Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 42 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 70 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 64 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

(Initiated 55 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 49 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 46 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 46 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]

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]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 48 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 20 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awareness#(Closed) Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology

(Initiated 1 day ago on 19 June 2024) An editor started an RfC confirmed to be improper by a third opinion. Please close the RfC as an improper RfC. Closetside (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed. @Closetside: I've done this unilaterally since I was the one who initiated it inappropriately. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 78 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 69 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 68 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 55 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 55 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 53 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 23 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]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Hi all. What is your opinion on whether it is inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion while there is an active merger discussion with multiple comments already on record? What would you do about such a situation? Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Resolve both. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine. AfD (CSD wouldn't be fine) isn't quickly moving and so long as the merge discussion is mentioned there, then it can incorporate it.

OTOH, any changes to the article(s) in Mainspace should wait until a discussion about them (Talk: or Afd) have concluded. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Andy. The AfD can work collaboratively with the merge. Not knowing the situation, is it feasible for the merged page to become a dab or redirect? If the issue involves editors who don't want their hard work deleted, is a "copy paste/credit the author" an option that might help settle it? Lots of variables. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Whle I agree with the above, I do think one has to consider if the AFD is POINTy too. For example if the merge has 20 -to-0 supports, to a point that SNOW is reasonable, and some user goes to AFD the topic and is clearly bitter about something, that's where I'd snow close the AFD. But that's only where SNOW would apply. If there's clear disagreement,then let both run as noted. --Masem (t) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's unlikely that there wouldn't be an argument for a redirect if a merge discussion is open; but if the nominator doesn't feel that redirect is appropriate I see no reason why an AfD wouldn't be acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you to all for your thoughts. We discussed one such situation and agreed to ask for the merge discussion to close, merge and preserve the edit histories, and then rigorously prune out all the garbage. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, please see WP:MAD if you're not already aware of it. If the merger happens, deletion is outright inappropriate unless the target gets deleted or one of a few appropriate workaround approaches is taken. If the page getting AFDd has an improper title, some of those workarounds will resolve that problem entirely. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've discovered this referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal - as the merge discussion had been open for OVER A YEAR and has significant objections, there's no reasonable argument the discussion should prevent an AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to resolve both

Basically, there are nothing much going on at Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Root analogue dental implant. I suggest to close the discussion by NOT deleting. Instead, I suggest replacing the Root analogue dental implant with #redirect[[Dental implant]]. That would be the best of both worlds. The merged Dental implant has improved readability. People who still want more RAI content can dig up the old versions. Moreover, I already created a page at Commons:Root analogue dental implant that links to Root analogue dental implant. If deleted, the commons-page might link to nothing. Tony85poon (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this discussion at ANI. Although this was a discretionary block by Swarm, there was consensus at the ANI thread to block.

I have copied over their request for unblock and the unblock discussion from their talk.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of User_talk:Rickyc123 was copied or moved into WP:AN on 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.[reply]

Unblock request

I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation.

Unblock discussion

Hello. What's different this time from last? What will you do instead?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123

Thanks. Awiting swarm-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I suppose this would need to go back to ANI as it was imposed at THIS discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If unblocked, I believe there must be a TBAN on article creation for 6 months of active editing without further problems.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock per WP:ROPE etc. I'm fine with a TBAN on article creation if desired. Hopefully lesson was learned. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have them explain how copying within Wikipedia works? Copyright blocks are CIR blocks, and we shouldn’t be unblocking per SO until they demonstrate they know what the rules are. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As one of the disputants in the days of weekly (if not daily) AN* threads regarding external communities demanding that en.WP be the full repository of KayFayBee, Fight stats, descriptions, etc because Wikipedia shows up so much in google searches over the need of the WP community for adhering to standards, I request from Rickyc123 a plan/explanation of how they intend to reconcile their purported desired editing (I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated.) with applicable standards (such as WP:MMANOT). Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have informed them of this question and have asked they respond on their talk page. I will be offline and unable to repost responses here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, based on this diff I must have to ask the question more plainly. What is the appropriate ballance between the needs of enthusiasts to have datum that are better serviced from external websites versus the need to keep wikipedia accurate? For example: Fighter XYZZY is in event YARRA. How soon after the conclusion of the fight would be appropriate for the typical case to update a fighter's stats be, expecially in light of WP:RS? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of second reply. I express Decline. The suggestion that updating stats as soon as the fight is over (especially in light of potential disqualifications) suggests that they don't understand the concepts correctly. Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See #Scan/check for unprotected high risk modules? for the latest incident. High-risk templates and modules are huge attack vector for vandalism. To mitigate this, we often procedurally protect such pages, but this usually only happens after the damage has been done. There are some resources out there to identify such high-risk pages so that we can preemptively protect them, but this still requires that admins regularly review them. At any given moment, a low-risk template could get transcluded on a high-risk template, and then it inherently is high-risk, too. Days, weeks, even months go by before someone notices. Meanwhile, we have vandals that specifically target these high-risk pages. Occasionally, myself and a few other admins will do a check for unprotected templates/modules and mass-protect them. As far as I know this practice has been well-received (see this October 2017 discussion).

I think it's time we automate this process. I propose we create a bot (User:MusikBot II would happily oblige) that will automatically protect these pages to keep this attack vector sealed. You just shouldn't be able to vandalize thousands of pages with a single edit.

The bot will need to be configurable. Some templates may have many transclusions, but unconfirmed users regularly edit them constructively, and the pages that templates are on have very few pageviews. In this case protection may not make sense.

I propose a JSON configuration page (similar to User:MusikBot/PermClerk/config) that has the following options:

• Template-protection threshold -- this is the number of transclusions at which a page should be template-protected. My instinct is to set this at around 10,000.
• Extended-confirmed threshold -- I'd suggest 1,000.
• Semi-protection threshold -- I'd suggest 500.
• Excluded pages -- raw list of pages that the bot should ignore.
• Any other things...?

We can add a full-protection threshold too, if it makes sense to do so.

Of course, the number of transclusions a template has can increase over time. So a template that's only semi-protected may later be better off template-protected. Would it make sense to have the bot go through all templates and modules, and change protection levels according to the configured thresholds? I suspect this might be pretty expensive to do, so I can't promise this functionality will be added, but it's worth a try. Similarly, the bot could lower protection levels based on the transclusion count, too.

From my initial tests, the necessary SQL queries are fairly fast, so I think the bot could run daily.

Does this sound like a good idea? Are there any edge cases that am overlooking? Is there any other functionality or configuration that'd you like to have?

It's a delicate balance -- preventing mass disruption, and only protecting pages when necessary. I know this proposal is probably going to be controversial, but I also know many of you share my concern that our current, manual system is insufficient. Hopefully we can find a compromise.

Thanks for your feedback! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, Any idea approximately how many protections we're looking at in a first run, using the numbers you mention above? SQL^{Query me!} 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Zero! I did a manual run today. More at #Scan/check for unprotected high risk modules?. The last time I did this was about a month ago. Since then, there were about 200 templates/modules that had qualified for protection under my criteria (which we will debate here :). At least two modules had more than 100,000 transclusions but weren't even semi-protected! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, Ah, that's not a ton then. I was thinking that if there was a lot of them, it might make more sense to write a mediawiki extension. Sounds like if we kept up on it regularly, it might only be a dozen or so a day tops.

