know that Breitbart is not acceptable for Wikipedia, instead of an indefinite block. In the 3 year span between 2015-2017 Feezo edited less than 200 times. Excluding 2011, when they were promoted to an admin, Feezo's made ~2400 edits in 11 years. There's no way that meets the current standard for holding administrative privileges. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed administrative actions to activity levels after a comment by WBG. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The standard for admin inactivity is "administrator accounts that have no edits or log actions for at least one year". There is not a rule in place for a specific amount of edits over a specific amount of time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, diffs of those actions please. The first statement is otherwise an aspersion.
FWIW, I wholly agree with the specific block, under scrutiny. That page has been attracting a bunch of crackpots and it's one less, now. (Reliable sources are all wrong; Breitbart is the holy grail of all sources; the community is a mob defending FBI.....) Drop this and wiki-lawyer over something else. WBGconverse 18:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Calling other editors crackpots is a personal attack. The article has so many issues, as you yourself have identified. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
as you yourself have identified -- You need to troll far better. WBGconverse 18:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If another admin wants to re-open this, fine, but I'd suggest it be closed again: except in rare circumstances, we do not accept 3rd party unblock appeals, and there are good reasons for that: the normal process works pretty well, AN is usually a hot mess, and it would be easy, especially in controverial areas (i.e. Breitbart) for partisans to drag admins to AN over a normal block and make it into something much bigger than it actually is, and which could be resolved via talking and review in the normal process. I would really suggest that someone else close off this section again, but since I closed the above, I will not be. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    If someone can show me a diff of where Feezo attempted to discuss this with KeithCu, who is clearly an inexperienced user, then I'll gladly drop it. The first step for administrators should be discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (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.

Copyright problem backlog[edit]

Category:Requested RD1 redactions .--Moxy 🍁 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

on it. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Down to two. Sorry for not catching the backlog earlier. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Now one, but I maxed out my time on one mammoth job. AGK ■ 20:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal[edit]

Following a successful appeal via email to the arbitration committee, Flooded with them hundreds has been unblocked, with an indefinite one-account restriction and the agreement to publicly disclose all past accounts. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee. The past accounts are:

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal

Ratification of amendment to ARBPOL ongoing[edit]

Everyone is invited to participate in the community referendum on an amendment to the arbitration policy. ~ Rob13Talk 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The notice of the original motion was archived, so I'm re-adding this slimmer notice of the ongoing referendum to ensure it is visible to the community. ~ Rob13Talk 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IP user wrongly giving me ⚠warnings[edit] is giving me warnings while stating that I'm assuming the ownership of the article. [5] to [6]. This IP is removing content from the article Chandigarh citing Advertisement. I always edit with references and as per WP norms. I also doubt this user is using two different IP's and he seems much familiar with WP that new person can't be. I request Admin to please intervene in this matter. I'll be grateful there will be admin intervention. 649pardeep (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

A note of appreciation to all the editors (admin and non-admin) who have recently been tackling the various backlogs reported here. For example, over 20 ANRFC threads archived over the last few days! I'm sure it's been noticed and appreciated by many. Thank you and keep up the good work! Levivich 20:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that open task tracker table at the top of the page is very nifty. And coming from a curmudgeon like me, that's high praise indeed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Resolved Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2019 (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 obscure this--NewDataB (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, and just for in the future you can always reach out to an admin privately to have this done, which is the better recommended way of having an edit RevDel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2019 (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.

IP socking[edit]

This User: was blocked for a week for edit warring a day ago by User:Bbb23

They are now back as User: I have gone ahead and blocked this now sock.

This user however has been moving from IP to IP for a couple of years now. Not sure what options we have for a more permanent solution? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently report to 3RRN[7]
Has been community banned here by User:JzG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC) may have been; and the 122.2 IPs are probably another banned user. Peter James (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy - Community Ratification[edit]

The community has ratified the following amendment to the Arbitration Policy.

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators.


Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:
  1. The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
  2. Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

This provision is now reflected in the policy and is in full force. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Policy - Community Ratification

Clarification of WP:3RR[edit]

WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

El C appears to believe that a user's first edit on a page that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part— does not count as a revert, which is completely contradictory to that brightline policy. In fact, making four changes to an article in 24 hours is what famously got Winkelvi blocked for three months in 2017, and he tried unsuccessfully to argue that he didn't know the first change "counted" [8]. Can someone please alert El C as to how 3RR works? By the way, Drmies once gave me a lecture via email about the definition of 3RR and how it includes the first change.

