Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]


Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.[edit]

(Initiated 122 days ago on 17 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm going to have to come back to this one, because it, along with Racism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) look to be a combination of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR (the article titles scream it to begin with), while the RFC feels like just the end result of bureaucratizing all the problems of a POVFORK/OR combo, too. Incidentally, the articles smell of sock / possibly-banned-users (at cursory inspection; they're also relatively recently created). I can dive deeper into it if truly nobody else is going to (and if I even have time), but this looks like it could be an unnecessary pain to sift through when there might be more overriding/fundamental issues. I dunno;I might just be crazy. Others with better knowledge of British politics should please feel free to deal with this. --slakrtalk / 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject, so I would strongly suggest that the task of resolving this group of RfCs (some 18 of them!) should be assigned to a group of three administrators rather than simply "an experienced editor." Involved editors have already been making changes, such as this, to the article on the basis of perceived consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging Primefac (talk · contribs), who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
    Greetings, Primefac. I maintain that one and the same group of at least three admins handles this. It's not so much an issue of difficulty as much as of the need for a consistent and consolidated process. It's a rather large RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria[edit]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 9 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Note: The RfC was archived without being closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria. (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 21 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Sun[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Sun? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Doing... . WBGconverse 00:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is now archived at Archive 254. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thanks for listing this. I would like to add that the closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 28 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Fassbender#RfC about allegations of physical abuse[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Fassbender#RfC about allegations of physical abuse? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jewdas Passover event‎[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 4 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jewdas Passover event‎? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities in Israel#RFC (again)[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 December 2018) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus of this discussion and officially close it. Thanks in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Stav Shaffir#RFC[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stav Shaffir#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ryan#RFC: Ordinal numbers[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 13 December 2018), it's been over a week since the last post. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)? Please close this RfC after 16 January 2019. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article? discussion? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

On hold This has only been open 17 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 30 December 2018) Seems clear there is no consensus for this proposal, though it has the occasional post from editors but mostly repetition of same arguments. There have been several complaints (see talk page) that the proposal is interfering with the function of the COI noticeboard (it should have been created on the talk page). Previous attempt to move it to the talk page was reverted with crude language from two users, one of which is the proposer. I suspect the proposer will only accept an admin closing this. Note that this is the 2nd RFC on the topic (the first was closed after 10 days in 2015), with no change of proposal, and IMO no change of arguments made or balance of opinion on the project. At the very least, could an admin move this to talk, to enable the COI noticeboard to function properly. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Supercentenarian CFDs[edit]

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:African-American supercentenarians
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Singaporean supercentenarians
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Spanish supercentenarians
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Nigerian supercentenarians
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Hungarian supercentenarians
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:German supercentenarians
  7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Turkish supercentenarians
  8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians
  9. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians
  10. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Norwegian supercentenarians
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Wikipedians by philosophy[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Wikipedians by philosophy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


(Initiated 63 days ago on 15 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon[edit]

(Initiated 107 days ago on 2 October 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November#Jaggi Vasudev[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 November 2018) I think it's safe to say that everything that needs to be said has been said 8 or 9 times and useful discussion has died down in this very-much-over-time discussion. If someone would like to be a hero and tackle this I'm sure we'd all be grateful. (COI notice: I was the RM closer.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I am throwing my hat in the ring. But, this's needing a trio-closure. WBGconverse 10:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but please let an admin(s) do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
To Winged Blades of Godric and ErikHaugen: Can't always find three admins, so if two admins will help with the close, then one experienced non-admin along with them should be sufficient. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Recuse in light of this thread. Good luck in finding folks to close it.WBGconverse 05:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This keeps up, and I'll close it. And ya'll know what outcome that will bring. EH will probably go "Off with her head!" Happy New Year, folks. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Note: Move review has been relisted to January 2019. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru put it back to November Hhkohh (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    I note that Amakuru has reverted you. Relisting is not done to gain a consensus but to improve participation and if there ain't any consensus for a clear-outcome, No consensus (generally defaulting to endorse) is a perfectly valid closure. WBGconverse 08:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Lest we forget, no consensus at MRV may also result in relisting the RM. And, not to be argumentative, however relisting is most certainly done to gain a consensus! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Concur on first point. As to the latter, see WP:RELIST and point 2 of WP:RELISTBIAS; which though concerned with deletion-discussion; is pretty clear on the aspect of relisting a heavily-participated discussion to seek consensus.WBGconverse 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks for the good faith effort to move it along, Paine, but I honestly don't think relisting is the answer here... everything that can be said has been said ten times already, and we just need it put out of its misery! Whether it's no consensus or not, I wouldn't like to prejudge - that's up to the closing admin... a case could be made for either overturn or no conensensus probably. Someone will deal with it eventually though.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Only 10?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talkcontribs) 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 75 in Georgia#South Metro Express Lanes merger[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 November 2018) The conversation here has not progressed much in over a month. Involved parties seem split equally in favor of merging and not merging. I am requesting for a user who is not involved to close the merge discussion. Mccunicano (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 31 December 2018[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 December 2018) Could an experienced editor relist or assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 31 December 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (11 out of 1548 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Hebron University 2019-01-16 15:10 indefinite edit,move Oshwah
2019 in hip hop music 2019-01-16 11:41 2019-01-23 11:41 edit,move CambridgeBayWeather
List of Presidents of Venezuela 2019-01-16 11:36 2019-02-16 11:36 edit,move CambridgeBayWeather
Sampras Kaunds 2019-01-16 08:17 indefinite create SoWhy
Signature Bank 2019-01-15 16:01 2019-01-29 16:01 edit,move Dlohcierekim
Lil Ris 2019-01-15 04:21 indefinite create RL0919
Prof Dr Muhammad Faheem Malik 2019-01-14 17:47 2019-01-21 17:47 create DGG
Khong Chee Mool F.C. 2019-01-14 15:04 2019-07-14 15:04 create Deb
Ubon Kids City F.C. 2019-01-14 14:57 2020-01-14 14:57 create Deb
List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2019) 2019-01-14 11:32 2024-01-14 11:32 edit,move CambridgeBayWeather
Birthright Israel 2019-01-14 07:31 indefinite edit Swarm

ECP Question[edit]

Why is Semiramis Hotel bombing on ECP indefinitely? The other ECP'd articles in the table have the protection expire reasonably soon. (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. Bellezzasolo Discuss 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Every I/P article is supposed to be under permanent ECP now? Wow that is intense. Thanks. I wonder how many articles it is. That much conflict in articles usually means the articles are useless anyway. (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones[edit]

Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.

Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [17]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [18] a revert of [19]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
  • So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
  • Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
  • Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse." - In other words, Smallbones claims that since he perceives that other editors don't behave as he wants them to, he feels authorized to violate the active community sanctions. That is what I do not find acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.
"The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An Ip ( has twice attempted to close this discussion. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me and appears to be some kind of provocation or trolling.
I would however request that this be closed. The edit I originally made has been reinserted by another editor and stayed in the article for 4 days now. The discussion at Talk:Bitcoin#Price_movements_citing_Coinbase now supports the edit (look at the bottom) as factual.
Others should feel free to make additional comments here, but if they are just accusing me of WP:TE, RightingGreatWrongs, or accusing me of being the reason Wikipedia losing contributors, then I'd like them to present serious evidence in a serious discussion. Otherwise, they should get the boomerang. After all is said and done here, I made a simple factual edit to the article and several editors went ballistic over it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't sock. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years and made 40,000+ edits and nobody has ever credibly accused me of socking. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of socking, but I don't think that anybody who knows me here would ever take such an accusation seriously. If they do, please take it to SPI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed WP:FOWLPLAY. And as Smallbones points out, nothing will change as he knows where to be careful of the rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see it being Smallbones. If Smallbones were to sock (indeed any experienced editor), it would not be something so transparent (and quickly reverted) as closing a AN discussion. It's much more likely to be an LTA with a grudge against Smallbones (or just plain vanilla trolling), trying to make it look like Smallbones socking. IMHO. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of JohnThorne topic ban[edit]

More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ The main issues were my mistakes in editing not following the Wikipedia standards, such as copying from from unreliable sources, copying without attribution/plagiarism, and original research. To date, I have learned to copy from verifiable sources with neutral point of view, make sure to respect copyrights, always include proper attributions, and avoid original research. I plan to keep doing these practices as long as I contribute to Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @JohnThorne: What is your understanding of when and how public domain material can be used in Wikipedia articles? How do your current views differ from those you held at the time you were topic banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that is adequate, and I endorse the suggestions made below by Guy and DGG (i.e. new articles to Draft and try a starter article first). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with lifting the ban, ion the understanding that people will watch and likely reimpose the ban or some other restriction if you edit tendentiously or fail to defer to others who remove contested material. Pinging DGG and Doug Weller who made particularly thoughtful contributions to that debate. Maybe we should require new articles to go through Draft first and be reviewed? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would very pleased if JohnThorpe were to return to editing on the Bible, if he were to do it properly. The current state of the articles since he left them is very unsatisfactory, for nobody has done even the most basiccleanup. I hope JT understands the problems well enough tofirst do that, and then to try to add sources from a wide range of viewpoints. As I said in earlier discussion, a traditional religious POV can be used as a starting point , although it cannot be presented as the only view or even the curren academic consensus. I would however strongly urge JT that in articles about the OT it would be more logical to start with the traditional Jewish POV, for which there are many out of copyright online sources, and continue with the traditional Christian POV. (This is especially relevant in many of these articles because the material in them is at the core of the Christian reinterpretation of the prophecies to refer to Jesus and any good modern (or even older) Christian presentation will also make clear the key differences). People have killed each other for centuries over the interpretation of some of these verses, and writing a NPOV article is a serious responsibility. As a practical matter, I would suggest working on one or two of the articles, and then asking those of us who have commented here on this if we think it's a reasonable start. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on clean-up of some of those articles even this week, as has User:Wallingfordtoday. There's still a long way to go on all of them, and I don't think anyone as far as I know has volunteered to do the large quantity of work required to get these articles up to snuff. If JohnThorne is willing to take the guidance of the community and policies and guidelines on board in a serious and careful way, he may have something useful to contribute. I hope no one would object if I and any other interested users were to "follow" their edits for a while and provide feedback as the community works out whether things are going to work out here. I would strongly encourage them to focus his editing on existing Bible-chapter articles rather the formation of new ones, though, at least at first.
My biggest concern is the hundreds of times, in the past, that the claims made in the text were not backed by the sources cited, or that material from fringe sources was taken at face value. I hope, if he is allowed back, that JohnThorne will be patient and responsive with us all if we have questions where we would like to verify some things. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that me and Aleph have done quite a bit of cleanup on those articles, mostly in the last month. The "number" of fixes I've done is in the hundreds or thousands (mostly removing unreliable sources and grammar editing -- I've had to remove over 20,000 characters from Isaiah 52 alone). However, there's thousands to go and there are many other pages on biblical chapters that need creation. If JohnThorne can continue working with people following his edits to making sure the same problems aren't repeated, I'd say his effort would be well appreciated. I'm in support of removing the topc ban.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

An issue that has not yet been addressed is whether all these articles should even exist. There is, for example, no wikipedia article on 2 Chronicles. It redirects to Books of Chronicles because "1 Chronicles" and "2 Chronicles" are essentially artificial divisions of a single work. Well, chapters are much smaller artificial divisions, introduced in the middle ages, and other than in the case of Psalms and some special cases, not reflective of any actual structure to the books. This is why even enormously comprehensive biblical encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Biblica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which go much farther than Wikipedia by including every little proper name in the Bible under its own entry, don't have articles on individual chapters. It would be a little bit like having articles on individual pages of Shakespeare's works. I don't know if there's some appropriate forum for discussing the notability of Bible chapters as a whole, but it should probably be done somewhere, especially if JohnThorne will be getting back into the game. I think the unsuitability of chapter articles for Wikipedia articles is probably a root cause of why the Wikipedia community hasn't, to my knowledge, been able or willing to replace the current copy-pasted articles with real Wikipedia-style articles (except in special cases like "Isaiah 53" or individual Psalms, which are actual "topics" of conversation). Alephb (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it given the amount of work I've done cleaning up those articles, I think aleph is right. Besides aleph's points of notability, there are some other points to consider on whether or not these pages should even exist. 1) Despite the work that's already been done, unreliable sources are still referenced hundreds, if not thousands of times in all these biblical chapter pages. 2) There is at least 1 grammar mistake on every single one of these pages (as each page is essentially copied and pasted, the same mistake was taken to all of them, making it horribly tedious to remove them all). 3) The vast majority of the subsections of each chapter is just a quotation of this or that verse in the chapter without any discussion or reliable sources referenced at all. 4) Almost all biblical quotations are from the KJV or NKJV, which are non-scholarly biblical translations. In other words, to completely clean up all these pages, the many thousands of quotations in these pages would have to be replaced or deleted. 5) Quite frankly, another point to consider is the sheer impossibility to regulate all these pages in the first place. There are hundreds of them, and as history shows, random users have been able to go to them and add any sources they want with no one noticing or removing them. They simply have too little notability for any group of Wiki editors to quickly revert bad edits.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I had a similar thought (and I haven't put a ton of work into these articles). It's a discussion to have (or search for, maybe it's been had), I don't know if there exists some sort of WP:GEOLAND for Bible-chapters. Start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Bible, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