What about unprotecting / downgrading protection as templates pass into lower brackets? Say, as a template passes below 90% of the bracket (e.g. template only has 449 transclusions, bot unprotects). Might be a lot more work than it's worth however. SQL^{Query me!} 23:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – We've had security through obscurity in this area of Wikipedia for a long time now, but it's high time we close that up. Every so often, an account gets compromised and vandalizes some article. At the risk of violating WP:BEANS... the fact of the matter is that the mainspace is an incredibly naive target for vandals. Templates are where it's at. A vandal editing an unprotected template has the potential to propagate their edits across thousands upon thousands of pages at the click of one button, and due to caching, our readers may see the bad edits even after the edits are reverted (most of you have probably had to use the WP:PURGE function to update a page at some point in your wiki-careers). In my view, this kind of bot is long overdue. Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MusikAnimal: may need some anti wheel-warring protections in your code. Examples: Never lower the existing protection level, don't change the protection level if it has been configured in the last X days maybe? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. This can definitely be done, and we can make that X configurable too! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Exact details can be discussed, but the modules hit last night, at least 4 of them had over 750K tranclusions each and were hit by an IP hopper on multiple ranges. Where to cut off, whether it should include SP, EC, or just go straight to TE, I'm not particularly concerned about, as long as we get some automation in place to get the really dangerous ones covered. Agree with Xaos that the automation should not downgrade existing protection levels. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute support pending details; I suggested this a while back. ansh666 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Perfect and thanks MusikAnimal for taking this on, and for the thoughtful write-up. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that the extended confirmed protection proposed here is compliant with the protection policy which says that EC protection may not be applied pre-emptively. And I am not going to endorse any exception to this, EC protection is one of these things that were originally meant to serve a narrow purpose but now seems to spill out unchecked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal was Template-protection (TP) if 10,000 transclusions, Extended-confirmed (EC) if 1,000, Semi-protection (SP) if 500. Any thoughts about a proposal if EC is omitted? It would be very undesirable to allow four-day old accounts to edit any template or module with up to 9,999 transclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While it may go against the word of protection policy, that's why IAR exists. Semi-protection is easily gamed, Template protection is very prohibitive, so there's clearly space for ECP here. Generally with articles, no protection should be preemptive, but high risk templates are a completely different issue. The consideration of giving experienced editors priority over less experienced editors? Desirable in this instance, and TP would be more restrictive. We have a tool here that can protect medium-risk templates. We may as well use it. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but I think we need more than that to IAR on the protection policy given that it's not actually clear if ECP would help here relative to no protection or other kinds of protection. Especially if it encourages more overuse of ECP, which was never invented to be a general feature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think WP:5P5 wins here... where the "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". ECP began as a ArbCom enforcement thing, then later it was expanded to be for when semi-protection has proven ineffective. Today in practice it seems to be used like any other form of protection, entirely up to the admin's judgement. Save that debate for another discussion, though :) For the purposes of the bot, the option to use ECP will be there, but if the community doesn't want to use it they can just set the threshold to null in the config. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ​​There was an RfC in 2016 that specifically rejected using preemptive ECP on high-risk templates. I believe the community has an issue defining high-risk template, and not having clearer lines complicates discussions like that RfC, where a lot of the opposition noted that TE protection was a viable alternative. I disagree with that premise: while I likewise dislike (broadening the use of) ECP, the fact remains that it fills a large gap. If we don't utilize ECP protection in this scheme, we will jump straight from semi protection to TE-protection, where the former is a trifle to obtain and the latter one of the more serious and trusted permissions available. In that scenario, many templates will be out of bounds for anyone not a template editor, which I think will likely lower the threshold for obtaining the TE userright. That in turn will likewise reduce the high-end value of TE-protection, where full protection will probably be substituted at a far lower level than it might be currently (noting that there is already disagreement on where that beings). In short, I think ECP is useful specifically in the template realm to bridge the gap between autoconfirmed and templateeditor and maintain the value and trust the community places in template editors. Not using ECP on risky templates will likely degrade the value of TE protection. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I guess here we're talking more about "medium-risk" templates. I'll note the vandals have worked their way to autoconfirmed to vandalize templates before... kind of hard to not preemptively protect without going the more serious route of using template-protection. I'll also reiterate that I won't own the bot configuration nor would I need to be consulted before changing it. Since there are some reservations about ECP, to start with we can just leave it out, but it will still be available as an option should we change our mind. That said, without ECP I'm going to have recommend the template-protection threshold be lower, maybe 5,000 transclusions? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly why I think ECP should be utilized here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh great. I read you as being on the other side of the debate. I see now I actually was in the oppose column on that RfC! Though, I did suggest ECP was okay if it made sense to use it (basically meaning medium-risk templates). Anyway, it seems using ECP preemptively in this case is probably going to need a formal RfC. If individual admins do it, fine (I think it's fine), but a bot probably shouldn't directly go against consensus :) I'm going to give this discussion another day or two then summarize what everyone has said and get a final OK on the implementation details. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amorymeltzer and MusikAnimal:, reading that discussion, it looks like the standards for Template Editor have been somewhat raised. In that RfC, people were saying that it's essentially equivalent to ECP, but you have to show some interest in templates first. That's definitely no longer the case - higher edit requirements, and the move to drop a large number of templates from full protection to template protection (most notably {{Infobox}}) makes template editor these days a far more sensitive permission. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I also think ECP serves a useful purpose here; it's about how much we trust a user, and that generally correlates with how much trustworthiness they've shown. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think EC has anything to do with the trustworthiness a user has shown. It's automatically given based on being around for a relatively short amount of time and making a certain number of edits. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, number-of-edits-without-being-indeffed is commonly used as a (rough) proxy for amount-that-we-trust-you-not-to-cause-trouble. What else is the purpose of autoconfirmed and extended-confirmed protection? GoldenRing (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not very concerned with the number of transclusions, but the general idea is a good one. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• support indeed Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but that should be understood to refer to article text, not to the machinery behind the curtain. Heavily transcluded templates and modules frankly shouldn't even be edited by regular editors until they develop a facility for working in those spaces. bd2412 T 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great idea. GiantSnowman 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support including the provision for ECP. SD0001 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I see no reason to not automate protection of templates and modules. —DoRD (talk)​ 19:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support & thank you for monitoring. In a module, are frame:expandTemplate calls also included in the called template's transclusion count? If so, great. If not, can the bot be made to include this during its calculation step?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tom.Reding: That's a question for one of the Lua magicians... I'm going to pick on RexxS again. Perhaps you know? :) Transclusions are recorded in the mw:Manual:templatelinks table, and this is what I've been going off of. We could do a quick test by using the expandTemplate syntax in a test module, and see if the count for the relevant template goes up using toolforge:templatecount. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's likely that frame:expandTemplate adds to the template's transclusion count because Module:Television episode short description calls {{short description}} and previewing an edit at, for example, Marty (teleplay) shows the template as being used despite it not appearing in the wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tom.Reding, MusikAnimal, and Johnuniq: Yes, I'm certain that calling frame:expandTemplate in a module adds to the transclusion count for that template. I just made a test call in User:RexxS/sandbox/templatetest to a module that expands {{cslist}} (which is quite new so has few transclusions). You can see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cslist now has my test sandbox page in its list, and marked as a transclusion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with modification The freshhold for template protection should be lower in my opinion (5000 perhaps), and I don't think we should automatically ECP protect templates. (That level is normally only used in rare cases when the main contributor of a very high-risk template is not a template editor). Vandalism is not the only reason why templates are protected, good-faith mistakes by inexperienced editors can do just as much damage as intentional vandalism. funplussmart (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per all the above--NØ 18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original 500/1000/10k - I think this one balances the mix of problems that come from deliberate issues and accidental issues. Additionally, if we lower TE too low, then it becomes quite hard for anyone new to start the process of template experience Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 500/1000/10k, although I personally think that 1000 transclusions is an extremely high threshold for ECP already. 100/1000/10k is another scheme I would get behind, or my personal favorite would be 50/500/5000. Regarding attaining requirements for TE, most of the recent failed PERM requests I've seen recently have failed not because of a lack of template space edits, but rather a lack of sandbox edits and edit requests. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support including the ECP (we may need to change the policy if necessary). A couple of things to consider: should we restrict the transclusion counts to certain namespaces? Some templates have high transclusion counts as a result of being used on talk pages which have very low visibility and aren't likely to be worth protecting. It may also be worth looking at how we unprotect these templates when the transclusion counts fall. I've had a few people approach me over the years asking me to unprotect a template I protected a long time ago because the transclusion count has fallen so much that it's not worth protecting any more. Hut 8.5 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hut 8.5: We can restrict by namespace, but I don't think we've been doing it this way thus far. I wouldn't want to outright exclude talk namespaces; for instance {{re}}, which was vandalized in October 2017. For now, I think any exclusions should be handled on a case-by-case basis, simply adding them to the bot configuration (editable by admins) so that they are ignored.