Also, by the way, could someone look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)? Krimuk2.0 is edit-warring (five reverts so far in less than 2 hours [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), WP:CANVASSING, and battlegrounding on Jack Lowden, despite a usertalk warning, but El C initially closed it as "no violation", and even with an explanation of and link to 3RR and links to two more reverts by Krimuk2.0, that has not changed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It would include the first edit if a specific editor's edit would be undone, but that is not the case here. It is merely longstanding text which is partially replaced with a new addition, which I do not count as a revert. El_C 12:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "if a specific editor's edit would be undone"? 3RR reads: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Any change to existing text in an article by definition undoes other editors' actions in whole or in part; there is no getting around that. And 3RR does not specify any loopholes. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
A removal of text isn't automatically a revert, is what I'm saying. El_C 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is indeed a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that that first edit constituted a revert. El_C 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
In context, I do not think the first series of edits to the lede constitute a revert. These appear to be bold changes.This is a really grating type of revert. Bold changes don't need prior discussion. Beyond this, Krimuk2.0 should self-revert to the status quo. Discuss possible improvements to the lede on the talk page, and then implement them. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It does not exempt the first time that occurs. You might think it does, but it does not. A change to existing article text undoes other editors' actions by definition; there's no getting around that. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Both WP:BOLD and WP:BRD would disagree with the "a change to existing article text" interpretation. From BRD: Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information. Not all removals and changes are reverts. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I agree with El_C and Mr rnddude's interpretations and believe the wording of the policy should be amended via RfC if necessary. Alpha3031 (tc) 14:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with El_C's interpretation as well. A revert is pretty simply defined as an edit that undoes another edit. It has nothing to do with if it's your first edit on the page or not. This is not a revert, it is a change that's being made for the first time. (On the other hand, Softlavender's first edit in the war does count as a revert, because it is a revert.) Also, [14] and [15] definitely aren't reverts. I don't think there's any need for an RfC, as I'd be surprised if you could find any admin who would consider those reverts. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to ping me about something I may have emailed you at one time, Softlavender. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is something I always wondered about. Is an edit that changes or removes any existing text always a revert? For instance, if the longstanding text of an article says "X alleged Y" and I, citing WP:SAY, change it to "X said Y", is that a revert? By replacing that word, I am undoing someone's work, clearly, but I think that if the text was longstanding and the article hadn't previously contained anything similar to my preferred version, few people would consider it to be a revert. Or, a more specific example: If I remove a sentence that has been in the article for over a year (one that nobody has previously disputed), is that a revert, on the principle that someone somewhere back in the history added that text, and I am now reverting them? My general impression is that this is not usually treated as a revert, but it seems like a strict reading of the rules would imply that it is. People above seem to be disagreeing over this point. Assuming it isn't a revert, where's the dividing line? Do you have to be reverting a specific person's text (which someone above mentioned?) What if eg. I could dig through the history and find the edit, seven years ago, that added the sentence you removed - does that make your edit a revert of that sentence? Does the length of time matter? (Usually, I think WP:3RR is clear it does not, but it seems like in a lot of examples there's a point where uncontroversial text simply becomes "part of the article" where editing or removing it is a proposed change, rather than a discrete revert.) What if I expressed objection to an addition, but didn't touch it; then I swing back seven years later and remove it - is my edit now a revert? What if I merely tweaked it slightly? (I think most people would agree a removal in this case is definitely a revert, but unless you go with "all removals / edits to established text are reverts", the dividing line is strange; the implication here, I think, is that my intention makes it a revert, since in this example I'm not just proposing a random change to the article but am deliberately reverting something even if it was from seven years in the past.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • If you're this far in the weeds, you're probably already edit-warring. Per WP:EW: " The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and per WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." If a user disclaims any further editing after an edit war, I generally take them at their word, and won't block. If a user makes it clear they intend to continue to edit war, even so far as to WP:WIKILAWYER their way out of 3RR, it usually means they need a block anyways. Once a user has been told to stop edit warring, and they don't, they need a block, period. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, but the purpose of the WP:3RR is to have a clear-cut red-line rule that makes it easy to halt obvious revert-warring, not to cover all possible sorts of revert-warring (which, as it says, requires admin discretion.) Even if an admin can step in and say "this is obviously revert-warring" regardless, it's still better for the WP:3RR to be as clear as possible in order to serve that purpose. Another common situation: Multiple people are working to update an article (so my edits aren't contiguous.) I make many small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text. Nobody objects to any of these edits at the time, and there is no reason to think they're controversial (perhaps I'm updating old text to reflect breaking news) but I've made more than three of them within 24 hours. Am I now in violation of the WP:3RR? I think that's an obvious no - no revert war is occurring, since there was no dispute at the time when I made my edits - but each edit is technically undoing some edit someone made at some point in the past. (And the same thing I mentioned above comes into play where if I knew those sections were previously controversial, it might be different.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text" is not reverting. It isn't covered by the rule. 3RR is a sub-rule of WP:EDITWAR, and if you aren't edit warring or otherwise using the ability to revert or remove text as a means of winning a a battle with other people or force your preferred version on the article, it isn't a problem. In the other direction, who is threatening to block you for "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text"? Who has been blocked for "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text"? If no one has, you're just inventing problems in search of solutions. --Jayron32 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Applying the rule as written, I think you would read it as not applying to a bold edit to a section of an article that hasn't had recent edits. But the default outcome when there is a dispute should generally be a return to the status quo while the discussion is ongoing. Which is of course contrary to not counting the first edit for 3rr purposes. Ultimately, as Jayron32 points out, if you are in a position where this distinction matters, you are already edit warring, regardless of whether you violated the letter of the 3rr rule. Which is probably why the rule has never been clarified, more so than everyone agrees on what it means. (And the best use of the 3rr rule is when one party has blatantly broken it and is on revert 5+, not looking for a chance to drop blocks on exactly revert 3) Monty845 04:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    The purpose of 3RR is that it is one of the very few places in Wikipedia where there is expected a block without warning. It is fairly narrowly defined and easy to spot, and it's designed as a quick-stop trigger for to handle rapidly-occurring disruption. The idea is that, when caught in a cascade of rapid reverts, we need to stop that behavior quickly. I rarely invoke 3RR for any debatable edit war, but when I have invoked it, it has only been in clear cases, where someone is just repeatedly mashing the "undo" button over and over. For other, more subtle types of edit warring, it's not a great tool to use, and should not be cited or referred to. Other forms of edit warring should also get pre-block warnings handed out. 3RR is an emergency tool used in emergency situations where we need to stop a disruption now. If you're in the territory of "well, maybe we should count this as a revert? Was this one really less than 24 hours ago? It looks like 26 to me? Well, maybe we shouldn't count this here", we've probably delved into the "we should probably give at least one warning and see if they can all talk it out first before we hand out blocks" territory. Good, experienced admins know when to hand out 3RR blocks, and it's really only for when we see the clear pattern that a person is not interested in discussing, and is just blindly clicking "undo" to whatever anyone else does. --Jayron32 13:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a humble gnome's opinion, I've oftened wondered about the definitions and applications of edit warring rules, especially where 3RR (and 1RR and 0RR under certain conditions) is concerned. Seems to me that it's called BRD (and not RRD) for a reason. To me, 0RR means that if an editor makes an edit, no reverts of that edit are allowed – it certainly does not mean that the article cannot be edited at all "because the very first edit is a revert of someone's past edit". So it follows that under 3RR, if an editor makes an edit, 3 reverts are allowed. Perhaps this does need to be clarified at WP:3RR, because that's the way I've seen it applied while I've edited Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    It's already amply clear in the lead of WP:EW: "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
    Edit warring is an attitude, not a precisely definable behavior, which is what makes it so difficult to manage. We would do better to focus less on pursuing precise definitions—which actually encourages the wikilawyering mind-set—and instead have trusted "cops" who can use their own discretion without fear of being required to spend stressful hours of their time defending their action. If an editor chooses to test boundaries like a 3-year-old and gets sanctioned, I'm entirely unimpressed by their protests that the boundaries aren't clear enough. ―Mandruss  10:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with the EW policy, and yet we do have the WP:3RR "brightline" policy that does not make it clear whether or not a first bold edit to a page should also be considered the first revert in 3RR. My contention is that 0RR shows that the first edit should not generally or automatically be considered a revert (it would depend on circumstances and should be adjudged accordingly). Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah. You're pursuing precise definitions. ―Mandruss  09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, and in pursuit of that while acknowledging that your point is to focus less on such things and more on trusting our admins, the fact remains that a question about a policy has arisen here. As an experienced Wikipedian, I see it as part of my job to make it easier for inexperienced Wikipedians than it was for me. Sometimes that means pursuing more precise definitions of policy. Doesn't mean we trust our admins less, but it might mean that inexperienced admins will be recipients of a clearer policy with which to make stronger decisions. So we deal with and move on. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  10:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Long-standing paradigms are hard to change. Carry on. ―Mandruss  10:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that the request for closure at WP:ANRFC was declined with the reasoning here. Sunrise (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Review my block of User:FIFAukr[edit]