There appears to be a consensus to vacate this topic ban, with a few proposals being made that are unclear whether or not they are binding (are we requiring or suggesting JohnThorne to using the draft space for the first couple Bible-related entries that they are planning to create? Also is participating in general notability discussions for Bible chapters something that is being proposed as part of a successful appeal?). The rest of the discussion appears to be about asking JohnThorne to work closely with Bible project members and make sure the same issues are not repeated, which has already been addressed by JohnThorne in their follow up comments. I suppose we can close this discussion if JohnThorne can address on whether or not they are fine with these Bible project members working closely with their Bible-related edits for a while? Alex Shih (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am definitely happy to work closely with other Bible project members and have no objection for other users to closely review my edits. For a start, I will only work with a few limited articles on the topic related to the Bible, to improve them to meet the standard, and to see how it is accepted by the community. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking just for myself, since I brought up the notability thing, I'm not asking for JohnThorne's participation in such a conversation to be made a condition for the appeal. I thought it was worth bringing up just because it was the first time in over a year I'd seen a significant number of people who I knew to be interested in the Bible-chapter issues in one place. My apologies if that caused any confusion. As far as I am concerned (though I do think the other editors would join me in this), I'd like to welcome JohnThorne back, and wish him a successful editing future. I'd also like to thank JohnThorne for being a model of civility. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Fault in the page mover[edit]

  • I am an admin. Whenever I try to move a page, while e.g. obeying a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves, to move (e.g. page A to name B), and it first needs a pre-existing page at B to be deleted, it displays "[XDiHjApAAD0AADw86AoAAADQ] 2019-01-11 12:09:48: Fatal exception of type "MWException"" in red and refuses, unless I delete the old page B manually first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It is a known problem, I have seen it mentioned a few different places. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • There's a ticket open for this fault at the moment, as you say until it's fixed you need to get round it by deleting the target page first. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata help[edit]

Hello! I need someone's help: this and this link are basicallly the same, people who are born in Kikinda. Also, this category in Polish isn't needed because i moved the other one on the right place. I am asking someone to delete this polish category and merge those two wikidata links, thank you very much, regards, SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree, but they lead to the same category i.e. they are members of the same category. If they are associated with the location then it's just that one polish category (that isn't linked with others) that contains category with people born in Kikinda. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
One is a combination of person, related to this place (Q19660746) and Kikinda (Q309355), while the other is a combination of place of birth (Q1322263) and Kikinda (Q309355), the main difference being that place of birth has single value constraint (Q19474404), because you can be associated with more than one place, but not born in more than one. What makes things confusing is that some projects (like this one) don't specifically have categories for place of birth, but only for association, which includes place of birth. If someone was born in Ontario but spent their life and career mainly in Paris, then they can be in both Category:People from Ontario (Q9075333) and Category:People from Paris (Q8964470). But has no Category:People born in Ontario. Some projects (apparently Polish) has categories for both association and birth, while others seem to have one or the other. GMGtalk 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

IP hopper targeting Reichstag (Nazi Germany)[edit]

An IP hopping vandal reinserted their "Adolf Hitler's monarchy" instead of the correct "Adolf Hitler's dictatorship". Hitler was not a monarch. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not an IP hopper – unless it hopped to a different continent. Just warn the vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Or request page protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes a regular occurence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
am Reichstag nichts Neues. I've taken the liberty of adding pending changes to better watch for things.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit War on "Batman and Harley Quinn" Page[edit]

Due to the mixed reception of the film, there are users who keep deleting sourced information from the "canonicity" section of the page in order to paint a picture that the film isn't part of the DCAU franchise. One editor in particular, Mabromov, has reached out to me on another message board specifically stating he was aware his deletions would be causing an edit war with those interested in keeping all pertinent information intact. Is there anything that can be done to stop this from being a recurring thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

all quiet now. I would seek consensus building, dispute resolution, and page protection if it starts up aagin.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how this should be followed up[edit]

Handled by NinjaRobotPirate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit. I am not sure how this should be handled, but mainly I don't have the time anyway. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 2:34 pm, Today (UTC+13)

It's best to foward such things to WP:EMERGENCY and let them handle it. I'll do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

I am new here and need help[edit]

Bellezzasolo Discuss 11:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Site ban appeal from Catflap08[edit]

Catflap08 is appealing a site ban. For context, see User talk:Catflap08 and the site ban discussion at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my ban. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner.

  • The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the near future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should, for the time being, stay in place.
  • Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice about the situation in general.
  • In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do deeply care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
  • Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren. Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing respective article(s) won’t do much good. I would need advice from experienced editors and community consensus on this one. I believe some of those articles should be slimmed down considerably and be protected for the time being … BUT that decision is not up to me.
  • In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have never run into any major problems [20]. There was one exception when a conflict that originated in en.wikipedia was dragged into de.wikipedia – this was quickly dealt with though. Since my watchlist over there is more or less the same as it is here, I for most parts look out for reviewing pending changes. (Please note that since 2008 in the German Wikipedia all edits by new or not registered users need to be reviewed by, generally speaking, the community of registered and “confirmed” editors)
  • I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [21] [22] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment – it looks like the IBAN referred above is no longer in place. (I could not find any other IBANs noted in WP:Editing restrictions.) –FlyingAce✈hello 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the IBAN was lifted at Hijiri88's request, on the premise that it was no longer necessary since Catflap08 was site banned. If that site ban is lifted, I believe that the IBAN should be reinstated (and actually should not have been removed in the first place, for this very reason).
    As for the request for Catflap08's site ban to be lifted, I believe it is obvious from the request itself that Catflap08 has strong views on the subject ("Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased..."), which is likely to lead to edits intended to "unbias" articles, which history tells us are usually non-neutral in nature. It is also likely to lead to conflicts with other editors. On the whole, it does not seem to me that lifting the site ban is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • In the linked discussion where the interaction ban was rescinded, you supported removing the ban, and said "If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored..." I appreciate that over time, editors can reach new conclusions. In addition to the reasons you listed, is there any additional consideration that has led you to change your mind regarding the interaction ban? isaacl (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is that really the case? Well, all I can say is that I remember it differently. Perhaps I began with the thought that the IBan should stay in place, and for some reason -- now not remembered -- I changed my mind. Or maybe I was recalling some other IBan situation. In any case, now I think that removing IBans with retired or site banned editors is not a good idea, since (it seems) nothing on Wikipedia is forever, and it's quite probable that the status quo will be reverted at some future time.
    Still, whether I said at the time that it should be lifted or not, it was lifted, and I would still argue that if Catflap08 is un-site banned, it should be re-instated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't see FlyingAce's link. I guess all I can do is agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do ... Speak what you think in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. Self-Reliance (1841)

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The editor has been almost entirely absent from the site for 3 years and I have no direct experience with them. If they want to edit other topics than those where they previously had problems (such as German towns) and will wait at least 6 months to appeal the TBAN, I see no reason to oppose this. They certainly shouldn't be unblocked to combat "increasingly biased" articles in the area they were TBAN-ed from; the topic-ban on at least Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism should be an indef one with any unblock. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to say I find the timing a little too coincidental, given that Hijiri88 posted a etirement notice less than a day ago and has just started a self-requested block, so they won't be able to comment here. I haven't looked much deeper than that so i won't support or oppose at thsi time but that doesn't fill me with confidence in their proposed return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I was unaware of Hijiri's retirement when I commented above. In that context, this seems very much like "When the cat's away..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until Catflap08 gives a full accounting of any socking while blocked. Concerns were expressed here including by someone besides Hijiri88 that Catflap08 was still editing using IPs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catflap08/Archive. While these edits seem to be more than 6 months old, the nature of the editing made tracking difficult and reporting often pointless anyway plus socking in April and June could easily make a difference to people.