  I mentioned in my proposal about automatically lowering protection levels, but a few others in this thread seem to oppose this. It would certainly be easier and more efficient for the bot to focus just on unprotected templates/modules, so I'm hoping this will be sufficient for our first iteration. — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with explicit exclusion to anything at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which includes the noedit flag, each with the precise scope and protection level set by other flags. Additionally, maintain an admin-editable page of exclusions; there may be a legitimate reason to not protect some template which meets the technical criteria for this list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Template and module vandalism can be a major problem, especially if they have hundreds of thousands of transclusions like these did. We can't rely on humans to make sure that at every minute every single high-risk template or module is protected. This proposal a sensible idea and I can't think of any major issues it would cause.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concept. Details of threshholds can be adjusted later if necessary. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposal for initial implementation

Thanks for the feedback and the unwavering support! I'm going to attempt to summarize everything into a final proposal for the first iteration of the bot:

See User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector for the documentation of available functionality. The configuration page itself will live at User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector/config, editable only by interface administrators (as is the case with any JSON page in the user namespace).

• The thresholds option specifies what protection level should be applied for what transclusion count. For now, the proposed configuration is 500 transclusions for semi-protection (autoconfirmed), and 5000 for template protection. extendedconfirmed and sysop are available as options but for now will be left null (unused). Several people supported the idea of using EC protection, specifically, but there is a 2006 RfC that explicitly disallows this practice. A new RfC should be started if we want the bot to use EC protection. Until then, we'll apply template-protection after 5000 transclusions instead of ECP, since semi-protection would otherwise be too lax.
• The exclusions option is a list of pages that the bot will ignore entirely. The keys are the full page titles (including namespace), and the values are an optional space to leave a comment summarizing why the page was excluded. It being JSON, such comments show up as raw wikitext. Not ideal but this is the best idea I had for a log that could easily be referenced.

  At a later time, and if we feel it would be beneficial, we could add more features such as supporting regular expressions.

• The ignore_offset option specifies the number of days the bot should wait after a previous protection change (by another admin) before taking further action. We didn't discuss an exact duration, but barring opposition I will go with 7 days. It's important that the bot be able to intervene after some time, as at any given moment the transclusion count could jump from a few hundred to a few thousand. If the protection needs to remain at a specific level, the page should be added to the exclusions.
• The bot will not lower the protection level. I'd like to implement this functionality at some point -- keeping the protection levels of all templates/modules in line with our "thresholds" configuration -- but I don't think it is necessary short-term. Let's start a follow-up proposal for this. It may affect a significant amount of pages on the first run.
• The bot will ignore any page specified at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which includes the noedit flag. This is easy thanks to the action=titleblacklist API.

I think the thresholds in particular could use more discussion (ECP and sysop), but I'd like to move forward with an acceptable configuration. The community can change the thresholds later as consensus changes.

Does that sound like a plan? — MusikAnimal ^talk 09:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: (Non-administrator comment) actually, any administrator can also edit a json page in the user namespace (search for edituserjson in Special:ListGroupRights). Just an FYI, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Thanks for point this out — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: For json pages like that, a good place to place the page directions is in an edit notice for the page (since json doesn't like comment code). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a long overdue. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The 2019 steward elections are currently in the nomination phase, with a day left before nominations close. We don't have many candidates so far. If you're interested, have experience working on multiple wikis, or have experience with advanced permissions here (preferably CU/OS but not a rule) then please consider helping out. Some general information on what stewards are and what they do can be found at the Meta page. I'm also happy to answer any questions relating to the election or the role. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user contacted me by email asking if there is a way for me or other admins to prevent a situation where the Wikimedia software is autofilling a dialog box with personal attacks. The situation occurs when a harasser creates a new username that directly attacks an existing user. On pages such as Special:Contributions when you start typing a username into the user dialog box, it automatically makes suggestions. So if there is a User:Example and someone creates a user "User:Example sucks!", then the Wikimedia software will helpfully suggest "Example sucks!" whenever you start to type "Example" into a dialog box. If that's not clear, here is what it looks like for my username: example. Is there a way this can be prevented or remedied? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar181, oversighters can hide usernames from dropdowns and stewards can do that globally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will suggest that they email Wikipedia:Oversight. To me, this seems like something that ideally administrators should be able to address though.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since usernames are global now (i.e. unified across all Wikimedia projects), if you see an attack username, my understanding is that you should request a global hideuser, which only stewards can do. This can be requested at three places:

• On-wiki at meta:SRG
• On IRC at #wikimedia-stewards ^connect
• By email to stewardswikimedia.org

Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgar181: Coincidentally, I've just had experience of getting a blocked, but nevertheless visible and very offensive username removed which had been visible for 4 years. I only discovered it when it, too, was offered to me as an autofill option for Cullen328, who is an administrator himself. (I think he'd forgotten all about its existence.) It was a very simple job to email the oversight team at WP:OS, pointing out that account removal fell within bullet point 4 of their oversight policy. The account was removed (or hidden) the very next day, and I was encouraged to report to them any other harassment account names I might find. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Nick Moyes, for helping to remove that little bit of ugliness. I knew about that nasty troll account four years ago but forgot about it when it was blocked. Honestly, it never occurred to me that it would show up in searches for my account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting topic ban for User:Merphee regarding edits on The Australian

It's been a few days and we haven't had an administrator to deal with the intractable issue of a persistent editor making constantly disruptive edits. Prompt attention would be greatly appreciated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now two administrators have commented. I don't think it's what you were after, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing What we need is for the topic ban to be established. Is there no intention of this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: That is up to the community. Bans are not placed by administrators but by consensus (well, assuming no discretionary sanctions are relevant, which here they aren't). If you think a topic ban is necessary, you need to build community consensus for it. I see no consensus for such a ban at this point, in fact no support for it outside those on one side of the dispute, so no, it seems unlikely that one will be enacted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? closes in a couple of days.

Besides being hotly debated, this particular RfC has several claims about policy that the closer needs to sort out.

There is also the demonstrable fact that the first RfC was interpreted differently by different editors, so the closing comments of this one need to be super clear as to what was and was not decided. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like three closers could be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading that with an eye to closing it but realised I actually had an opinion so !voted. Given the huge amount of discussion, high proportion of !votes that are not straight yes or no answers, the previous RfC and the contentiousness of the topic area I think three closers and a detailed closing rationale would be beneficial here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would like to say how impressed I am with the quality of the admin closes I have seen. Even when the RfC doesn't go the way I wanted it to go (That will change when you finally see the light and elect me King of Wikipedia[22]), the closes do a great job of summarizing the consensus and pointing out (and carefully explaining!) any relevant policies. So thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the RfC, a quick count shows 24 supports to 40 opposes. I'd personally be closing this as a no, especially since there's not one side making policy based arguments while the other doesn't, although I can see another no consensus result being plausible. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't quite that simple. The closers need to evaluate the !votes in the light of our existing COI policy. It could be that a bunch of the !votes propose being stricter or more lenient than the policy allows. A lot of the support votes are from editors who deal with fringe topics a lot. Could it be that they are being stricter than the policy allows? Some of the oppose votes are from editors who are working acupuncturists who stand to lose income if Wikipedia continues to say that acupuncture doesn't work. Some unknown amount of others may be !voting on the basis that they believe that acupuncture does work for them no matter what the sources say. And a no consensus result would need clarification: Some editors cite the previous no consensus as supporting the notion that it is fine for a working acupuncturist to edit the acupuncture page in a way that puts acupuncture in a more favorable light. Other editors cite the previous no consensus as supporting the notion that a working acupuncturist shouldn't be editing the acupuncture page at all. Editors on both sides have presented detailed, policy-based arguments. In such a case the closer shouldn't just throw up his hands, ignore those arguments and go with the raw vote count. He should evaluate the policy-based arguments on both sides. And of course the decisions would also relate to questions about tobacco scientists editing our article on smoking, editors who work for Monsanto or for legal firms suing Monsanto editing our article on Roundup, and various other groups who have an obvious financial interest in what Wikipedia says.