I recently ifdef blocked User:FIFAukr as being WP:NOTHERE. User:MarkH21 questioned me on this, and we've been discussing it on my talk page. I'm bringing it here to get a wider review of whether my action was legitimate. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: - before giving my $0.02 on the block itself, your comment "Let them appeal. My job is to protect the project from disruption" - being careful to avoid the loss of users with unwarranted bans can also be said to be part of an admin's role; if nothing else, it reads as an anti-AGF callous comment. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse block basically per RoySmith, though I would have gone with WP:NOTHERE. An account that creates their user page as a first edit and then makes a bunch of meaningless edits to AfDs is either a troll, a promotional SPA, or a returning banned editor (or all three...) AGF is not a suicide pact, and this was a good block. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In my experience, when someone goes straight to AfD and they cast a lot of random votes, they're trying to save some spam article they wrote. Most of the votes are typically throwaway "decoy votes" to hide which AfD is the one they care about. They usually do this because their previous accounts were instantly blocked as ducks after an entire sockfarm converged on a single AfD. Anyway, I ran a check. I know I've seen this IP range before, but I don't remember who it was. Oh well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Is there no CU tool for automatically suggesting sock candidates based on IPs? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Good block (and rationale). Miniapolis 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) I do appreciate everyone discussing this and I hope I'm not wasting anyone's time here!
    2) Assuming good faith is still a core tenet of the Wikipedia community and I feel like a bad block is more harmful than a good block is beneficial.Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave the user a message or warning on their talk page and tag their !votes using Template:spa, even if there is a decent chance that the user is acting in bad faith? It doesn’t hurt that much to make an attempt at communication first and then block the user if there is continued suspicious behavior or deliberate ignorance of the attempted discussion – particularly as there is no materially disruptive behavior and only strong suspicions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi, MarkH21, I'm going to reply to your comment to NinjaRobotPirate about CU and also address your questions here to try to cut down on replies. Hope you don't mind.
      On the question of CheckUser:  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. NRP and I both looked at the data as a part of this block review. There's not much there, and CheckUser cannot prove innocence. It is used in correlation with behavioural evidence to reach conclusions, and a negative CU finding is not evidence of lack of socking if there are strong behavioural indicators otherwise.
      In this case, you have a pattern that has been repeated over likely thousands of accounts by thousands of different people: create a userpage and spam AfDs to hide which one you are trying to influence. This pattern is disruptive, and warnings aren't going to help at all. RoySmith was correct to block, and I'd encourage any administrator to do the same in similar circumstances. This account was very clearly WP:NOTHERE, and on the off-chance that they do have a good explanation for it, that can be considered in an appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: Thanks for the explanations! Regarding CU, I don't know how the tool worked internally but I figure it shouldn't be too terrible to implement a database lookup that matches IP addresses (or IP ranges) to already-banned users (or users who have had SPIs).
        I see your point on the volume and practical issues here. It feels off to me in principle though: should we rely on the post-block appeal process to determine whether there was bad faith after a block has been made using circumstantial evidence? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
        • We have some ways of dealing with this, but they are limited both by the privacy policy and to a degree by the MediaWiki softwares's own limitations. Administrators and CUs tend to be cautious people in general, and there are plenty of accounts that are likely socks that don't get blocked because we don't have enough evidence to warrant a block. In this case, however, the pattern was obvious to the point of not really even needing CU to merit a block: it's an obvious sock of someone created to influence one AfD and in the process is disrupting a bunch of other AfDs. Administrators don't really need to know who the master is to know that the account isn't here to build an encyclopedia. The odds of this being a good faith account are about zero, so blocking and seeing if a valid reason for the behaviour is forthcoming is fine. It is a case-by-case thing, but in this case, the right call was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Complete a CheckUser before doing anything else. I'm confused how these users edits are vandalism. They just seem like innocent, good-quality AFD edits to me. But I do see Tony's point. So, we must complete a CheckUser before we do anything else. The Duke 16:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • CU doesn’t work like that, and two of us have already looked, found nothing, but still endorse this block. I agree vandalism likely isn’t the best word, but NOTHERE is applicable in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: I'm fully aware of how CheckUser works, it's just that if it may have found an older account that edited on the same IP. However I'm still confused how this is NOTHERE. I'd assume good faith at first glance. Can someone please explain how this may be a case of Wp:NOTHERE? Thank you. The Duke 17:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Based on your comments, I don’t actually think you’re aware of how CheckUser works. It provides limited technical information that in a given context may or may not be helpful. In this context, it wasn’t helpful.
          As to how this is NOTHERE, I’d refer you to NinjaRobotPirate and my comments above. This is a pattern that has been repeated over literally thousands of accounts over the 18 years Wikipedia has been around, and anyone who works in this area would tell you the same. I’ll also ping Ritchie333 who can chime in with his first rule of sock hunting. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @TonyBallioni: After looking through the comments, I now see where you're coming from. New users don't immediately go to WP:AFD; they go edit an article of their interest. Many new users probably don't even know what AFD is. And with that now cleared up, I now support the block. The Duke 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
For the uninitiated, Ritchie's first rule of socking is : "Any user whose first edit is to either their user page or their user talk page, before any article edits, is a sock". However, it is not a "vandalism-only" account; somebody evading a block may still be trying to make good faith edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense :-D Levivich 13:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And any editor whose first action is to create an account is probably also a sock. Peter James (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unblock Probably an SPA and possibly a sockpuppet but assume good faith, unless multiple new accounts become involved in the same discussion. There are administrators (and probably checkusers and oversighters) who made similar contributions just after creating their account. Peter James (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Moot until and unless the user appeals. As long as it's not a clearly inappropriate block there's no need to preemptively reverse the block. -- King of ♠ 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a clearly inappropriate block; not a vandalism only account. It should at least be changed to an accurate reason, such as "you don't look like a new user so we assume that you are evading a block or using multiple accounts although we have no evidence of that and it's more likely that you have edited as an unregistered user". If that is too long for the block log, a template can be created. Peter James (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I have updated the block log to NOTHERE. Their talk page was already templated with NOTHERE. And, I disagree with "we have no evidence". The evidence is behavioral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings - possible oversighting required[edit]