    I also note that Catflap08 has emailed Hijiri88 in the past, emails which were apparently unwelcome, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?. While I obviously haven't see the emails, I'm concerned by their descriptions. Catflap08 is a native speaker of English [23] so I don't know why they asked Hijiri88 to not accuse them of being a sock when they didn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?. (Hijiri88 obviously has accused Catflap08 of socking in the past, but they clearly weren't then.) I'm of the opinion Hijiri88 possibly mentions people they've had disputes with including Catflap08 too much but from the description, Catflap08 wasn't even sending a general 'can you stop mentioning me' but was annoyed about that particular mention.

    More importantly, there's still the other email even if it's over a year ago, I'd like some comment on their part. (I'd note that while the iban was lifted that was mostly because it's dumb when one party is blocked [24] and besides of which, I question if it's appropriate for a site banned editor to be emailing someone they've had extensive disputes with. I mean if the person welcomes it then fine, but if the person doesn't welcome it then no. And they don't need to tell the editor beforehand. It would probably have been better for Catflap08 to go through an admin if they really felt there was an issue.)

    As a minor point, I don't understand why Catflap08 of getting their talk page courtesy blanked via OTRS if they were going to appeal so soon, especially given they didn't need to use OTRS. (Yet ironically the fact they did use OTRS raises the question even more of why they were emailing Hijiri88 directly.) BTW, although I too find the timing of this suspicious, it should be noted that Catflap08 did try to get unblocked back in December but it was ignored [25]

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

    I asked User:SA 13 Bro if they have any comment [26] as their name shows up in the SPI. I didn't bother with User:L235/Kevin as their knowledge only seems to come from the case so I suspect they have nothing more to add. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    BTW, I'd also agree with a minimum of 6 months before any appeal of the tban. You need to demonstrate you can edit without significant problem in less contentious areas first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@JimRenge: You got any opinion to indicate? I am unable to determine on the appealing request conclusion. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I received an email from Catflap08 but I have not yet read it. One more comment, since the socking was via IPs, I understand Catflap08 may not want to publicly link their IP/s to their account and in any case may not remember them all and I'm not asking for this. But I think some info on when they last socked, how often they socked, and an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing (i.e. if they socked and any wrong actions they took while socking such as harassing Hiriji88) is a minimum we should expect. If they deny they ever edited via an IP or otherwise socked, that's okay too, the community will obviously consider this denial against the evidence. Their initial statement above didn't seem to mention the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it incredibly suspicious (and it appears I am not the only one) that this request is so close on Hijiri taking a break. Given the previous IBan has been removed, there is nothing to prevent Catflap from returning to their previous behaviour. I wouldnt consider unblocking even with the iban reinstated AND a topic ban from the areas they were problematic in previously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If we remove the community ban, an idea on which I don't have an opinion, we have to restore Catflap's interaction ban. No re-banning Hijiri merely because Catflap wants to come back, however: we should never sanction someone without evidence of problems on his own part, and the potential return of his arbitration opponent isn't a problem by Hijiri. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support lifting the ban if there is some sort of parole period (6 months - 1 year?) that if previous behavior is repeated then the indef block would be reinstated. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't believe I formally said so before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Block[edit]

(non-admin closure) Aoba47 has opted for a script-enforced wikibreak instead, making this request moot. NØ 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have chosen to retire, and I would greatly appreciate a block on the account. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me for finding my way here through your contributions. Have you read about the WikiBreak Enforcer script? I used to use it back in the day when I would need breaks from here. I think using these is better than a block so that these self-requested blocks do not cloud up your block log. Given the history, I think you will reconsider this decision and eventually come back, so it might be better not to have to bother an admin again.--NØ 12:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I was unaware of that tool, and I will use it according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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


Closing discussion as no additions for a while now, and the actual issue has been resolved via the consensus in the "Vote" section. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 5 August 2018 TheGracefulSlick was indef blocked for socking. On 23 November 2018 they made an unblock request which was discussed at AN: here which was accepted since the appeal was truly a model form of WP:GAB. In their appeal, TheGracefulSlick outlined their future editing plans (historical subjects, albums by the Doors, content on women and specifically Women in Green). They also specifically said that: "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator.".

However, their editing following their unblock on 28 November 2018 has not followed this editing plan. Specifically, they made they a series of edits to controversial political subjects: Charlottesville car attack (4 December 2018), Talk:List of cities in Israel (8 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringsted terror plot (8 December), Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape (8 December).

This was then discussed with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, with the participation of User:Cullen328, User:Sir Joseph, User:TonyBallioni. Per TheGracefulSlick their statement was "a self-restriction made on a voluntary basis for my health. I wouldn’t be disregarding it if it were mandatory", a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable, that: "TGS: you gave your word that you would avoid controversial areas. You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do".

Following their discussion on their talk page, TheGracefulSlick continued editing political entries - e.g. Rashida Tlaib (10 Jan, 8 Jan, 8 Jan), Ilhan Omar (10 Jan) as well as Palestinians (5 Jan), Lifta (4 Jan), Military occupation (2 Jan), Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph (18 December), Herbert Lee (activist) (15 December), Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 December, Charlottesville car attack (11 December).

This was further discussed on 10 January (initiated by User:Icewhiz, responded by users above and User:Bbb23, expressing their disappointment on the one hand but on the other hand noting this is a community matter) with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, to which they responded that they saw this as "settled in December and I am not interested in a continuation of it". They subsequently blanked the talk page section with the edit summary "Enough already please". They have subsequently continued editing political topics, e.g.: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 January).

TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim? Should a TBAN (AP2, ARBPIA, terrorism) be placed to enforce the commitment? Should the indef block be reinstated given the serious misrepresentation in the unblock request? -- Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my “cautious support” of an unblock, deceptively making “textbook” unblock requests is already something TGS has proved capable of doing (along with a high degree of other deceptive and malicious behavior), and the people who were so impressed by the unblock request were being naive to not question its sincerity. Here we see their special treatment was bought with empty words, and TGS has nothing to offer but more empty words to rationalize why they shouldn’t be held to their own promises. TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice, and the blanking of the users trying to hold them to account shows an active and aggressive disrespect for the community. This turn of events should be surprising, but sadly, it isn’t. @TheGracefulSlick: You could be one of the most respected, beloved members of this community. It’s sad to see you continually self-destruct like this.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice - Fascinating that you should say this. I had considered leaving them a comment myself. I had intended part of it to read along the lines of: "In effect, TGS, you may as well have promised not to go skating on the iced over river, before immediately putting on a pair of ice-skates and proceeding to go skating on the river. It's unlikely that anybody is going to take an action to stop you; but if the ice cracks, nobody is likely to do anything to save you either." Seems the ice may have cracked sooner than I had anticipated... which is my fault really it was a blistering 34° out here this very morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything actually wrong with the edits to the polticial topics? GiantSnowman 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Some of his edits where WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Swarm I asked the blocking admin in December whether I was bond to any editing restrictions. Here and here they say no, so long as I am not being disruptive, but make a recommendation that I do not edit politics. I even asked if there should be formal restrictions, but Tony told me to just use my judgement. Shrike was aware of these diffs back in December.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick: if you promised not to edit politics, and the blocking admin advised you not to edit politics, why are you now editing politics? GiantSnowman 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
GiantSnowman because Tony stated I interpreted it as you describing how you would act. I don’t think a formal restriction on “controversial” things would work because that’s essentially anything on Wikipedia and has no easy definition. I think my close was clear that if you were disruptive you’d likely be blocked again, but it’s not a topic ban from controversy or anything of that sort; he was accurate in that interpretation and I regrettably was too ambiguous in my unblock appeal. However, as I have already stated, I will gladly accept formal restrictions. I just need to know them so we can avoid more of this unnecessary drama.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to introduce formal restrictions until we can actually trust you. Going back on your word so soon is incredibly disappointing. GiantSnowman 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I had no issue with restrictions in December and I have none now. I never went back on my word, I merely followed the interpretation of the admin who unblocked me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No, you have gone back on your word. You said that "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months" - and yet you're editing present-day politics areas! Either you don't realise that you have gone back on your word, or you are lying (poorly); I don't know which is worse. GiantSnowman 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine, I’ll agree I went back on my word; I am not really here to argue the point. I will readily accept any formal restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) restrictions as I was a month ago.

─────────────────────────This editor voluntarily made a firm and clearcut commitment to the community as part of their successful effort to get unblocked well before the usual six months had passed. They promised to refrain from editing controversial topic areas such as politics for six months, and to seek adminstrator review of their behavior before beginning to edit articles of this type. They promptly broke their commitment and have persisted despite several editors and adminstrators expressing grave concern. This is a collaborative project and it is important that each of us do our best to keep the promises we make, especially if the promise is made during an effort to persuade the community to lift a sanction. I believe that the sanction should be reimposed, because I cannot believe anything this person says anymore. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

While disappointing, these actions of TheGracefulSlick are not surprising (disclosure: I did not support the unblock in November); a firm commitment was made "to apply the lessons the editors at WikiNews taught me. I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." None of these actions were taken. While it is excellent that the user is doing "good", it really doesn't negate or counterbalance the fact that the community was lied to and deceived. I do not necessarily think that they should be reblocked as Cullen328 suggests, though i would not oppose it, but at a minimum the commitment TheGracefulSlick made should be formalised and made clear to them ~ as if they didn't already understand it. They should be very definitely banned from any "controversial topic areas" for an absolute minimum of six months, and then their actions reviewed. Happy days, LindsayHello 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not happy at all with this development. During the unblock discussion I offered a weak support, accepting their promised self imposed editing restrictions as a condition of their being unblocked. My trust in this editor, already weak given their previous behavior, has been severely damaged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd support formal restrictions. GiantSnowman 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone can show me one problematic edit that has been made since the ban was lifted I will support restrictions. Otherwise, we are placing restrictions for solely punitive reasons, and we should not be doing that. Neutral until then. Fish+Karate 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I explained before some of his edits were indeed disruptive WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not disruptive, removing a list of dead is entirely in line with WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
  • This does not seem disruptive to me, adding a single sourced sentence.
  • This does not either, making an edit once about the presence (or not) of an image, which was reverted, and no further editing.
I appreciate the point that the user said they would to stay out of such topics, but again, I would have to see evidence of problematic editing before I could support restrictions. I'm not opposing, just neutral. I imagine I'll be in the minority here, but there we are. Fish+Karate 13:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the issue for me, too. Yes, it may well have been underhanded to promise this to the community and then go back on it - but unless reimposing the restrictions can be shown to be actually preventing disruption, they shouldn't be reimposed. I'm not a fan of users taking advantage of the community's trust in this way, but sanctions have to be preventative. GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Drive by reverting, with no discussion, is aggressive. But the greater issue here is making a commitment to the community to get unblocked, and then choosing no to abide by it (almost immediately) - which is disruptive. The commitment to avoid controversial topics such as politics has context - TheGracefulSlick's 2018 sockpuppet double-voted at a terrorism related AfD(TGS's original vote diff) - they were promising to avoid a topic area that got them in serious trouble previously. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm curious to see what TonyBallioni has to say about this matter as the unblocking admin. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I really did not want to get involved. But I have followed this situation from a distance. Here it is really clear in my opinion that TonyBallioni unblocked TGS in good faith and with restrictions to certain topics that was agreed upon by both parties. If then the editor in question quite fast starts ignoring the agreed restrictions and edits certain articles anyway within weeks then that in my opinion is a breach of the agreed rules concerning the editors unblock. Bbb23 did not support unblocking TGS before the 6 months had gone by, Tony gave TGS the benefit of the doubt. I see a breach of trust here. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The question is: would the unblocking admin have unblocked TGS without such assurances having been made... ——SerialNumber54129 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: The community consensus was to unblock TGS. Tony assessed consensus. The key question is whether the community's decision was influenced by TGS's later broken promise. I revisited the discussion and I didn't see any editors who supported unblocking expressly saying that the promise influenced their support vote. Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't. For me, personally, by socking TGS breached the trust of the community. The broken promise is another example of such a breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you Bbb23; trust is fundamental, of course. And if it's been breached twice—well. ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Responding to pings: as Bbb23 pointed out, there was community consensus to unblock: I only assessed. I’ve already stated my view that I don’t think “controversial topics” is defined enough to be a formal sanction, which is why I didn’t log it. I read it as a good faith promise that the community or other admins were free to look to in assessing future sanctions if there was disruption. If the community feels it appropriate to formalize sanctions to specific topic areas, that is fine by me, but I’ll leave it to another admin to assess consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to bring up the intensity of TGF's record problematic political editing, including a few ecamples that did not, I think, come up in the discussion leading to the recent suspension. These include:
  • Frankly, I am disappointed with TheGracefulSlick (=TGS) here, I thought he would show more maturity that to dive straight back into WP:ARBPIA territory, when he said (in his unblock request) that he would not. Just not....very clever. To be blunt: TGS needs to grow up, if he wants to continue edit wp. (From what I understand: he is not an old guy, ie there should be room for an improvement). TGS should know by now that when you edit ARBPIA topics someone will monitor your every edit. However, I think it would be a great loss to Wikipedia to ban him indefinitely: I have seen some of the very fine work he has done. 6 months imposed topic ban seem about right, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope the editors !voting for Option 2 realises that TGS already has recieved a second chance by being unblocked early. And in good faith being given the opportunity to follow an agreed upon standard set of rules to stay away from certain topics. Failing to do so within days of being unblocked, and continuing to decieve the community. Secondly TGS has retired indefinitly today. Also, TGS will have the same opportunity like everyone else to appeal his ban in 6 months time, though I think a year would be the best for the editor to wait. BabbaQ (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Consensus exists to reimpose the block. Have left the discussion section open in case there's further comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK lets asses the community consensus here is a three proposals that where raised during preliminary discussion(users may add other options or tweak existent)