All of this makes me think that not only should there be multiple closers, but that they should do a "closed pending result" close at the end of the 30 days, discuss it among themselves as long as needed, and then add a well-though-out closing statement that they all agree on. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that several of the points Guy makes in that comment regarding acupuncturists are disputed by others in the RfC discussion, and regardless of that are a far from neutral presentation of the arguments. This is very much not the place to rehash the arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need three closers. It's not that big an RFC, and overcomplicating the closure process is not required. One is plenty. The close is clearly a "no", and if I wasn't on a hiatus from closing high-profile discussions I'd do it. Fish+Karate 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fish and Karate that one closer would probably be enough. (I can't close it, because I participated in it.)

I second Guy's and Thryduulf's request for an explanation of the result, whatever it is. Editors do sometimes exaggerate RFC results, so that "no consensus in this discussion" stretches into "no", which gets understood as "permanently prohibited in all instances, without appeal", or that "no" means "no restrictions whatsoever", or whatever suits the editor's interpretation. A little judicious application of WP:BRADSPEAK here might save a lot of time later.

Finally, I want to say how much I admire Thryduulf's first comment above. It's important for trusted editors to not engage in supervoting, but it's also important for us to do that transparently. Just posting that you decided not to close it because you discovered that you had an opinion helps everyone else know how important those standards are to you. Thank you for that. You made the project a better place, and I hope that we all will be inspired to follow your example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a non-admin who voted in the RfC, I just wanted to point out the need for an explanation of what the close means, because heated arguments over the meaning of a previous RfC[23] have continued[24]. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forming a panel

Given that no-one has put their hand up to do this on their own, I'd like to form a panel. I've already suggested to wording to Ymblanter who has agreed to be on a panel (though not to my wording as yet) so we're looking for a third volunteer. (And Ymblanter, it would be good if you could confirm here on-wiki that you're willing.)

To be clear, I don't feel that this RfC needs a panel to close it because it's difficult but because passions are running high and it will help editors to accept the outcome. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I confirm this. Whereas the RfC probably can be closed by one admin, it is safer to have a three-admin closure to reduce post-closure opposition. I did not yet look at this RfC in any detail and do not have an opinion on it except for that it is contentious.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to contribute/rubber-stamp/provide half-time orange slices. Fish+Karate 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: Admins get orange slices for their RfC work? I knew there were perks for the role! Nosebagbear (talk)

Hello Wikipedia-Community, my name is Robert Wintermeyer and I am currently conducting surveys in various social media platforms as part of my master's thesis. The focus is on the community guidelines of the respective social platform and the acceptance by its users. Of course, the data provided will not be passed on to anybody and will only be used for the master's thesis. All responses are confidential. I would start my survey by asking users for their participation by posting on their talk pages with information similar to the suggested text in the Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia article. I also provided further information on my user page. I would be thankful for any feedback on how I may conduct my research or if my suggested approach would be okay.
Thank you very much for your time!
Kind regards,
Robert Wintermeyer--Rwinterm (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwinterm: I think you are, unfortunately, under a misapprehension; Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, and not social media. (This thread will probably be moved or removed soon, for much the same reason.) ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the distinction, SerialNumber, whatever Wikipedia is or isn't, it is most certainly a medium with an integral social component. So while you are idiomatically correct, if one is being literal, it's certainly a fit. However Mr. Wintermeyer wishes to define things for his research is obviously his business! Though I might suggest that this is probably the wrong board for this. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also is an integral part of the social media platforms I want to research Serial Number. I just wanted to approach the community before I start my research. So far I discovered that each Wiki has its own way of dealing with research. Therefore, I wanted to ask before I just go ahead. Like I mentioned I already read the articles about research and just wanted to ask if it's okay before I start. And thank you Dumuzid! --Rwinterm (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rwinterm is here following discussions at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis and Cunard's talk page. By Wikipedia he means the Wikipedia community. He is proposing to ask selected editors, by way of a message at their talk page, to fill out an online questionnaire (see the link at his user page). He is also doing this at the German Wikipedia with a different questionnaire since practices at the two Wikipedias vary in interesting ways. I believe he wants to make sure that this will be acceptable here. I don't see that there is a problem with him doing this. I am not clear how well the study is structured, but that is an issue between him and his faculty advisor. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAB would suggest that this be done at Village Pump. Perhaps the Ethical Guide should include that information from the policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped a short block on this IP, but I see in the log that in the past it's been blocked as a proxy. Can one of you maybe look into that, and/or into the range? And I know we have an LTA who makes a-holish vandal edits like this, with some harassment thrown in (I'm about to revdel it)--and maybe you know which one this is, and whether there is something you can do. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not where I can look closely, but the IP is certainly a proxy, so I've extended the block. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the LTA is MRY. Don't hold your breath but there's probably a filter around here somewhere. It's not going to be totally effective however, so semi-protection should be considered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that one. I have a hard time telling them apart, it's all so nonsensical. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I've copypasted the request over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following an SPI report, I blocked My Lord (talk · contribs) on July 18, 2018 for abusive use of sockpuppet accounts IndianEditor (talk · contribs), Iamgod12345 (talk · contribs), GhostProducer (talk · contribs), and CEO of Universe (talk · contribs). After initial denials, My Lord admitted to operating the account(s), and while there could have been valid real-life identity concerns (which I won't spell out) for starting the first alternate account those wouldn't explain away the multiple socks and how they were used.

Subsequent to the block, based on behavioral evidence, suspicions were raised that My Lord was also behind the Adding The Truth (talk · contribs) account. My Lord has denied the linkage and admin opinions on the strength of the bahavioral evidence has differed.

On the plus side: afaik My Lord has not socked during the duration of their block and their past editing has shown that they are at least capable of making useful contributions to the project. In light of all this, and as I had suggested at the time the current block was placed, My Lord has requested an unblock as per the standard offer.

My recommendation: I am inclined to grant a conditional unblock, with the user, however, being topic banned from "India-Pakistan conflict" related articles, discussions etc. Please see the discussion at the user's talkpage for reasons why such a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA may be helpful and justified; if this is the path taken then the continued need for the topic-ban itself can be re-evaluated after, say, six months.

