Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 79 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 77 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 77 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tom B (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Due to a recent wave of severe template vandalism (permalink), I've ran a query to find all unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that had over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter. I can make MusikBot report unprotected templates that meet this criteria, but there is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions which reports templates that aren't template-protected. We should probably regularly keep an eye on that. You can use Twinkle's P-Batch module to mass-protect, first pasting the page titles on any page (such as your sandbox). Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this MusikAnimal! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Thank you MusikAnimal. Alex Shih^Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my thanks too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, MusikAnimal. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MusikBot's dad! —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing your script aparently ignored is pages protected using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - anything with a "noedit" flag is protected even if it exists; ajnything with a "autoconfirmed" flag is semi-protected, while anything without is template-protected. So semi-protecting Template:Taxonomy/Eupitheciini, for example , was unnecessary. Please also keep in mind that anything transcluded in a cascade-protectred page is fully protected; human judgement is necessary to determine if this transclusion is permanent (in which case no protection is needed) or temporary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did not know about some of those features! The title blacklist has precedence (you'll see its warning instead of the page protection warning), correct? If so, is there really harm in the redundancy? Should those items get removed from the title blacklist, or if the cascade-protection of a parent page is lifted, the templates will still have 1,000+ transclusions and hence should probably not be completely open. I might argue that having them protected just-in-case is worthwhile, but anyway I can probably get Twinkle to check for cascade-protection, and looks like there's an API endpoint to see if it's on the title blacklist. I appreciate the feedback (and unexpected praise!), this was simply an effort to plug up these vulnerable loopholes of the project that allow for massive disruption. Any page can be unprotected without consulting me :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those protections. Even if currently redundant, multiple layers of security are desirable. It appears WP:High-risk templates is the only guidance for when something higher than semiprotection should be used. I suppose we will wait for further attacks before contemplating further protection but semi is a very easy hurdle. There is no need to unprotect templates merely to attain anyone can edit purity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

1. Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
2. What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)

Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?

Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing [of] a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Wikipedia editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Wikipedia project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Wikipedia to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Wikipedia project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
2. WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Wikipedia", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?

• YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG^talk 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mojoworker, please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're totally misreprenting the section you're linking to, which was a general side note to a specific complaint about me not responding when pinged. The issue was quite simply not "mishandling" of the unblock request, though. Swarm ♠ 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
  In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it ([86], [87], among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ([104] [105] [106] (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
  The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ([118]).
  I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, holy cow, where to start? I asked you simply to add some evidence diffs to a warning you issued to substantiate your specious claim that I was justifying edit-warring because "I was right" about content -- no, worse, because I "think I am right" about content. What's that saying about "be careful what you ask for?" You've now posted a very intimidating 100+ diffs, so many diffs, in fact, that I would wager most people seeing them would simply blindly assume that whatever point(s) you are making must be well-substantiated just by virtue of the shear volume of blue links you've strung together. I wish to show that is not at all the case here. I do see where you have indeed managed to dig up just a couple legitimately problematic diffs, and while they don't establish your "persistent" or "ongoing problem" thesis, they do indicate I'm not a flawless editor, and they will get a response, too.

• "stop edit warring and editing against consensus"

Here you have collected a whopping 85 diffs, which all show me removing a problematic category (now deleted by community consensus) from 40+ articles, first because they were added wholly without reliable sources in violation of WP:CATVER. Then after the category was spammed back into the same 40+ articles, again without any reliable sourcing and under the pretext they "were under discussion" - I removed them again through a manual rollback after generously waiting until the discussion ended, as they were still in violation of our verification policy. So how do you justify calling these examples of edit warring against consensus? Grabbing some of your diffs at random, this 6th diff is edit warring how? Against what consensus, exactly, to keep that unsourced category in that article? How about this 68th diff, where I actually removed the cat three times over the span of a year, again because it totally lacked the required verification. What consensus was edit-warred against?

• "seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content"

Here you provide just 2 diffs, presumably the strongest you could find, and you claim there are "many, many more". Neither one shows me trying to justify edit-warring on the grounds I was "right" about the content. To the contrary, those diffs show me justifying my edits to Admin Fram and BrownHairedGirl as purely technical removals per WP:CAT, which requires: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I could not make a determination of whether the content was "right" or "wrong" because the required reliable sources upon which such a thing could be determined were completely absent from the article. Since you claim there are "many, many more" examples, could we dig into those please, and locate just one to support your claim?