  1. As the unblock was granted based on a statement subsequently found to contain material misrepresentations, restore the indefinite block.
  2. As TheGracefulSlick is not abiding to their voluntary commitment to avoid the topic area for six months (and "honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator" prior to returning), convert the voluntary commitment to a WP:TBAN from WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, and terrorist attacks. TheGracefulSlick may appeal the TBAN in six months time at AN or to closing administrator that will evaluate his progress
  3. The ban should be seen as voluntary and vacated
  • Support option 2 as first choice per my arguments before and option 1 as a second choice--Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • After reading the discussion I am more inclined to option 1 but I still think the user may be helpful so option 2 is still a second choice --Shrike (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support option 2 - After reading the above discussion I think TGS may do a better job at avoiding the editing area after the restriction is formally logged and the boundaries are better defined.--NØ 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am changing this to support indef block due to Swarm's comment below. Most of this user's contributions are to controversial topics so a topic ban from them is only gonna lead to another violation, and the umbrella of that topic is too wide to pin down and will probably lead to more WP:GAMING of the system.--NØ 05:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A voluntary ban is voluntary and may be broken or rescinded at any time. If the community seeks a full sanction they should enact one. As no logged sanction here is being violated I would say no action is needed. There was a thread here awhile ago about enforcing voluntary sanctions but of course I can’t find it now. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support option 2 - It is evident per the unblock request and approval of said unblock that TGS had a clear agreement with the admin concerning restrictions/ban of certain topics. A voluntary ban is still a ban from these topics.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support option 2 as the best outcome since there is is little support for option 1, and option 3 rewards deception. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Due to Swarm's statement below and emerging consensus, I now Support indefinite block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support option 2 as their promise to stay away from these areas was a major factor in them being unblocked in the first place.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2 Changing to Support Indef, as per Swarm Sir Joseph (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, oppose option 2 Noting that to pledge to stay away from political topics, and immediately nominate the Toledo synagogue attack plot for deletion was a remarkable demonstration of bad faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, oppose option 2 - Option 2 has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is not the need to enforce the broken promise. The problem isn't disruptive editing in controversial topic areas, that's not even the point. TGS is not, and never has been, a bad content worker, in fact, they're a good one. They don't need a TBAN. The issue is the continued manipulative and deceptive behavior, which quite simply means that we can't trust anything they said in their supposed good-faith unblock request, which everyone was so impressed by. This is exactly what myself and several other editors were worried about, and something that has been a problem going back years (not only did they subsequently ignore the unblock condition imposed on that account, but they continued to pretend to be friends with the user they were harassing with that sock). We can see that obviously they haven't changed, and obviously we were wrong to believe in their unblock request, and they don't even take the concerns about the community's destroyed trust seriously. The indef should be reinstated. A TBAN has nothing to do with the problem. Either we let this deceptive behavior slide, again, and decide to trust them, again, because TGS is a "good editor", or we actually draw a line and reinstate the indef. I don't think we have any reason to continue to trust TGS either way, but I would rather see TGS free to edit than slapped with a pointless TBAN that's completely unrelated to the actual problem.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, oppose option 2 - I also had to change my !vote. This is clear deception as Cullen328 stated. And option 2 will most likely only give TGS another opportunity to be deceptive at this point. I think that the editor recieved a huge straw with the good faith decision of Tony to unblock, sadly TGS did not take this opportunity. BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef - TGS does a lot of useful work but like I said previously, the unblock was premature and their rationale was incomplete and as evident now, rather deceptive. It appears that they are helplessly drawn to controversial topic areas with all of their problematic editing behaviours intact, and I think the proposed topic ban scope would only delay the inevitable. Alex Shih (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 6 months topic ban, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef. Since at least December 2015 (if not before and merely unnoticed), TGS has engaged in a clear and frankly outrageous pattern of deception and also harassment [29], [30]. The fact that he is a prolific content creator and also a commentator at noticeboards blinded many people to this side of him. But it's as clear as day that he is not going to stop this pattern (he is still playing hifalutin' games with the admins calling him out on his talkpage), and that no matter how many restrictions or TBans or IBans are placed on him, he will still find a way to be both deceptive and disruptive. It simply seems to be part of his nature, unfortunately. We can't allow such a liability to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support re-imposition of indef block, oppose option 2 - Three things: (1) TheGracefulSlick has an absolutely fabulous user name. (2) I was at first inclined towards option 2, but I'm convinced by Swarm's argument. (3) I do not agree with those who wish to give TGS a free pass because their pledge was voluntary: for the most part, voluntary pledges are promulgated to avoid community sanctions -- sometimes harsher ones -- from being applied. "Voluntary" in this context does not mean "not mandatory", it simply means that, for whatever reason, the editor has decided to short-circuit the community discussion and accept on their own limitations on their editing. In my view, voluntary topic or interaction bans are as enforceable as those imposed by the community, and should have the same repercussions as violating a community-imposed sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll add (4) I agree with Swarm's argument below that whether TGS's edits were "disruptive" or not is irrelevant. It's TGS's behavior -- promising to the community that they would not do X and then going ahead and doing X -- that is disruptive. The community cannot possible police every promise made to it by our thousands of editors (nor would we want it to be able to), so it must trust that people will do what they say they will do -- that's part and parcel of WP:AGF. When editors break those promises, especially when they do so in an egregious manner, the system of cooperation, collegiality, trust and good faith is undermined, which is not beneficial to any of us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2. I think this case shows the vulnerability of verbal promises that are not anchored in editing restrictions. I am also leery of an informal restriction as ill-defined as "controversial" which could cast a net covering tens of thousands of topics as could the subject of "politics". Even our politics discretionary sanctions are specifically worded to pertain to a specific time period. I think TGS should be subject to clearly defined editing restrictions. If that is violated, I'm all for another indefinite block. But I think Tony's decision was more of a suggestion than an admin laying down the law, so to speak, and I think that a redo is called for with a formal editing restriction rather than a "promise". This isn't giving TGS a free pass, it's just adding clarity to what I view as a fuzzy agreement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2, weak support for indef (option 1), but prefer option 2. A formal TBAN makes clear the community takes promises seriously, and gives TGS a chance to regain trust. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef Their refusal to communicate with the complainants says it all[31]. Kraose (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef per Swarm. If not, then we need a topic ban at the very least. GiantSnowman 08:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef. His failure to pussyfoot is extremely alarming.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef per Swarm above, to which I have no answer. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef Based on all the evidence presented here, it's very hard not to support this cause of action. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support for Option 3 Based on the statement from the unblocking admin I don't see any grounds for sanction at this time. There's no evidence that TGS is currently engaged in any problematic editing in these areas, and this whole thread reads somewhat like an attempt to vote an opponent off the island. That said, it does appear that TGS has dramatically misread the tone of the room regarding how welcome their edits in this area are, and I would suggest that they should consider voluntarily curtailing that practice and making some uncontroversial edits for a while to show they aren't likely to go back to socking, etc. However if the decision of the community that this is more than just sour grapes from the reporting and antagonistic editors, then I'd suggest Option 2 is far more appropriate than an indef. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef. Support option 3. IF the self imposed ban edits were non problematic. Restrictions are not supposed to be punitive. If there was no disruption beyond breaking their word there is no need.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Switch to indef per Swarm's eloquent rebuttal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Still in opposition to a block/ban until I see any actual evidence of disruption. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Fish+Karate 14:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the argument for reinstating the indef is not active "disruptive editing" in "controversial subject areas". The problem is that their "word" was a deceptive unblock request that overturned an indefinite block, which is something that fits right into a long-term behavioral pattern of deceiving the community and making disingenuous unblock requests. That's not even mentioning the fact that they appear to be constructive at face value while maliciously operating socks. This isn't a one-time fluke. It's long term disruptive editing. The community cautiously granted this user a last chance, with no remaining rope, but that was with the assumption that the user had changed. But now we are seeing in hindsight that the unblock request itself was just more deception and manipulation. We were deceived, not just into unblocking them, but into making an exception to the standard offer. TGS' attempt to shift the focus onto their conduct in this topic area is a misleading distraction from the real issue, and, I would argue, continued willful deception. Direct proof that a user is continuing a pattern of malicious conduct is more than a sufficient preventative reason to reinstate an indef.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support indef. As far as Fish and karate's point about prevention not punishment, this block is to prevent the community being lied to and deceived, again, in the future, nothing to do with punishment. This also speaks to Dlohcierekim's "no disruption" statement: The disruption consists of the breaking their word and deceiving us. We are building an encyclopaedia, yes; but the way we are doing it, as a community, is also important, and cannot be ignored by anyone who wishes to participate. It may be that as encyclopaedia-builders it doesn't matter if we are lied to; as a community of people working together, it does. Happy days, LindsayHello 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC
  • Support Indef I haven't posted much to ANI since I'm trying to wean myself off contributing to this page. Some have said that the restrictions were voluntary so the community can't sanction TGS for not holding to it. However, I see it this way. Community restrictions are the community's way of saying "you've been bad, so we are going to restrict you in this way and will sanction you if you violate these restrictions". A voluntary restriction is the editor saying "I've been bad so I will hold myself to this behaviour. If I violate them, then you can sanction me" and not "If I say I will do this, you won't sanction me, right?". Well, here is the sanction for violating those restrictions. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, no comment on other proposals. Saying what you think others want to hear to get yourself unblocked and then immediately going back on your promises is shockingly appalling behaviour from an editor wanting to participate in a collaborative environment, especially one who was on thin ice in the first place. Per Swarm, mostly. I'm bookmarking these two threads as a very good example of why we should not accept voluntary unblock conditions, rather only exchange blocks for specific formal sanctions that can be enforced by reinstating the block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2: the unblock conditions were somewhat ambiguous. The community, perhaps rightly, interpreted them as a self-imposed topic ban, while the close was not as specific. TGS (whether in good or bad faith) interpreted them differently. The formal topic bans as proposed would remove the ambiguity. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef on the grounds that, frankly, we don't need this shit. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef as there is no reason to waste the community’s time any further. Clearly any apologies have been proven to be empty words and deceitful. Ultimately a self-destructive liar (as shown by his sockpuppetry, which some seem to overlook). XavierItzm (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, with sadness. There's nothing ambiguous about the "present-day politics" part of "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." When someone makes an apparently sincere unblock request and is unblocked based on it (and, more, has the SO period shortened because of the quality of the request), then fails to stick to the commitments made in the request (and remains stubborn even when reminded of them), the unblock should be annulled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch[edit]