I invite other admins and the community to chime in on whether they think a continued block, conditional unblock or an unconditional unblock would be the best course forward here. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would feel fine with conditional unblock if there is no check user evidence of socking by My Lord or Adding The Truth. Though the connection is behavioral only, there should be caution before unblocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost forgot I would also need to know the user is not using proxies, unless there is a valid reason to do so.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CU said "inconclusive" and behavioral evidence was too flimsy. It was not long after the SPI that the filing editor was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE for engaging in this proxy editing[26] and he himself claims that his account was being used by someone else with his permission.[27] Another SPI was also filed by a proxy editor, who was later topic banned for it.[28] What if these circumstances were revealed before? No one would be blocking Adding The Truth and My Lord. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironic The sock detector was proven to have used sock puppets leading to their block. Leaving aside Adding The Truth. They admitted to socking. However, that was then; this is now. If they have abided by the terms of their standard offer then they can be unblocked. And so far, I see no indication they have not.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to support (changed opinion, see comment below Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)) unblocking, and note that I'm the admin that made the call in the Adding The Truth case (I did not have checkuser access at the time) and have been challenged on that call extensively. The relevant consideration for SO is that there is no evidence of socking in the last six months, and my opinion as someone who's looked at this case very extensively is that there is not. As I said on My Lord's talk page I will not check this account myself owing to past administrative disagreements, but I have assurances from another checkuser that there's nothing to report. I did not ask about proxies, though. We had some back-and-forth on the talk page already, it might be relevant reading for anyone considering the request. I cannot support this unconditionally: My Lord has stated they intend to dive in to active editorial conflicts, and at first I offered advice that they should not, but the appearance of other familiar names from those conflicts makes me think that unblocking without a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict is just going to be asking for trouble. tl;dr: yes to unblock, but only with conditions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A few minutes after starting this section, Abecedare unblocked My Lord with a rationale of unblock so user can participate in AN discussion on standard offer unblock request. Clearly this has not been abused so far, since My Lord last edited yesterday. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unconditional unblock as a no-brainer. My Lord is known for catching some of the most disruptive sockmasters in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts,[29][30][31] all of whom are now sitebanned, and for bringing great quality to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus,[32][33] Kargil War,[34] Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts,[35] and many other articles. Having him blocked over a block evasion in 2017 (from which he had already learned) is punitive and unusual in nature since SPIs frequently get rejected for "not showing recent abuse". CU never confirmed any recent socking by My Lord since the time he was blocked. My Lord's adherence to the terms of WP:SO, something that most editors fails to do, further strengthens my comments. Orientls (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock and keeping unblocked as is. Given the lack of any evidence of problematic editing, I am mentioning that SPIs were filed by socks and meat puppets who were sanctioned for it very soon,[36][37] and to keep My Lord blocked or sanctioned any longer under flimsy causes would only entertain the disruptive block-shopping behavior and discourage productive editing. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional unblock, per Ivanvector, Abecedare, and Huon at User Talk:My Lord. I don't want to rehash everything that others have said on that talk page; suffice to say that I would prefer to see My Lord demonstrate an ability to edit constructively and collaboratively outside of this highly contentious area before diving back into the same conflicts that precipitated their previous socking. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock: User:MyLord was blocked for a six-month period for sockpuppetry, which in my opinion, is enough of a censure for that offense. He has created geography and religion-related articles on Wikipedia, such as Zeashta Devi Shrine and Point 5240, which have been helpful to the project. As such, his request to be reinstated as a productive editor should be honoured. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional unblock - yes, the behavioural problems that led to the block of My Lord's sock account(s) were displayed quite some time ago. However, they have never been addressed, and by focusing solely on the sockpuppetry issue (or the lack of a recent such issue) My Lord is avoiding to address them now while indicating that he wants to return to just the same topic area. Huon (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only with indefinite TBAN I'm undecided whether the TBAN should be from IP-conflict or all IPA topics. The ban should be indefinite with an appeal to AE or AN after six months on a showing of constructive editing elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock Technically, the issue of sock puppetry was resolved much before since he had been only using his main account for a long time. I don't see any sense "topic ban" or any demands since no one is producing any diffs to justify this unwarranted sanction, though the evidence for opposite significantly exists. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock. There is always a chance to go awry and go nuts in wiki for some time, I presume there should be a chance given to come back to normalcy, (return to civility) if the user has shown these signs why not unblock him unconditionally ?. --Shrikanthv (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional unblock only. Let us see if My Lord can edit productively in other areas before letting them back into the area that caused the issue in the first place. I note that pretty much every editor above asking for an unconditional unblock is a user in the IPA area, which isn't a good sign. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock for the exact same reason Black Kite opposes it above. If ML is going to go back to doing what got him blocked (which would be very stupid given the number of editor who will be watching), it is best that we find out right away. Anyone who thinks that WP:STANDARDOFFER should specify an additional topic ban after the six months, they should discuss it on the talk page for that essay (or perhaps at WP:ROPE) and see if the community agrees. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock persuaded this would be a net positive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock - currently there hasn't been clear provision of evidence by the TBAN-proposers - I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's conclusive. Primary ban was for socks. I'm not sure how much benefit this will bring - any violation will get him rebanned regardless. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock - no topic ban was ever placed, and there's no evidence that has been supplied that suggests there was a particular issue in the user's editing in "India-Pakistan conflict"-related articles. If we trust an editor to be unblocked we should initially assume good faith and let them edit without restrictions, as with all editors returning from a block someone is bound to be monitoring their contributions. Fish+Karate 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional unblock - I don't find the evidence of misconduct conclusive. My memory may not be that good here, but I don't recall any serious issues with ML's editing under that particular account (other than the usual par for the course). Moreover, if we believe that ML won't be able to edit in a policy-directed way, it is better that such editing happens in the India-Pakistan conflict area which is closely watched. Overflow into other areas is not in anybody's interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unconditional unblock. I only see evidence of the fact that ML has been a net positive to IPA and India-Pakistan space and has indeed done a great work in both article and Wikipedia space related to this area. Sure some people would personally disagree with his edits but there is no reason not to accept his unblock request since he has been thoroughly helpful. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose without conditions (restating a "support" opinion I wrote above) - those looking for evidence of My Lord's past disruptive behaviour in the India-Pakistan topic should look to the editing histories, talk page histories, and block logs of their admitted socks IndianEditor (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and GhostProducer (talk · contribs · logs · block log), the behaviour which led to their blocks which My Lord has never acknowledged (i.e. this is not just a sockpuppetry block), and that My Lord fervently denied these connections while evading their blocks right up to last July when they were backed into a corner and admitted everything. I'm also concerned that many of the editors writing here that My Lord's past sockpuppetry should be unconditionally forgiven are the same editors that agitated for NadirAli to be sitebanned for exactly the same offence, and have argued for sitebans for other opponents for much lesser infractions. It's an obvious double standard that does not bode well for participation in this Arbcom-sanctioned topic area.

I feel the sentiment from some here that we should just unblock and wait for My Lord to screw up and be blocked again, I know WP:ROPE and all and I often agree. If it were a matter of not being confident that an editor is going to avoid repeating their disruptive behaviour then ROPE is a decent approach. But this is not that: it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to. That ought to set off alarm bells, and if not then all their old friends showing up here to cheer them on definitely should. The topic seems to be reasonably stable now (I haven't seen a huge ANI thread about it in at least a few months) and a lot of admins and editors have spent a great deal of time getting to that point, but taking the ROPE approach here is almost certain to destroy that stability.