• "sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations"

Here you provide 16 diffs of me replacing personal attacks accusing me of being a racist, block deleting, and canvassing, with the {{rpa}} template, as instructed by WP:RPA policy when the claims are completely devoid of substantiation. All of your examples are from the same now-banned editor, and same discussion, which was heavily discussed at AN/I. The result was the editor apologized for the "racism" personal attacks, the "canvassing" personal attacks were also indeed unsubstantiated. I believe our policy pages are the best indicator of what our "community expectations" are; do you agree? If not, the community would re-word them. We might disagree about severity of personal attacks, but I don't think there has been any disagreement that aspersions without evidence qualify. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you, me, and the community, are "in step" with regard to agreeing that your "warning" about my behavior should be substantiated with evidence --- you and I disagree, however, as to whether that evidence already exists somewhere in that discussion. Do I have that right?

• "what is a personal attack ... note the ridiculous double standard here"

Here you provide only 1 diff, this one. I assume you are talking about what appears to be me tagging a couple editor's signatures with the "canvassed" template, after I complained about another editor accusing me of canvassing? That looks like a double standard, I agree -- UNTIL you realize that I was just fixing my previous edits after I had inadvertently deleted those tags. They were actually added by a now-banned editor a few edits earlier here, and not by me.

• "removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!"

No, I didn't. I did, however, move an off-topic personal post between editors from a CfD Discussion to the appropriate editor's Talk page for further discussion and follow-up, as instructed by WP:TPO - (Off-topic posts).

• "editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most"

This accusation has some merit, but not as an ongoing problem, and not in any way intentional (i.e.; to make it appear that you ignored most of it). I don't intentionally edit other people's comments (with the exception of formatting for readability as explicitly allowed by WP:TPO, and removal of clearly personal attacks as explicitly allowed by WP:RPA). As you and another editor here have pointed out, when I add or expand a comment in a high-traffic discussion, with repeated edit-conflicts, and I resort to off-line editing followed by a copy&paste, I get that rare screw-up you pointed out. If you'll check, you'll see my edit to expand my comment came just minutes on the heels of your reply (and was initiated before your reply) -- it wasn't an attempt to sneak additional comments in without you knowing it. It is a rare occurrence, but one to which I definitely need a better solution.

• "he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right"

I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT. AND I WOULD NOT. That is some gall you have; did you just assume no one would check? To the contrary, here is what I actually said, quoted from your Talk page: At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. The whole reason I came to your Talk page was to try to clear up this very misunderstanding of yours, and now you have demonstrated that I have failed miserably in that endeavor. But okay, I'll bite: please quote my exact words here where you think I've argued that "the edit warring didn't matter because [I] was right".

Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to respond at any length here; I think we've both had our say & there is ample here for people to judge for themselves. What matters at this point is not Xenophrenic and I slugging it out but the community coming to some consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T'dog, I've been relying on the directions found at one of our core policy pages, aptly titled What Is A Personal Attack. To my knowledge, that is the broader community's view on how to identify a personal attack, is it not? Broadest, in fact. I realize that often when personal attacks are removed, somebody (or a group of somebodies) isn't going to like it - it's a bit confrontational. I've seen a few folks here rally around and declare "that's not a personal attack!", including you, but that seems to directly contradict our policy page. If you are saying I have it wrong, and the consensus among a limited group of objecting editors here actually represents the broader community view and supersedes our policy page, then you are correct that I have some learnin' to do. Do you think our NPA policy needs a rewrite or clarification to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future? I've asked for clarification of the policy in the thread just below this one, but an Admin rush-closed it before the question about identifying personal attacks was addressed.

• Oppose - Oppose Softlavender's proposal as it is based on the ludicrously bad-faith assumption that there is extreme "gameplaying" and no competence. Further, I've seen nothing but hyperbole from her, zero productive suggestions, and this & this - which I'm sure will spark the appropriate admonishment (ha). GoldenRing at least made an attempt to justify his call for sanctions, but he did so by dredging up a bunch of diffs from January to demonstrate edit-warring, personal attack removal and Talk page formatting. Perhaps he doesn't realize that I was already grilled and poked on all of that at the drama boards, and the majority of his EW diffs were already cited as part of a block rationale by Fram. I'm sure all the same diffs will be dredged up and mischaracterized yet again a few months from now, and squeezed to see if yet another sanction will pop out. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mojoworker, you nailed it (yeah, even the "irritating" part). Very much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, after that latest wall-of-text above. If Xenophrenic won't drop the stick, then the stick needs to be taken away until they agree to stop. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you haven't been paying attention, Carlton. I don't have the stick. I dropped the stick 5 days ago and walked away from this discussion, and returned expecting to find it archived. Instead, I find that GoldenRing has not only picked up the stick, but is trying to beat me over the head with it. My concise 8K byte "wall of text" reply is dwarfed by GoldenRing's 16K "great wall of endless diffs". And if that obsessive action isn't disconcerting enough, he's building script tools to facilitate such behavior. Apparently, it wasn't enough when GoldenRing said "I think I have my answers" regarding this AN/I. Now he has declared his new "wider" mission to see me indeffinitely blocked for all manner of alleged improper behavior backed by (__insert 100+ stale, unrelated, already-adjudicated and punished diffs here__). So I guess he has dragged me back into this mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This thread is predicated on a mess, and this is clearly still about that mess and not just the editing of the closing statement, as shown by the mass of diffs linked above. Xenophrenic saw a whole bunch of allegations thrown his way in the previous thread (some questionable, some exaggerated, some with some merit, some that needed more context, etc.). He was immediately blocked for those allegations, had all of his objections and unblock requests completely ignored for the duration of the block, and never received a response to his challenges to the accusations, as far as I know. This is all separate from GoldenRing, of course. I'm not trying to reopen the thread below this one; this is just to say that I can understand, in a powerless, frustrating situation, trying to at least address the insinuation in the close of the discussion in which he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. In other words, I think GR may be receiving a disproportionate amount of X's frustration because he is one of the few in a position to fix an aspect of this perceived injustice.