This thread includes discussion of and links to what is essentially a snuff video. Even naming one of the websites hosting the video is problematic. There is obviously consensus that linking to the video is not required in the article and I suspect the proposer was trolling. Request admin review of the thread with a view to possible rev-delete. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 - The video provided in the link is obviously very graphic and disturbing to some viewers, but this isn't what RD3 defines as a "shock site". The link nor the edits containing it do not qualify as eligible for revision deletion under the policy and the criteria for redaction. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that similar material by the same IP has previously been revdeleted by Zzuuzz. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe it was deleted under IAR, though you could easily argue that it's grossly degrading, or grossly offensive, and also that it fits easily under BLP. What I would note is that, similar to this instance, the link I removed went to, and that video was deleted by them. I suspect if someone was to bother registering an account there, it could be flagged for another deletion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2: The video got deleted. I'll leave it an open question whether future links should be deleted - now the consensus is resolved I would say yes do remove any such links in the future. Also, take note what Thryduulf said below (oversight can be conservative as they tend to follow the oversight policy - you can always contact a plain admin at CAT:REVDEL). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: and everyone else, if you believe something needs oversighting, please contact the oversight team directly (see WP:Oversight) rather than drawing attention to it in a very high profile venue such as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unarchiving a user talk page (dispute with admins)[edit]