I support unblocking My Lord, just repeating it to be clear, and I look forward to seeing what they get to work on. We had a brief conversation about it on their talk page and I think those are some good ideas. But I'm very wary about how this is playing out with respect to the India-Pakistan conflict. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to", could I have a link to where they said that? Not arguing or disagreeing, but I like to verify claims when they affect whether someone is blocked or banned. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy Macon, here is probably the first time where ML indicated his plans. He is quite upfront about it, which I appreciate. I am not overly worried about POV-pushing possibilities there. Notice how my mediation at Talk:Hizbul Mujahideen was quickly accepted. On the other hand, I would be more worried about pages like Jaggi Vasudev, which tend to generate endless drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector, couldn't you provide diffs in place of speculating the contributions? One can find India-only related edits in all accounts of My Lord except his main account when it concerns India-Pakistan conflict and they seem problem-free. NadirAli was a package of CIR and NOTHERE who socked every day, that's why he was sitebanned for second time. Why he should be mentioned? If you would like to discuss "obvious double standard" then consider mentioning Nauriya who was not blocked for his continued CIR and socking in July 2018, yet My Lord was blocked for his past socking. Nauriya managed to get himself sitebanned, which is something anyone can tell My Lord never will. It doesn't matters if My Lord edits India-Pakistan conflict since evidence establishes that he was a productive editor. Now instead of settling scores for the opposing side, you need learn to examine the credibility of each case on its own merits. 41.246.26.55 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speculation. My Lord suggested that their last 50 article contribs indicated which topics they meant to edit, but after I pointed out that 39 of those contribs were rollbacks ([38]), My Lord responded: "After unblock, I will continue working on Kargil war (there is a dispute there with which I can help[39]), Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Point 5240 and bring each of these articles to GA level." I didn't say at the time but I appreciate the honesty, I think it's a good marker and bodes well for future contribs, but I still think it's a bad idea to come off an indef going straight into India-Pakistan conflicts. I think it would be a bad idea for anyone, but My Lord has been specifically involved in those conflicts previously. I just don't see it going well, and I actually don't want to set them up to fail, regardless of what anyone here thinks about my motivations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This user was not exactly famed for their honesty. A troublesome trait of My Lord was lying in their edit summaries. In particular they would claim consensus for their edits/reverts (on ARBIPA pages no less) where none existed.[40] For example he lied[41] that there was consensus for his edit on Violence against women during the partition of India when in fact there was none.[42] He behaved similar on the Kashmiris article. To add to all this, he also lied to Sitush that he had never had any other account on Wikipedia.[43] I don't even need to mention his initial lying on the SPI. Ivanvector can elaborate on that. Before allowing him to edit again we need some sort of guarantee that the habit of lying won't continue. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Citing a frivolous report that ended up with "no action" only puts My Lord in a better light. While I can see you are engaging in aggressive POV pushing on both of these articles, it also appears that there is clear consensus in favor of My Lord's edits as the talk pages shows even when he was not editing.[44] Maybe you could be more honest with your first edit ever to this page[45] but at this moment you are only poisoning the well. 39.33.55.198 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @My Lord: Now would be a good time to do as Guy Macon asked on your talk page and to respond here so as to . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:ROPE and the conditions of WP:SO having been met in good faith. If the problems return later, we can always reblock. --Jayron32 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When a productive editor screws up badly, and then does what is required to be readmitted to the community, I generally believe they should be given the chance. As Jayron notes above, if problematic behavior returns then reblocking is just a matter of three clicks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see User talk:My Lord#AN. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I have given this some thought but I'm not convinced that My Lord should ever be unblocked. His dishonesty was so pervasive that he can't be trusted again one bit. See for example this edit summary here on an India-Pakistan war article[46]. A search of that page's edit history shows there was no deletion and restoration of that (well-sourced) section before My Lord deleted it. His edit summary was a lie. Once a liar is always a liar. And My Lord has lied many, many times. His behaviour on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus was especially egregious. His tactic was to bludgeon his way through the dispute process by citing unresolved discussions in his edit summaries to support his changes.[47] Not only was this user a liar but he also harassed Mar4d and NadirAli.[48] This user is of no value to the encyclopedia. Some good faith editors are of the opinion that My Lord can always be re-blocked if he repeats his disruption but I should point out that administrators have typically ignored clear evidence of his disruption. Sandstein closed an AE report about him merely because there was no other administrator interested.[49] (I also note here that Sandstein found the first batch of diffs presented there unactionable, but he did say he did not examine the rest of the evidence. Several editors pointed out that the next piece of evidence showed clear dishonest conduct from My Lord). I am also noting the (clearly non co-incidental) proliferation of IPs[50][51] from random corners of the globe who are popping in here just to defend My Lord. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabricate all you want but edit summary here was accurate and this discussion shows consensus was in favor of My Lord, and even the present version of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus supports these edits. Reporting a topic banned editor for his topic ban violation is a productive work. Admins have already dealt with these diffs and that is why Sandstein had closed the report as "no action" because the report was extremely frivolous. Your personal attacks, false accusations and aspersions would rather justify a prohibition on you from contributing to Wikipedia. After all an SPA like you who has done nothing except promoting a particular fringe POV is a net negative. 39.33.84.145 (talk)

@Dilpa kaur and 39.33.84.145: both of you, make sure those are the last personal attacks you write in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about the liar label repeated four times, based on "some thought" and a "search of the page's edit history". The content in question was added by a notorious sockmaster Faizan/Towns Hill on 11 April 2017, deleted on 13 May 2017 as a block evasion edit, and reinstanted on 15 May 2017. This clearly validates ML's edit summary: remove section restored without discussion. I am also curious though how this particular edit showed up on Dilpa kaur's radar screen, which was well before her account was created and on a page that she never touched. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on unblock, but a little concerned that at least two IPs with no other edits have argued against oppose votes, when the subject was blocked for sockpuppetry. O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to know that IPs are human too. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not concerned. It's one of our very capable and knowledgeable IP editors who for whatever reason has not registered. It's dynamic. The editing style is different from ML's.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, both of the IP editors here (there are two, despite the multiple addresses) are editing from locations which are different from what I have presumed is My Lord's location, though my assumption is based on things that other checkusers and editors have written on Wikipedia since I said I was staying out of checking this myself. One is on a different continent. I'm not saying that they're definitely not being used inappropriately, but I'm as certain as I can be that they're not My Lord. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True Dlohcierekim. I was also editing Sardar Arif Shah a few hours ago, though that won't appear on contribution history of a single IP because they are dynamic. 41.246.26.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/41.246.26.0/24, more or less. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I wasn't aware that the IP was dynamic, so I've struck my concern. It just smelt a little fish, or rather meaty (and with social media nowadays location is not so much of a factor), but I'm happy to accept the explanation. O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Dilpa kaur has raised a serious point about the edit summaries. To restore controversial content with an edit summary which merely links to an ongoing dispute about said content[52][53] is impermissible. It creates a misperception that the discussion has a consensus for one's edit. It also impedes the consensus building process. It should be remembered that these reverts were done while discussion was still taking place. The disputes had not been resolved then. Code16 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

About two months ago I successfully appealed here for the lifting of the last of my editing restriction. The closing admin noted on my talkpage that I still have a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block."

I would hereby like to appeal for the lifting of those final two restrictions (not that I plan creating more accounts, causing disruption of failing to "get the point") to finish my journey along the path back to full good standing within the community. I hope my record over the past two or three years, since having a community ban lifted, of collegial and collaborative creation and improvement of articles speaks for itself, but if anything needs clarifying please ask. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It kind of looks to me like TParis added these two restrictions in their close of the unban discussion without them having been proposed. The one-account restriction is logical considering the extensive history of ban evasion (at the time) but the second one is basically don't be a dick (which applies to everyone) and should not need to be appealed. For what it's worth I see no technical evidence of sockpuppetry in the past three months. I support lifting both restrictions, but if you are going to make new accounts be sure that you follow the instructions at WP:ALTACCN and/or contact the Arbitration Committee privately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• per Ivanvector-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd actually slightly disagree with @Ivanvector: - both restrictions should go, and yes the latter shouldn't have been added. However I think the latter does need to be specifically noted and removed - with it there, it (if read strictly) would make any negative action eligible for a full block. While those who have been banned should have a quicker escalation of sanctions, this isn't a permanent state of conditions and especially not at this level - and this should be noted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, I don't think we're really disagreeing on this, it's just a matter of doing the paperwork. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Pruitt was recently re-created, with a new citation showing notability. Please can someone undelete the previous version, and merge/ history merge them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going for it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This was AfD'd and I'm not sure it isn't G4 material now. There is a dearth of coverage. Someone less fatigued should look at it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in apropos of nothing -- I REALLY dislike this. No disrespect intended to Mr. Pruitt, but there's a level of omphaloskepsis here that rankles me. That being said, major articles on CBS News and the Daily Mail, and a smattering of more minor things. It should probably be covered. Just a non-admin opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage in the deleted versions was stronger than this, so maybe another admin can take a look at it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: as they closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Pruitt.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think this one might or might not survive a re-AFD. No opinion on restoring the older versions, they contain some useful material although I'd ask the user the article was about first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: You're ba-a-ack-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: And better than ever? Surely not. _Sorry.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but since when do we resurrect deleted versions just because a page has been recreated with new sources/demonstration of notability? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that I don't think I've ever seen it done. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