Xenophrenic, I think you're very unlikely to find satisfaction going down any of these paths, and will wind up simply preventing a scab from forming (or worse). I completely get feeling frustrated and/or hurt by the close (and think it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part, since though not quite a PA, it also wasn't a necessary part of the summary), but it was an acceptable close given the content. IMO the most positive outcome at this point would for all to drop it. You may have received a raw deal, but for better or worse, the community rarely expresses much of an interest in rehashing the past, unless in the context of the present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As someone who has conflicted with Xenophrenic several times, his behavior (irrespective of the particular position he advocates for) has been very unconstructive and quite deserving of discipline. As other editors have already pointed out, he has excessively edit warred, blatantly disregarded established consensus numerous times, and exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND personality. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well (also, see this), and it is persistent behavior, nothing new.[119][120] Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to !vote in this discussion, because I think that would run counter to effective participation. However, I do not think that Xenophrenic is incompetent. I do, however, think that he falls rather instinctively into a battleground mentality, replete with instances of refusing to drop the stick, and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions contrary to his own. It is my preference that editors with these problems be corralled and corrected rather than blocked. bd2412 T 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BD2412, CIR covers these behaviors, which are endlessly on display in these two threads, in WP:Competence_is_required#Social. Read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his actions. Call it WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:DE, whichever you like, he is clearly and deliberately wasting the community's time trying endlessly to derail or invalidate GR's thread here. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Manipulating a closer's comments (which do not look like personal attacks, but just a strict warning over edit warring) is simply unacceptable behavior. This does look like more disruptive and, even disturbing, behavior on Xenophrenic's part. My goodness, it seems that there is much difficulty on the part of Xenophrenic to accept any consensus or any decision by anyone that does not align with his view on any matter. The fact that other admins like User:BD2412 and User:Swarm recently raised an ANI over his conduct for similar reasons of disruptive and tendentious editing which included a block over the same type of "I am right and everyone else has to see it my way no matter what" battleground mentality [121], means that the behavior has not been self-corrected since the last block and ANI. The constant, and sometimes long, commenting by Xenophrenic still look like filibustering and are not really helpful since everyone knows his position - there is little reason to repeat or to constantly defend oneself since if the evidence is strong people will naturally agree with the defense on their own. (Not sure why Xenophrenic has self-voted "oppose" above when it is obvious that he opposes a block considering the long response to GoldenRing above - who started this ANI). When it comes to discussions, other people's opinions are what we are seeking - views from others in the community. We already know the views of the accusers and the accused (both have already exchanged comments) so let the jury discuss the matter as they see fit. Things like endlessly arguing over closures over categories, constant edit warring over article content, and even now manipulating closer comments on ANI's does look like a lack of self control when dealing with dissenting comments by editors.