Several years ago now, I was looking to remove the talk page archives of one of my alternate accounts, User:Mdrn. I no longer use archiving for my own talk pages out of personal preference (IMO unlike regular page archives they are very rarely genuinely useful, but are a great way to easily dig up stuff about an editor to use inappropriately in content disputes).

Unfortunately, I had used Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures#Move procedure back in the day, which means that simply deleting the archives would delete the history as well – something that is not allowed without community consensus (for good reason). So I made a request to merge back the histories into the original page, as seen at: User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/January-June#History merge for user talk page archives

After a long back-and-forth there, User:Anthony Appleyard denied my request. But I simply do not agree with the technical explanation. These are almost purely archives of a single page, with some extraneous edits by me that could easily be left deleted. Wikipedia:Parallel histories does not apply whatsoever to the edits that I am asking to be merged back. In fact, this implies that unarchiving page histories is not allowed in general, which would be a bizarrely restrictive decision to say the least.

Later that same year, I tagged the most recent of the talk page archives, User talk:Mdrn/Archive 5, for speedy deletion, as it was not made using the page move method like the others but simple cut and paste as is recommended at WP:ARCHIVE now. As if to add insult to injury, User:Nyttend denied my request, citing policy that I am 100% certain only applies to pages with history (i.e. original talk pages and archives made with the page move method).