@Primefac: A fair question, and one that recently has been much on mind. OK, not as much as $270 to get my dryer fixed, but meh.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac It makes sense to me to do it if the deleted versions contain potentially useable material. For example, if Person X has an article written about them in 2019 that discusses their nascent music career, and it cites sources, but their career is just getting started and they aren't notable yet so it gets deleted at AFD, and then in 2021 they win Best New Artist at the Grammys or something, and someone creates a new article about them, it might make sense to restore the deleted history if there is sourced information in it that is missing from the new version. If that is done, said information and sources should be incorporated into the new version, and the history would be needed for atribution. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's a matter of fairness too. In a lot of cases, and this seems to be one of them, the person who wrote the latest article, or at least some people who edit it, probably saw the older article. That being the case, it's impossible to rule out them being influenced by the earlier article. Even if these concerns don't arise to the level of WP:COPYVIO, it still seems fairer to acknowledge their contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of {{notdone}}, while at the same time saying "Someone less fatigued should look at it", is unhelpful. Please don't do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This has the same level of referencing, and less information, than was in the deleted article. Per WP:CSD#G4, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, how is this not a speedy candidate? If User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao still wants this deleted, then the closing rationale of the AFD is still valid, and it should be speedy deleted. If he's changed his mind and either wants it or doesn't care, then I personally would still delete per G4, but wouldn't be too upset with a new AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: et al: Put me in the "don't care" camp. The major concern I had with the last article (that of the rationale for its creation) is not present here. Elsewise I'll stay out of the discussion from here out. (Apologies for being late to the party, but it's turned into quite a busy afternoon.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I still think it's a G4, but enough experienced editors have expressed different opinions here that I won't impose my opinion. If this morphs into a vote of some kind, that's my suggestion tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a clear case of G4 to me. Nihlus 20:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing rationale of the AFD was "The crux of the argument is whether GNG is met..." That was in 2017. Two of the five citations in the current article are dated 2018. G4 explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version [and] pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems pretty circular now. Probably the only way to decide notability is another AfD. And I'm not in a hurry to do so. If there is no strong objection, Nil Einne has made a compelling argument to restore the deleted content. This is terra incognita for me, and I'm not sure if I'm violating the consensus in the deletion discussion or not. Seeking guidance.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well just close this discussion, given that Graeme Bartlett restored the content (rendering this discussion mostly-moot). Unless, of course, we feel like converting it into a full-blown RFC... (hah!) Primefac (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the earlier version to add to the history of the recreated page. This was based on a request on my talk page, and I have not been aware of this discussion till now. If the recreated page is to be deleted then the old version in history can go too. However note the recent coverage in the media for this person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I often restore page histories per Nil Einne's rationale - so that articles are as 'complete' and visible as can be, editors don't have unnecessary 'deleted' edits etc.

I'd also say this isn't G4able given the recent coverage, but should be determined at another AFD. GiantSnowman 11:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's improved enough in sourcing and content over the previous version.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Definitely doesn't qualify for G4. IMO the sources in the current article (full length Washington Post and CBS news articles specifically about him as an individual, plus Time calling him one of the 25 most influential people on the internet) are alone enough to meet GNG, not even counting the lesser sources. If this gets AfD'ed, count me as a clear "keep". -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the question asked I don't think there's a need to restore the history: that article was deleted and this new one was written from scratch so attribution is not a concern. As to the subject I'd also like to see this go to AFD, as I'm not sure that appearing once in a list of influencers is enough to cross the WP:BLP1E threshold. I'm saying I don't know how I would vote but I'd like the community to decide, that's all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and already semi'd. At any rate, I was unsure of policy on this and did not want to do it on my own. However, unless there is a policy reason, I agree with the restoration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am an admin on Commons; by mistake I moved Category:Bath Rugby head coaches to Category:Coaches of Bath Rugby. I apologise for the mistake, didn't notice i was on en.wiki. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. A very easy fix :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question, but where (if anywhere) are the guidelines or admin instructions regarding unblock review? In particularly those stating a reviewer shouldn't review the same block more than once? O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking which says that a block will be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. If an admin has already reviewed the block once, then by doing so they might appear to have become involved and ideally should not review a second time. GiantSnowman 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the last part. Per WP:INVOLVED, purely administrative interactions, which include reviewing unblock requests, do not make an admin involved. However, it is my practice to not review more than one unblock request, because rejections are more likely to be accepted if they come from multiple admins. Sandstein 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea of reviewing is to have another admin access the block in case it was made in error. Though I see no problem in unblocking one's own blocks if conditions have been met.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both counts; it makes sense to have someone else look it over, and it would be crazy to object to someone accepting a block he'd imposed merely on the grounds that requests need to be reviewed by someone else. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED is not the right guideline, but I agree that admins probably should not decline appeals of their own blocks; fine to accept though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if everyone has misread (perhaps it's me?) - but (I think) OP was not posting about an admin unblocking somebody they themselves had blocked - the post was about an admin reviewing a block appeal and repeatedly declining? GiantSnowman 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case, see Jayron32's comment below. I would add that if the user is posting new requests after a decline which have not addressed the reasons for declining, I would consider revoking their talk page access. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been known to do some considerable work at CAT:UNB in the past, and will still drop in from time-to-time to review unblock requests. My standard workflow (which is pretty close to the guidance linked above) is as follows. 1) I will review the request by looking at the edit history, the specific edits that led to the block, and the unblock request itself. If I find the block to be fully justified and/or the request frivolous, I decline and move on. If the request has merit, I then will usually 2) Ask clarifying questions to ascertain if the blocked user understands why they were blocked, and if so, if they can explain how they intend to change their behavior going forward. If they give satisfactory answers, I then 3) Drop a note on the talk page of the blocking admin for their input on the block; since they dealt with the user before, they often may have additional information I may have missed. If the admin is copacetic, I then unblock. If they aren't cool with it, and if I still feel that the blocked user should be unblocked, I may occasionally bring it here for further discussion, but that's rare. I don't think my step 3) is strictly required, but I find that both as a courtesy to the blocking admin, and also because I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, I always seek the blocking admin's input. If someone asks for a new unblock request after I have already denied their prior one, sometimes I respond to it and sometimes I leave it for someone else. If the person appears to be filing a new, good-faith request (such as providing additional information, or changing their approach), I may respond as I can see they are trying to learn. If the new request is either frivolous or simply repeats the prior request, I tend to ignore it and leave it for another admin. I want it to be that much more obvious that the person is playing IDHT games, and more rejections for more people can make that clear. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: I think User:Toasterlyreasons has been unfairly blocked and his unblock review unfairly declined. I strongly suggest unblocking him. Warning message at best should be sufficient, indef is a major overkill here.