All decisions on wikipedia are all imperfect since everyone is a volunteer but to contest every decision that one disagrees with with disruptive editing has consequences. Refusing to drop the stick so often is simply not good and in the end people will make their votes and decisions as they see fit - as imperfect as that is. If one thinks one is right, it does not mean that everyone else will see it that way (sometimes some will never be convinced no matter what), but one has to be able to drop the stick and move on without fighting so much. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the simple reason that whilst some of "Support" comments above are good faith, a number are still from editors who are on the opposite side of an editing issue with Xenophrenic and this is another attempt to have them removed. I am not a big fan of removing people in this way. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: There's no "removal" involved; the proposal states "Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks." The proposal is to stop Xenophrenic from deliberately wasting the community's time. His last block was for 2 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As we all know, though, CIR blocks are generally indefinite (anything else would be ridiculous, after all - practically no-one who is incompetent enough to receive one suddenly gains a clue after a couple of weeks). And that's my other issue here - Xenophrenic isn't incompetent. They may be a number of other things, but not that. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per the bludgeoning behaviors we're seeing at ANI and the apparent lack of good faith associated with this user's behavior. Part of CIR is the simple notion of not being more trouble to the community than you're worth, and these ANI timesinks are symptoms of this user being either unable or unwilling to understand that. This is certainly the inevitable result of Xenophrenic's recent behavior. If it doesn't happen now, it's going to soon if they don't change quickly. Swarm ♠ 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CIR block. I don't necessarily oppose a block for some preventative reason if there's a valid one, but not for CIR - this is not a competence issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and then rescaled ESB logo per their request at Ticket:2017100610009671. Please remove old revisions of the file. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we have automatic systems that take care of that. I've done one bit manually; the rest will be processed by bots in due course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will remember this tag for my future uploads. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Team, I was working with another admin to keep a page from being deleted. But have since had my thread removed by the admin. Can someone please help me resolve a page being deleted that I do not believe should have been. I am willing to put in the work necessary to make sure the page meets the standards required by Wikipedia. The page was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketer_(Building)Arachlow (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow[reply]

I completely agree with the deletion. The page was spam from the very first sentence onward. "The Marketer is four floors of forward thinking"? The building MIGHT be notable, but is needs to be rewritten from a completely neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing the underlying content, It's been deleted for unredeemable Advertising. It would require a fundamental rewrite. In the future you can try using Articles for Creation to start building the page so that you can get guidance as to how to improve the page prior to being in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I observe the prose that you, Arachlow have added is quite... flowery. Please review WP:COI and determine if you have something you'd like to declare regarding The Marketer (Building) and Empower MediaMarketing (the company that built the building as it's headquarters). Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making further observation that after the above was observed the user removed content they added earlier today to support the usage of the Marketer building. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) User has put a pseudo COI declaration on Empower MediaMarketing so I think that wraps this issue up. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς.' Of possible interest, now as much as the future. — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link amended to point to correct venue. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link still wasn't going to the right place so I amended it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone reading the straw poll to pay extra attention to the threaded discussion section. I have been moving threaded comments out of the Straw Poll and intro the Threaded Discussion in response to an editor who really, really likes to WP:BLUDGEON. If we allow him to insert replies into the straw poll section, that section will quickly become a huge mess with that one editor's comments taking up over 90% of the space. The downside is that there are some really astute comments that may be missed if the reader doesn't read the threaded comments section. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one? There are at least FOUR editors that you're refusing to talk to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please create this category? Could the creation of such categories be automated? Rathfelder (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, an older account was found, the cat is now at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bishal_Khan. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bengali username was real good!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly User talk:Devsharma Bajpai showed up on my radar this morning after an odd posting at the village pump. I don't speak hindi, related? Apparantly his usertalk is poetry.. I don't generally believe in coincidences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably, I fail to spot any coincidence.I have sufficient knowledge of both Bangla and Hindi and there apperars to be neither any account-name-similarity or contribution-similarity.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, perhaps you can find out what Devsharma wants then :D I will drop it in your lap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death:(edit conflict)Anyways, Bajpai looks to be the usual sub-continental editor, eagerly wilful to use WP in self-promotion.His t/p post would read:--Devasharma Bajpai from Seetapur, Uttar Pradesh, is the brightest doyen of Hindi literature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This has not solved my problem, which is existence of the red category attached to User:Nidhi Tumar which I am not allowed to create. Why can the template not create the category? Rathfelder (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Our software just doesn't work that way; only human edits (and edits by bots, which MediaWiki can't distinguish from edits by humans) are able to create anything. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined Draft:Template:Unblock procedural recently, mostly because we already have {{unblock}} and {{unblock reviewed}} (and {{Unblock request declined}} was deleted at TFD) and because I didn't see much of a reason to have another unblock template. However, just because I wouldn't use it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Bringing this up here since it's (clearly) an admin issue.