In summary, I am asking for the following:

  1. History merging the first 4 user talk page archive histories back into the main one (with messy edits by me deleted if needed), or at the very least the opinions of other administrators on this issue; and
  2. The speedy deletion of archive 5. (see the update below)

Modernponderer (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mdrn, Nyttend, and Modernponderer: If (say) User talk:Zxcvbnm has (say) 4 archives User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive (1 to 4), then history-merging them as requested at User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/January-June#History merge for user talk page archives would produce a combined talk page (say User talk:Zxcvbnm/new) with a history that looks not like the history of an ordinary talk page, but with a big difference :: it would be as if 4 times in its history, someone deleted all the discussions and left the talk page blank, and to read any of the discussions that happened before the last blanking, people would have to ferret through a long edit history. To produce the effect of a single talk page with all discussions preserved to the latest and easily visible edit, I would have to alter the texts of all the old historic edits starting at the first apparent blanking, which would need a big fancy hacking job and not what I as an ordinary admin have the tools for. Sorry.
    • It would be an easy job for me, or even for a non-admin, to chain together the latest edits of pages User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive (1 to 4) and page User talk:Zxcvbnm into one new page User talk:Zxcvbnm/new :: but the request called for history-merging.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
it would be as if 4 times in its history, someone deleted all the discussions and left the talk page blank, and to read any of the discussions that happened before the last blanking, people would have to ferret through a long edit history.
User:Anthony Appleyard, that is exactly what I want and I do not see any problem with it. How is it even different from blanking the page at regular intervals (which is what I do right now for my current talk page)?
Once again, to be clear, I am NOT asking for a single page with all the discussions, but a pure history merge. Nothing more, nothing less. Modernponderer (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Updated request (speedy deletion)[edit]

Now that the history merge is complete (and no contributions from other users would be lost), I would like to ask any willing administrator to please speedy delete all 5 remaining archive pages per WP:U1. Modernponderer (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC Closure Review for RuPaul's Drag Race[edit]

There is no consensus to overturn the close. The close was endorsed by an uninvolved admin.