Longer version. I received, out of a blue, an email from User:Toasterlyreasons, who seems to be have taken a college class of mine ~9 years ago where I introduced him to editing Wikipedia (he successfully contributed a GA Talk:Proto-globalization/GA1,see User:Piotrus/Teaching for more if you care, point is he is not lying about having been my student). Since then he has been slightly active, with few dozen or less edits a year. That is relevant, as editors with that amount of edits are unlikely to be familiar with policies like WP:MEAT, etc. In the last few days he seemed to have gotten himself indef blocked and then decided to email me asking for advice. I have reviewed his case and IMHO there are no grounds for a block, a warning and rule reminder should be sufficient. Here's my understanding of what happened:

• user:Fbrody creates a page that gets deleted in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lesser
• Fbrody asks Toasterlyreasons to look into this article (Marc Lesser)
• Toasterlyreasons recreates this article. I am not able to check myself to what degree it was identical to an old article, but at the very least Fbrody claimed in a talk page post that "The new page she [Toasterlyreasons] attempted to create was completely independent from what I created several months ago"
• Article is speedy deleted as WP:G4 recreation of a deleted article and Toasterlyreasons is indef blocked as sock puppet of Fbrody by User:RHaworth with no evidence of prior warning, explanation or even a sockpuppet investigation. It would be nice if RHaworth would share with us how he determined there is socking involved, and why did he decide to escalate all the way to indef nuke, bypassing any warnings, topic bans, short-term blocks, etc.
• few hours after that, Fbrody posted to talk of User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_Marc_Lesser_page [55] explaining that he asked Toasterlyreasons to review the article, and that any edits Toasterlyreasons did were independent. It is worth noting that Fbrody is not subject to any blocks or topic bans or other restrictions.
• Toasterlyreasons asked for an unblock on his talkpage which was declined by User:Yunshui, who stated that he has violated WP:MEAT which apprently, in his view, merits an INDEF block

In my view, nothing that happened here warrants any block. The first block by RHaworth was clearly wrong, as there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. It is highly debatable if asking someone to review an article that was deleted is meatpuppetry (see WP:MEAT), so the proper response to the unblock reponse should have been to unblock the user (I will not mention, apologize for unfair block, as apologizing is a well-known impossibility around here...). If the article was a copy paste recreation, than a warning 'use undeletion requests instead of reposting deleted content' would be a proper course for editors unfamiliar with our policies, per WP:BITE. If the article was not an exact recreation but was improved, a second AfD is the right course of action (I say this being a deletionist myself, I dislike spam and nominate a lot of stuff for deletion, so it is not like I have a particularly soft spot for vanity articles and like).

Bottom line, per WP:BITE and no evidence of wrongdoing other than an extreme interpretation of MEAT/CANVASS ('how dare one editor as another to look at anything wiki-related!'), there is no reason for any block or ban. Nothing bad has happened here (outside unfair block), two editors chatting about article and trying to write about the same topic is not a crime. At most, they can be warned that the proper way to recreate articles is through WP:UNDELETE/WP:REFUND. If anything is serious in this incident, it is the tendency of some of our admin corps to be too trigger happy with the block button (and indef, seriously?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, this's quite an inaccurate summary of the stuff. So, let me be more clear:-

• Toasterly violated the rules of COI-disclosure when he wrote the article about Florian Brody; despite being in close contact with the subject (FBrody), all-throughout. They communicated via email during those span and Toasterly was looking to gain a wider breadth on online writing experience........

• Years later FBrody himself appears over WP and creates an article about Marc Lesser, without any COI-disclosure, which was soon-deleted.

• FBrody then called his old buddy (Toasterly) to resuscitate the article about Lesser, who executes that in direct contravention of G4 and without submitting yet another COI-disclosure.

• RHaworth obliges with the G4 and blocks Toasterly as a sock. Obvious call. There were a network of intersections; very similar to what we observe in noob-UPE-rings.

• Yunshui declines the unblock. Good decline; that it did not mention about the relations between him and FBrody, which were very obvious to naked eye.∯WBG^converse 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that both has clarified in detail, someone can unblock them after making them aware of our COI-policies and other background checks.∯WBG^converse 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is of course good to educate new editors about WP:COI, but I am unsure how relevant it is. I am not saying it is not relevant, but in my reading of the case I did not see that the 2 (3?) of them are connected in any professional capacity. Per WP:AGF, it could be they are just weak ties collegues who happened to find out they both edit Wikipedia. (If my neighbour or coworker edits Wikipedia and asks me to look at article they've created, is there a COI? CANVASS? MEAT? Or it it plain paranoia to wrry about that...? Going in that direction, one can fear to even mention Wikipedia editing in any venue that is not Wikipedia itself :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone unblocks them after making them aware of our COI-policies and other background checks, I will take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call me suspicious and paranoid (I've been called worse!) but when someone makes an unblock appeal that appears to deliberately avoid mentioning that they personally know and have been working with the account that they are accused of being a sock for, I tend to assume something untoward is going on. Had Toasterlyreasons's original appeal been along the lines of the one that is now on their talkpage, I would have happily unblocked - indeed, would go and do so now were it not for the fact that this is now at WP:AN and therefore my judgement on the issue is apparently suspect. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call me dense, but I see no reason to unblock.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually fuck it, there's no reason that they should stay blocked just because Piotrus wanted an excuse to go admin-bashing. Toasterlyreasons is now unblocked, let the process of tarring and feathering me for being wishy-washy on blocking/not doing so while I was offline earlier/unblocking a user while involved etc. commence. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I, for one, wouldn't call you "wishy or "washy".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And rethinking a block after hearing more about the circumstances is the correct thing to do. I also don't think Piotrus was admin-bashing, he just raised questions about an indefinite block, provided more information and got another hearing for the editor. I think this is all how a system of appeals is supposed to work, I think everyone acted in what they thought was the best interests of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, if the idea was to get another hearing for Toasterlyreasons rather than complain about how over-zealous administrators are, then I would expect to see a message on my talkpage saying, "Hey, I think you may have been a bit harsh here, would you mind taking another look, or explaining your reasoning?" There isn't one; instead - with some irony - Piotrus went with the "nuclear" option of going direct to AN, not bothering to mention to either RHaworth or myself that he was doing so. If you have a problem with an administrator's actions, the first port of call should be to take it up with that administrator - it's polite, it's quicker, and it avoids this sort of shit-show. Yunshui ^雲_水 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't even know what you mean by any of that, but it looks like it was pretty straightforwardly a reasonable block. Recreating an article for your friend/acquaintance after it gets deleted is straightforward meatpuppetry, and rather than showing any understanding, they're nitpicking wording because it isn't a "dispute" (besides, it's only not a dispute because there's a CSD that pre-empts any disputes in this situation). Also, the user still claims they created a "legitimate article", with no understanding that they attempted to unilaterally overrule a recent consensus deeming the subject non-notable. The unblock request does not address either of these issues. It makes a good case that the user does not have a COI, but that's not the only issue. I respect Piotrus, I wouldn't classify his complaint here as "admin bashing", but even if you did, I don't see how it relates to a decision to unblock. I agree that the intent here should be to educate, not punish, but an indef is not a draconian measure, incompatible with that idea. An indef can be as short as the user wants it to be, provided they're cooperative and are willing to rectify the issue. But that unblock request was not an indication that the user now understands why they were blocked; on the contrary, it's somewhat combative and obstinate, not the type of unblock request we'd normally accept. I really don't understand why you rushed to unilaterally unblock before the user even understands the issue.  ~~Swarm~~  23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for abusing multiple accounts, not for failing to understand notability. Since it is clear from their unblock appeal and other evidence that abuse of multiple accounts did not take place (or if it did, it was inadvertent and only vaguely covered by the policy), their recreation of a G4-able article shouldn't count against them - though feel free to block them for that entirely separate issue if you like. If you're going to block anyone, though, User:Fbrody - who has demonstrably violated the rules on paid editing at least once (with GenieTown) might be a better target. I'm not going there, since I'm clearly too "trigger-happy" to be trusted with that block. Yunshui ^雲_水 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Religion in... statistics vandalism for the background, and Scgonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This vandal, who subtly vandalises cited religious statistics, has returned, this time as 83.45.202.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). History shews he will jump IP addresses as we block his latest ones. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]