So I guess the question is - do we need a template that gives a "procedural close" of an unblock (i.e. a very specific instance of declining an unblock) as opposed to just declining using the standard decline template? Primefac (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big user of procedural closes. I often do so when a user is complaining about an IP block but does not include their IP address. I typically word it something like, "Procedural decline only. You did not include your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS." Note that WhatIsMyIP uses ads, so may not be the best choice. For the record, I have no idea who runs that service and am completely unrelated with them. Note also, I add the user's talk page to my watch list; people sometimes follow up just with their IP address rather than a new unblock request. So, anyway, yeah, I'd use a template like what I just outlined. How useful it'd be to others, I'm unsure. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest http://myip.dnsomatic.com/? Absolutely no ads there. —Wasell^(T) 19:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, like the idea of a procedural template. When someone makes multiple unblock requests and those requests get declined, it's routinely taken as a solid indication that we need to cut off talkpage access, or at least it's seen as a good indication that future requests should be taken with a grain of salt. For this reason, when running across an unblock request that's malformed, I generally don't decline it — I nowiki it (and give an explanation of course), lest a later admin think that it's an outright rejection. There's a big difference between This request doesn't deserve an unblock and There's a good reason why I shouldn't unblock you, but it's unrelated to the merits of your request (especially when there's a technical problem preventing unblock, e.g. Yamla's situation where we need to know an IP address that the user didn't provide the, or when user simply forgot to specify an unblock rationale); the former is a rejection based on the user and the latter a decline based on the situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, see the BlackAmerican discussion several sections below this one. Right now, this user's talk page has five unblock templates — three that were rejected and two that were declined on procedural grounds, basically because the user's gotten a checkuser block that mustn't be overturned merely by an admin coming along. When your request is declined because Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request, it would be nice if there were a template different from the one used to reject your request because You have been using this account to evade blocks on other accounts. The fact that you have got away with it for months does not make it acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I like the idea of a procedural close template too - I usually nowiki them too, and that's not entirely satisfactory. Maybe one with a "What you should do next" section? In many cases it should be obvious what to do next (like "procedural close because there's a new unblock request"), but with things like the BlackAmerican one, some guidance is needed - and, of course, what might seem obvious can be surprisingly not obvious at all to newcomers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because it is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

We hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this after another editor (Slashme) did so. Neither he nor I can find what he is talking about (I've searched the pages at Category:15th-century Russian people, but none seem to contain the hoax). Is there a way of searching contributions in general (i.e. not by a specific user), or some other way of finding these supposed hoaxes? Thought this should be posted here as the person has said he'll be adding more such hoaxes in the near future. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility, of course, is that the post itself is the hoax, since some of us would probably bend over backwards trying to figure out exactly what was posted by this guy. If it's a wasted effort, then their opening statement ("my hobby is fucking with Wikipedia") would be fruitful. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's a possibility, but if there's even the slightest chance it's real, it should probably be investigated. Hoaxes are not to be taken lightly. The post looks credible. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He wants to fuck with Wikipedia? Can we get him a job on the board, keep it in-house...? :p — fortunavelut luna 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also considered the possibility that it's a meta-hoax, and the details are clearly not trustworthy, but it's definitely credible enough to warrant investigation. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no cardinals until the 18th century in Russia (Cardinals is a notion from the Roman Catholic Church). If someone can run a search on Russian personalia before 1700 which contain the word "cardinal" I can take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Shein contains the words "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" - and also has this "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica" - wondering if this is it? AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit adding this was the only one ever made by an IP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @AusLondonder:, I removed the cardinal, he was clearly not in his place. Shein is actually an important figure in Russian history, and it is a pity that the article is based on the 1911 source. I will see whether I can find smth better.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same edit made by similar IP also in 2009; this time to a 16th century German religious figure. This sad little fucker calls this a hobby apparently. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "cardinal" is mentioned in this self-published book available on Amazon, apparently what that guy means about it being in a book. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some googling to see what turned up and after a lot of sleuthing found quite a few hits. This is in addition to the one in the Shein article.

• Removed by User:Andreas Philopater and was present from the time of its insertion in 2009 by 209.203.104.177, until today.
• Also removed by Andreas Philopater today. Inserted in 2009 by 63.173.58.164.
• Inserted by 64.129.196.204 and removed by DivermanAU in September this year.
• Found this one by 204.212.10.124 in 2009, but picked up in 2014 by Parvulus scholasticus
• And this one by 24.63.31.232 in 2008 and removed this April by 2a02:8084:20:b900:fdb0:a516:7555:fafe
• This edit by 24.127.231.98 in 2008, removed in 2015 by Concord.
• Added in 2012 by Iamthecheese44 and removedby 86.69.180.220 in 2015. In this case, I think it was because Iamthecheese44 read it in the Countess Ina Marie article, who was spouse to Prince Oskar, and thus matched the info up.