Cunard (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2019 (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 consensus closure at "RfC on names of transgender contestants" concerns, as the title explicitly says, transgender contestants. The consensus closure even reads that the intent is to avoid "deadnaming anyone who transitioned since their appearance on the show" (emphasis added). Yet one editor is unilaterally censoring all the much-publicized and WP:RS-cited civilian names of these performers. I'd like to ask for additional comment and for administrators to read the consensus closure and state whether the RfC is about transgender contestants or whether it is now forbidden for Wikipedia to ever state the names of these performers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that I properly brought this up with the closer here instead of needlessly bringing it to this board. As for the discussion, the consensus is rather clear. Not listing the names of only trans contestants is just as bad as potentially deadnaming them and that was reflected in the discussion as well. Nihlus 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus did not preclude listing the current names of trans contestants. It only ruled out listing the old pre-transition deadnames of trans contestants. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It did. It was a consensus to list credited names only. Credited as in drag names, not real names. Nihlus 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
As a participant in the RFC, I can state that my support for “credited names only” absolutely applied to all contestants, and that is how I interpret the close. While this is broader than the question originally asked, RFC and consensus-building process should be open to that sort of solution.--Trystan (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
This is what I intended and how I interpreted it as well. Umimmak (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not how I interpret it, nor is it how the admin interprets it. The idea that the civilian names of drag performers are now disallowed on Wikipedia is just simply remarkable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The scope of this RfC is the RuPaul's Drag Race season articles. No where does it say this is for the entire Wikipedia. This has been explained to you before and is mentioned in my RfC question: used in articles on seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race? I do not understand what you are missing; no one has removed names from the biographies of said individuals. Additionally, the people who participated in the discussion are telling you what they meant by their comments, and you are saying back to us "It's not how I interpret it". We are telling you what we meant; it is not open to your interpretation beyond that. Nihlus 22:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If something is improper and should not be included in Wikipedia for WP:BLP or similar reasons, the community decides that. Something can't be both improper and censored in one part of Wikipedia but the same thing proper and uncensored elsewhere in Wikipedia.
And you are not the final arbiter of what the RfC closer meant. That's why we have a process for admin review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
And you are not the final arbiter of what the RfC closer meant. And yet here you are acting exactly like you are, going so far as to undo the edits I made to implement the obvious consensus that was reached. Consensus can be local and consensus can be for specific pages. You are now moving the goalposts and saying the local consensus was improper despite being fine with your own interpretation of it just minutes ago. Nihlus 22:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, like there had already been consensus to remove all non-drag names from List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, and the RfC under discussion was just for the articles about individual seasons. [Edit: Ironically on Talk:List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, it was Tenebrae who wrote All for eliminating it. It's an extraneous detail as regards the show, and anyone can find out such offscreen biographical details on the drag queens' own Wikipedia pages. 23:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)] Umimmak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That whole article is extraneous and simply duplicates the season pages. And that column in 2017 was filled with WP:BLP violations. Finally, there's a big difference between a single column in a single article duplicating content and wholesale censorship. And I hardly think having common ground with you is something "ironic." I'm against duplication and also I'm against censorship of pertinent, widely-RS information. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not what you said then, though. You said that the column of real names was an extraneous detail as regards the show, and the information could be found on the drag queens' own pages. Which exactly describes my position in the RFC; couldn't have said it better myself. At the very least, perhaps the similarity of the view you expressed then and the position many of us supported in the RFC could lead you to assume good faith and stop making absurd accusations of censorship.--Trystan (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I clearly was speaking about that list-article and that list-article only, which had bluelinks to the performers own pages. My BLP-related edits and my cites cites to the civilian names throughout many years on all the season article clearly indicates I was speaking in reference to that single article only.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And yet here you are acting exactly like you are This is the Admin Noticeboard, where an impartial admin reviews closures and interprets in case of a dispute over the interpretation. And an admin has done just that. Of course I'm not the final arbiter. The adjudicating admin is. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Tenebrae, where is the impartial admin? Additionally, your edits such as this one shows you reverting a change I made based on the consensus that was reached. That is not you acting in accordance with this ghost admin you speak of. It is interesting that you have frequently changed your opinion on this topic, the reason you have made edits, and now the reason you brought this to AN. Very odd. Nihlus 23:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bearcat above in this very discussion is not a "ghost admin." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not the "adjudicating admin" you think you're talking about, because I had nothing to do with adjudicating the RFC at all. So you're talking about somebody else you haven't actually named, not me. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I've already told you, Bearcat participated in the RfC. He is by no means an impartial admin in this discussion. Nihlus 23:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me; I missed seeing that Bearcat had participated in the RfC. That was unintentional — and I'm very surprised that anyone would take a simple error and claim that I'm lying and deliberately making up a "ghost admin". That's hardly good faith.
In any case, until a dispute is settled, which this is not, policy and practice is that a years-long status quo remains.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The only one challenging anything here is you. I hardly call that a dispute. Nihlus 00:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
First, that's not true, as Bearcat's early statement disagreeing with you in this review indicates. Second, this RfC review has barely begun ... what, is it an hour, hour-and-a-half old? And finally, this isn't the first RfC review for that closure, is it. So, yes, there is clearly a dispute over whether the goal of removing transgender individuals' birth names became wholesale censorship of all drag performers civilian names. The RfC doesn't even support removing transgender individuals' current civilian names.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the best way to thread my comment, but as the editor who performed the second closure, my understanding was that while the RfC statement was specifically about transgender performers, the consensus of the discussion was to implement "credited names only" for all contestants for consistency's sake. I would say that based on reading this discussion, I believe that Nihlus, Trystan and Umimmak correctly interpreted the content of my closing statement. My comment about avoiding deadnaming was due to some irregularities with how people voted: as "credited names only" was not one of the suggested voting options at the outset of the RfC, there was a fair amount of variation in how people expressed support for that position. A significant group of editors made arguments to the effect that we should avoid deadnaming, but did not always explicitly show support for "credited names only". The only way that "credited names only" is consistent with the desires of the editors who argued against deadnaming is if the credited names are uniformly drag names, and I wanted to state this assumption clearly. As for the scope of the closure, and whether drag performer's names are now "forbidden on Wikipedia", the RfC discussion was specifically for articles about RuPaul's Drag Race, and part of the justification made by editors in the discussion specifically takes into account that performers on RuPaul's Drag Race are only credited as their drag personas. Addressing Tenebrae's assertion that . Something can't be both improper and censored in one part of Wikipedia but the same thing proper and uncensored elsewhere in Wikipedia, the justification for why we should include only drag names in RuPaul's Drag Race articles is that because no other names are credited or used on the show, including real names is arguably undue weight for these articles. signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. So at least that part is now clear. Now we need to review as to whether, given the topic of the RfC, that this expansion into an area not asked for in the original question was appropriate, or whether deleting all drag performers names is an entirely different issue requiring its own RfC. That needs admin review.
Because any editor who saw the RfC headline and decided they didn't want to weigh in on the transgender issue may very well want to weigh in on the different issue of wholesale deletions of non-trans performers' names. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not buying that argument at all. RfCs have never been limited to the original question if an alternative solution is agreed upon. Tenebrae, please revert the edits you made earlier so we can restore the consensus version of the articles. Thanks. Nihlus 00:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It is always interesting to me when someone doesn't want a proper process to continue its course. I always wonder why.
Wikipedia has an admin review process for RfCs for a reason. As a longtime editor, I'm asking for a review of an RfC where the closing clearly exceeded the RfC's scope, and where a misleading headline certainly kept me from getting involved and likely others who didn't want to wade into a debate over a particularly sensitive topic: "RfC on names of transgender contestants". If the RfC had been titled "RfC on deleting civilian names of all contestants", I and likely others would have weighed in.
I'd have to wonder why any editor wouldn't now want to do an honestly titled RfC about that specific and very different topic, rather than trying to slip something in under the radar. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You wonder why? Because you've wasted enough time needlessly taking issue with one thing after another while most of us are wondering what the purpose of this charade is. First it was because I had misread the consensus and that you had read it correctly, then it was that an RfC review is open so we should revert to the status quo, then it was that an admin somewhat agreed with your comment even though they were involved, then you took issue with the scope of the pages it affected and needlessly called it censorship, you then wanted to talk about the scope of an RfC and to what extent the discussion can lead to a consensus for a question that might not have been asked, you then took issue with someone somehow misreading the conversation based on the initial question and state that they somehow have a right to know the contents of the discussion based on the header and question alone, you are now retaking issue with the scope of the RfC and suggesting we do another RfC and casting aspersions left and right as if I have a motive for "slipping things under the radar". So pardon me if I have grown completely tired of you moving the goal posts. Nihlus 03:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Following an off-wiki complaint .... would anyone object if I just blocked Nihlus for general edit-warring, mild incivility and generally trying to right great wrongs? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for that. I'm trying reasonably to follow the established review policy, and he is obsessively saying that because he disagrees with me I don't have the right to ask that this process be used? It's clear the closure exceeded its scope and that a separate RfC is needed for a separate question. But for some reason, he doesn't want to allow that. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Is that a joke, or a serious question? Nihlus was implementing the consensus of an RFC, so it's a poor case to make out edit warring based on a couple of reverts, especially if not also blocking the editor who was reverting the consensus. (I'm not saying which version should stand pending review, or suggesting the reverts by either Nihlus or Tenebrae were warranted, but a block of only one would be absurd.) I don't see any 'mild incivility' beyond the WP norm in the above discussion, with the possible exception of repeated accusations of censorship, which were not made by Nihlus.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I also want to know if this is a joke. Inserting yourself into this situation when you have a pretty poor history of dealing with me is alarming and a sign of poor judgment. I’ve been uncivil to no one and have been extremely patient with the ever changing goal of this discussion. Nihlus 16:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
My opinion on the whole thing is the season articles need to be factual to the show at the time of recording and not consistently updated after the season concludes. Since RuPaul's Drag Race doesn't use real life names to identify any of the contestants but instead uses drag names then the season articles should reflect this for all contestants. In simplistic terms the names in the season articles (for all reality shows) should be the names used at the time of filming. An encyclopedia should be listing facts about the topic and if the show doesn't use real names then the season article should not use real names. A lot of the contestants have their own individual articles this is where their real name should be and it should only be added with respect to WP:RS and MOS:GENDERID. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That's cool, but that's not the debate before us. This is simply to ask an admin to review the closure to determine if it exceeded its scope, and whether what turned out to be a misleading headline kept editors away who didn't want to wade into that sensitive discussion. If I and, I'm sure, other editors had instead seen "RfC question on whether to withhold real names all of drag performers", rather than "Should we not list trans performers birth names", then a different discussion would have ensued.
But to address your point about the show not stating real names: We are not here to do publicity for the show or say only what the show wants us to say. We're here to give pertinent, factual information to readers. And I can tell you that I, as a journalist in the real, practical world who writes about each season of the show, finds it deadline-time-saving and highly useful to have this footnoted information available in one place rather than having to go to each and every individual performer's page. (It's certainly more useful than the highly fannish tables of trivia over who was "high," "low" or "safe" each episode. But that's a separate thing entirely.)
The bottom line is: This is an RfC review over whether the closure was appropriate or whether the non-admin closer went way beyond the scope of the RfC. That's it. We're not here to re-debate the RfC topic itself.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The question of whether an RFC can exceed the scope of its original question is an interesting one. I often find that the discussion naturally leads to a somewhat different solution than the original question suggests. It is often helpful to break editors out of entrenched positions by reframing the issue or coming at it from another angle. It would be excessively bureaucratic to always require a second RFC in such cases, and such a requirement would discourage creative solutions.
In this case, the question was about the names of transgender contestants in Drag Race articles, and the consensus was about all contestants’ names in Drag Race articles. If RFCs aren’t permitted that much leeway in finding a solution, their usefulness would be significantly diminished.--