Just doing a Google search of "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" and "Wikipedia" shows that this hoax has extended to a number of other sites that use Wikipedia's articles. Also, they were using {{1911}} not {{1885}}, which was to throw us off the trail. --Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carrite: There are apparently "6 fresh edits". Perhaps there's something to be said to closing off Wikipedia to IPs. It would still be the encyclopedia anyone can edit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  They could have registered a throwaway account instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we need not only to ban IP editing but to implement some sort of significant hurdle for registration, such as solving a captcha and providing a confirmed email address. Instead for some reason WP romanticizes being The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Vandalize.™ Carrite (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to check the recent changes for the 6 fresh edits, but it only shows the last 500 edits, so we'll be lucky to see anything from more than about 10 minutes ago there. Is there any other way to find them? Adam9007 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted a mention of him on Polish Wikipedia. Is this the same? (add: another one on Italian Wikipedia) Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using PetScan to try to find these 6 edits, but have no idea where to begin looking. Adam9007 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an edit filter perhaps be useful to stop any new insertions? ansh666 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really impressed! Great work. --Slashme (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few mentions in other languages, which I've cleaned up or asked editors there to help with. --Slashme (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a tweak; I know, I'm being bold... Please see the talk page for my concerns and my reason for the tweak. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
This issue is about a rude subject, it is a genuine issue which I can't send to RfD due to page protection, not an attempt to stick rude words on WP:AN.
I have noticed an issue with a redirect Shit hole. Why does it point to the totally unrelated Asshole?.
The defintion is: according to the Oxford Dictionary Shithole - noun vulgar slang. An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place. ‘this place is a shithole, I hope you know that’.
It seems to have nothing to do with its current target. Dysklyver 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can post it at RfD on your behalf, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Shit hole in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there are 2 good ways to handle the tagging of such redirects: Either leave a notre on the RFD discussion (and a passing admin will fix the issue), or leave a {{editprotected}} request on its talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the latter is that redirects don't often have extant talk pages at all, so you'd have to create one, and thus we get into the same blacklisting problem. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an issue for blacklisted titles, not those which are either directly protected, or protected via cscade protection of a transclusing page. Most often, the protection is done directly. And there's always the opion of leaving a comment in the RFD discussion - this may end up delaying the earliest possible close by 24 hours, but many are closed late anyway. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked this range, based on the last two IP addresses at Super Mario Land. I cannot find a "damage calculator" for IPv6 addresses, so I'm dropping this here in case someone wants to tell me I blocked the entire SE USA or whatever. Ferret, you have run into this person too, and there's a ton more IPs (I suppose you can drop down the rabbit hole with this list). In other words, if these or others aren't included in the range I blocked and it needs to be expanded, go ahead and jump on in. I'm trying to learn this stuff. Oh, DoRD, I was trying to impress someone in the car the other day, editing from my phone, and guess what--ran into your rangeblock again. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yamaguchi, you too... Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This was my first run in with the user, noticed because they hit multiple articles on my watchlist. Once I saw they had four warnings already and how extensive, I blocked and started cleanup. (Thanks to all the others who helped revert). For anyone who hasn't looked yet, the IP edits the leads of articles and removes the usual article title formatting, Nihongo templates, etc. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The /67 on the end is better off being /64 (although in this case it did the job). Effectively, with IPv6 a /64 address is usually one editor. You only need to worry about blocking the entire USA when you get to /32 or below ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Black Kite beat me to it. Tweak your block to a /64 instead of /67 and you'll be sure to get everything that guy can access at the moment. Stick to blocking /64s and you'll be absolutely fine with collateral. You made a rangeblock! I'm so proud of you! :-) Katie^talk 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh thank you Katie! This means a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, what Katie and Black Kite said. Non-wireless broadband is almost always parceled out as a /64. And Drmies, that serves you right for trying to edit without logging in. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The "67" came out of this rangeblock tool...it's linked on Meta...hold on...this tool. Just saying. Thank you all for your help. I was surprised to find this was a fairly prolific vandal, doing his business over a few days. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a poor workman who blames his tools :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tool did its job correctly - it identified the smallest range containing 2 specific IPs. That a larger range should be blocked is not something the tool is designed for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I was blocked "until 2020" because the CenturyLink internet provider did not inform me that they had changed my IP address and I needed to restart my receiver to get onto the new line. This scary experience, and needless effort on all sides, could be avoided if those who are involved in blocking the line realize it may be only a changed IP on the provider's part: give the guilty editor an option of restarting his/her receiving box before panicking. (Your system interpreted the old address as something you don't allow: I forget the name for it since all evidence of this affair is at my old, inaccessible IP address.) Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, are you familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY? Basically, it sounds like you were reassigned to an address that either was subject to an autoblock (to prevent a blocked editor from editing while logged out) or that had formerly been an open proxy. If it's an open proxy, you're correct that we might want to add such a notice, but with autoblocks that would be a bad idea — we don't want you to get around the autoblock if you've already been blocked, so people who don't know how to get around it shouldn't be told. If my words remind you of any of the circumstances of the block, it would help if you mentioned it. Finally, please note that you can use {{unblock-auto}} if this situation ever happens again. This template should be linked in the block messages; if it's not currently, it's time to add it. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for going over this. No I'm not familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY and though I have an MS in math I keep wanting to write (and see) Wikipedia for Dummies pages! As to the {{unblock-auto}} I believe this is what it told me to save on my talk page, but I was unable to save anything there. Next, my understanding from the CenturyLink technician is that I was using a discarded address which got me in trouble, since I didn't know to restart the receiver and so connect to our new IP address (I just heard that we did go down to a cheaper CenturyLink package). If I understand you correctly, you don't want to tell editors to restart their receiver since this may educate them on how to evade a block. @Nyttend: Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to tell them that if it's an autoblock, i.e. they're using an IP address recently used by another account that's been blocked. However, it would be good to include such instructions (or a link to them) in the block message used by User:ProcseeBot; if you're using an IP that was identified as a proxy, either it's no longer a proxy (so it shouldn't be blocked anymore), or changing IPs will mean that you're no longer attempting to use a proxy. By the way, you're not the only one falling victim to blocking problems — while investigating your situation, I accidentally blocked myself and couldn't reverse the block without help :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a link from MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext to the unblock template. ProcseeBot's block rationale uses {{Blocked proxy}}, which gives unblock instructions quite clearly but doesn't address redoing your receiver. However, I don't myself understand how this is done, so I don't want to add any instructions there. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be out-of-date but I believe the software used to list the blocked editor when auto-blocking, I had a good attempt at trying to explain to the Foundation that this was a serious breach of privacy, that could be avoided or at least reduced, which is why I remember it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, it still does. When I autoblocked myself just now, I was logged in as Nyttend, but the autoblock message said Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked... Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here would like to "do the biz". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page (which is extensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(M) ). I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuser to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. As can be seen by the AN, there is bad blood on the part of TGS towards me. I have been blamed for a number of things including his own sockpuppeting. [133] where extensive proof by multiple and him being lectured about it [134] . I will not engage him or others and will stay away from situations that could cause me to be reblocked. I do ask that we be banned from interaction from each other or going into articles that the other edits at. People go to jail and after time they learn their lesson. Why is time treated differently as a punishment here? Not editing on wikipedia for 6 months has taught me that it is a gift to be here and I will not take it for granted.

In conclusion, I will abide by the terms of the standard offer and be a better editor. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick, Alex Shih, Ad Orientem, Blackmane, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Od Mishehu, Mendaliv, Dlohcierekim, and Dennis Brown: Just a ping to everyone who has commented so far to make sure they know this is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlackAmerican was given a Checkuser block by User:Ponyo in January, and requested a Standard Offer unblock in July. Ponyo said "I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way", but it's dragged on and the request was declined simply because no admin had addressed it.

There's a new request now at User talk:BlackAmerican#Standard Offer, and some resolution to it is needed. So, Community, do we support or oppose an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - In the strongest possible terms. If anyone needs a refresher, BlackAmerican is CrazyAces489 -- the same user who harassed me, wasted the community's time for months, and never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't). When CrazyAces created content, he never adhered to the advice of several experienced editors, deflecting it with the excuse "I create so others can contribute". I promised CA back in January I would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. Instead he avoided the issue and eventually went back to blaming others. He is a total timesink who I am convinced is just here to troll us one last time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheGracefulSlick: Do you have anything to say in response to CrazyAces489/BlackAmerican's accusations that you were multiply voting with socks to have articles deleted (for example, using User:ALongStay)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Boing! said Zebedee no disrespect but why? Where is the relevance? I admitted to my mistake, apologized to those affected, and I hope after a year removed from the incident that I have proven I am of value to the community. That, I believe, is the major difference between me and CA, and why I am still editing today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for clarity for others considering this, as it does seem like an issue of contention between you. Oh, and for the record, I'm staying neutral on the unblock question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: (edit conflict) I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving rope to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the competence/clue is simply not there. The current request is pretty much identical again to the previous request, despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to rewrite the request. Alex Shih^Talk 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad Orientem is this the type of person you want to give another chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah...no per Alex Shih. Blackmane (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No opinion on the merits or otherwise of the appeal. But can the Graceful Slick withdraw and strike their comment ("Strong oppose") above? I'm not sure it washes particularly well to !vote against someone for socking, etc, when one has done precisely the same thing for much the same reason; viz to win an argument. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 06:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be totally fair, GS has already explained a critical difference between herself and BA - namely, admitting one's own actions, taking responsibility for them, and apologizing to anyone affected. GS said that CA never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't), and that she would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak oppose (see below) per Alex Shih. An unblock under WP:SO is not something that is automatically earned based on the expiration of time. The requestor's statement of why a SO unblock should be granted, as well as any interaction with the reviewing administrator, are at least as important in considering whether to grant the SO unblock as is the passage of time. This is because it is usually the only way we have of measuring the requestor's current maturity and understanding that what he or she did to earn the block is not to be repeated. The burden is on the requestor to show that a SO unblock is merited, and I do not believe this editor has satisfied that burden. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a procedural note: I believe if this discussion closes as anything other than unblock, the indef converts to a formal community ban per WP:CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are correct as per Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community", and any future unblock request would need to be referred back to the community. And that is how I would close it if there is no consensus to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated my !vote to a weak oppose following the statement by BA above. It's fairly contrite and hits a lot of the points I mentioned earlier. To be sure, I'm fairly on the fence here, but the space wasted on discussing TGS's conduct keeps me from crossing over to support. People on Wikipedia aren't required to like one another, but we're expected to keep it professional. The "counteroffer" of an interaction ban doesn't move me either; had BA demonstrated the requisite maturity and understanding of why his past actions were unacceptable, I would honestly have thought an interaction ban to be unnecessary. And, of course, the focus on the passage of time is unhelpful. We don't want to know how long it's been since you were blocked; we want to know how you've grown in that time, either as a person or in terms of editing elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it. Sorry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• poor idea In reviewing the user talk pages, I see no indication now that user will not continue to edit problematically.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To add onto what User:Mendaliv said re: BA's "current maturity and understanding [...]," in December I inquired about the relationship to the previous accts here to which their response was to delete the question (plus quite a few other notices) and respond on my dynamic-IP talk page that "My old ex-roommate, took me to a edit-a-thon in Harlem. and showed me how to edit. That is the furthest of my relation." They show promise re: creating stubs, but their writing ability isn't quite there yet; nor is their integrity. Sorry. rgrds. --64.85.216.137 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No as the interests of Wikipedia are simply not served with this individual having access to writing. The history is such that I doubt an unblock will ever happen. Some people simply do not have the right temperament nor ability to work with others that is required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No Nothing on the user's talk page shows me that they are here to edit constructively. Alex Shih nails it right on the head. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted a slew of essays in user sandboxes, complete with GMU honor statements and essay-for-college headers. Has anyone else run across this before? Is there something I don't know but should? Is this a perennial issue and could you direct me to relevant discussion? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to ask over at the Education noticeboard if someone more involved with educational outreach has a point of contact with GMU to see if this is part of an actual course (and if so, if there's some way the educational outreach people can help the course instructor). — /Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would welcome input at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#George_Mason_University. — Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not interested in the "GMU Honor Code" - it cuts no ice here. If a page is a copyvio it gets zapped, honour code declaration or not. But these were not copyvios. I have zapped them as classic student-essay forks of existing articles. Let the teacher who suggested them, declare themselves here and be roundly criticised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, for anyone interested in participating/closing the discussion, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Propose to close/merge Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents to this noticeboard that could use some attention. Thank you for you time! Alex Shih^Talk 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey admins, is this a new standard: to set protection on repeatedly recreated spam pages to extended-confirmed, rather than sysop? Just wondering because I see it as an option, though I've continued using sysop but haven't been an admin all that long. If the protection is set to extended-confirmed, is the creating user expected to consult with the protecting admin prior to creating a page through the protection? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have exact parameters on what protection to use in such cases. I generally don't do it as I think that extendedconfirmed is being overused - although I don't perform that many protections period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title explains it all, really - the accounts are as follows:

• Chessnaught555
• Chesnaught55
• Chesnaught5555
• Chesnaught
• Ches0555
• Chespin555
• Chesnought555

The reason I would like these accounts blocked (indef and TPA please, so "hard block") is because I obviously no longer go by the name of Chesnaught555, thus making these accounts pointless. I do have doppelganger accounts based on the username "Patient Zero", which IIRC, I have gone by since May 2016, but please do not block these ones. Thank you in advance to whoever does this for me. Patient Zero^talk 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

If I am being harassed by a fellow Wikipedian, where do I report it? Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer, it would go to WP:ANI, generally. If this is the preamble to an actual request I'll shift it over there. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer, given that Nihlus seems to be simply giving you some good advice you don't want to hear, rather than actually harassing you, the place you go is probably nowhere, either that or perhaps away form the keyboard for a few minutes to grab a cup of tea and calm down a bit. GMG^talk 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Thanks. Will report him here shortly. @GreenMeansGo: Its not the thing that I don't want to hear him is the numerous warnings and their tone that irritates me. Imagine if your talkpage will be bombarded with contradicting information. One user says yes, you can welcome editors the other says no not in this way and then when you decide to try to warn vandals no you need to welcome them in some fashion. Get the point?--Biografer (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not being harassed. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Question has been asked and answered, no need to make a big deal out of it before we make a big deal out of it at ANI. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I predict this will go swimmingly for OP. GMG^talk 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arthur Rubin