There is a page, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, that was made on November 16, 2018 by Favre1fan93, regarding the in-development series. The series iself was announced as "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" by a Deadline Hollywood source (which later removed the title), while the current title, "The Vision and Scarlet Witch", was announced with a report from The Hollywood Reporter. Robberey1705 created a separate page after The Hollywood Reporter report under the name "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" and further worked on the page despite a more-developed article, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, having already been made. I proposed a deletion request of the Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch so the Draft:Vision and Scarlet Witch page could be renamed and moved to that title, as it was the first draft article made. RHaworth acted upon my request by merging the history of Robberey1705's Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch into the history of Favre1fan93's Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch. Since merging the history of the two pages was not my request, I'd like to see if the revisions from Robberey1705's draft were deleted from the page as it was from a separate page that doesn't need to exist, and should not have been made in the first place. The selected revisions to be deleted are starting from this revision (the first by Robberey1705 on his own draft) up until this revision by RHaworth of him merging the histories together with a rename to the proper title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be very little point in doing this. What benefits would be gained? Fish+Karate 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If these are all about a single subject, I think we should leave the edit history intact unless (a) revisions contain(s) copyvios.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
My main complain with this is that the original page should not have the history of the page that wadn't meant to even exist be apart of it's history. The new page's history is compiled with two different page histories with the history of the new page being completely unnecessary. The page along with it's history should've been deleted rather than merged. I'm simply requesting that the history from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page is deleted from the page as it never should've been mrged into the article into the first place. I just requested for that original page to be deleted and for the original Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch to be renamed to "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" to maintain the earlisest amount of the page's history, rather than having the history of both pages be merged into one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unban request for Thepoliticsexpert[edit]

Withdrawn by proposer. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thepoliticsexpert (talk · contribs) has requested that their ban be lifted. Here's their statement:

I hereby humbly craft an unban request on my own talk page further to the guidance received from administrator @Just Chilling: on 9.7.19 that “Check User has raised no objection to your appeal moving to the next stage. In order to be unbanned your appeal will need to be taken to the Community for a full discussion and there would need to be Community consensus that you should be unbanned.” I therefore humbly ask that the reviewing admin take my unban request to for community discussion along with the following text could be put to the community as my grounds for unban: ‘ I have gone over 6 months now without any sockpuppets - I have not used any Wikis for editing/contributing in any way in this time - and would like to apologise for all my previous actions which I regret. I would like to request an unblock because I want to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia again. I was previously unemployed (hence I had time to sockpuppet). I'm now in full time employment so my contributions would be small but of high quality and would do so in my free time but don't worry - I wouldn't have time to sockpuppet! I now understand what sock puppetry is, and so know how to avoid it. I think all the former accounts I created when sockpuppeting have been blocked anyway, but can confirm I have no account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. I will only use this sole account to edit Wikipedia if unbanned, if i’m not unbanned (if I don't receive a consensus from the community for the unban) I will continue to respect the ban by simply not contributing'. Thank you in advance to the admin reviewing this unblock request for your kind assistance with this matter, as well as to Just Chilling and the checker for your help too. Yours sincerely, thepoliticsexpert 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation is available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thepoliticsexpert/Archive and there's a rather long list of sockpuppet accounts at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thepoliticsexpert. Yunshui states: "There is a not-inconsiderable amount of activity on the IP range from which this appeal was sent (which appears to correspond to a range previously used by thepoliticsexpert) but given the breadth of that range, this isn't surprising. There's no definitive evidence that any of those users are thepoliticsexpert, but if he told the truth at 1 it's entirely plausible. "Consent" (or the denial of such) was not intended to be implied; I was simply providing additional information which wasn't available to the previous reviewer." (source: User_talk:Thepoliticsexpert) The block was made by Bbb23, who I will notify. I noted that the block became a ban under WP:3X, based on WP:SPI evidence of repeated sockpuppetry and block evasion. At least two of the sockpuppet accounts were based on my username, so I'm unsure if this makes me involved. I take no current position on whether this user should be unbanned and unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thepoliticsexpert and Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert in mind before making any decisions or conclusions anyone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm all right with letting someone back in after a "normal" first block, but with this massive history of disruption, I say no. More than eighty disruptive accounts! Maybe after one or two disruptive sockpuppets, but this many accounts, I don't think we can ever trust the operator. One of the SPIs pointed to User:, a Sky UK Limited IP that geolocates to western London; if this is the kind of IPs that Thepoliticsexpert has routinely used, I don't see any problems with the activity, since there are lots and lots of people in western London who use a major telecommunications company. However, even if we assume that he's telling the truth there, and that all 10 extended-confirmed accounts and all 60 autoconfirmed accounts (not to mention the other 1,930 or more accounts) have been blocked or forgotten about to the point that he'll never be able to access them, his history of disruption is too extensive. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per Nyttend. Their track record is far too egregious for an unblock this soon. Come back in two years. If there is no evidence of socking, I'd be willing to talk about an unblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The community cannot unblock a CU-blocked user unless a CheckUser consents. As far as I know, that has not happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yunshui is a checkuser. As Bbb23 points out, Yunshui has not consented to an unblock here, but did provide some information, included above. --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I have often provided information based on an unblock request; that does not translate into consent unless I expressly say so. This discussion should be closed and TPE advised to appeal to the Committee.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support immediate close per Bbb23 and WP:SNOW. Even w/o the CU issue, it is inconceivable that the community would agree to unblock this editor after only six months. Seriously. If they want to pursue this they can take it to ARBCOM, but I believe it would be a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There's clearly no chance of an unban or an unblock here. I also agree that ARBCOM would be a waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I support a WP:SNOW close on this (but believe it would be inappropriate for me to close off the thread). --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yamla, thank you for being careful, but that's actually not something inappropriate. Any time you propose something and then change your mind, you're free to close it as "withdrawn" if it's gotten no input or if the proposal's only been opposed. I've closed it in that way. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin help needed with error message[edit]

I had a problem which I discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cannot log on through TOR. My problem was fixed, but in the process we identified a place where we could improve one of our error messages. One suggestion was:

A local version of MediaWiki:Sessionfailure can be created and edited by administrators. It could link Help:Logging in.

Could someone read the thread and look into creating such a page? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of accidental block[edit]

Hi, just a note that I blocked Special:Contributions/ while thinking I was looking at Meta. I realized right away when I noticed that the wiki logo was different and undid the action, but wanted to leave a note here in case anyone was concerned. Related, the IP might be worth blocking if it continues. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, don't worry; nobody's going to object if you quickly self-undo a bad block. My only objection is that you shouldn't have undone the block; although you were at a different project, the IP in question deserved a block here, too, so I've reverted your self-reversion and re-blocked for a week. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ajr: Install User:Quentinv57/HideButtonsFromNonGsProjects.js to your global.js and you will know if you are trying to do nasty things on big wikis where you aren't local sysop. (It still allows you to do the job, contrary to the name 'hide'.) — regards, Revi 05:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @-revi: I figured there must be a tool for that. I've never done this before in 5 years of stewarding, but the script could still be helpful. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of BAG nomination[edit]

I am just writing this to inform AN that I have requested to join the Bot Approvals Group (BAG). I invite your thoughts on the nomination subpage, which is located here. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


I have a request for admins to please revisit the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahllam (Iranian singer) as I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12. TnksReza Amper (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reza Amper, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place for this. If your best argument is to repeat the argument you've already made in the discussion then you would probably be wasting everybody's time. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ahllam_(singer).-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a review of my protection[edit]

Earlier today, I reacted on a request at WP:RFPP and fully protected Mann Gulch fire because of edit-warring and content dispute. One of the edit-warring users, CerroFerro, was apparently upset about the protection. They left me a talk page message accusing me in "hijacking the page" and suggesting that I should be blocked, without actually giving a link so that I could not understand what they were talking about [32]. When I asked them what the fuck they were talking about, they called me a "foulmouthed" administrator [33], and when I asked that they crossed this out they instead suggested that I should refer to myself "Mr. What the fuck" [34]. Since my administratve actions seldome cause such an expressive reaction, it is possible that I have done something wrong before asking what the fuck they were referring to (which is a pretty much common expression, but apparently they have taken in as offence, which I did not mean it to be). Therefore I request an independent review of my protection of this page. May be indeed I hijacked the page and should be blocked, I do not know. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A small correction: I capitalized the "F" in the proposed moniker. CerroFerro (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
why can't we ever protect the right one?

You obviously protected the wrong version, you clod. Seriously though, CerroFerro, you might want to contemplate what other options an admin has in such cases (like blocking you for edit warring) and reconsider your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • No issues with the protection. CerroFerro has clearly put some effort into that article, but they need to focus on reaching consensus for all or a part of the content they wish to add, rather than continuing to edit-war over the exact change that they made, which is only likely to end in escalating blocks. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    In fact, having reviewed all of this exchange, if CerroFerro doesn't moderate their tone the next time they log in, I for one am willing to issue an immediate civility block; this was completely unacceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Is that the Wrong Link? That diff is about changing a f to a F. Fish+Karate 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict with Vanamonde's 22:25 comment] I saw that RFPP request earlier, and I wasn't at all interested in handling it at the time, because I really did consider it the wrong version. At 2042, Montanabw reverts to his preferred version with a rationale of "edit-warring", and then at 2043 requests protection on edit-warring grounds and requests a reversion to status quo ante bellum. (1) When a page has had recent edits from only two individuals, and neither one's been doing blatant vandalism or anything comparable, either nobody's been edit-warring, or both editors are guilty of it. (2) Reverting for the mere reason of "edit-warring" isn't generally a good idea, and it's definitely not if you're one of the parties. (3) Protecting and then reverting to status quo ante bellum, when one party's preferred version is what that party calls status quo ante bellum, is definitely picking sides. (4) Had this request come when the other party's preferred version was active, things would be different ("anything is better than edit-warring, so let's stick with the bad version instead of fighting"), but given the fact that protection was requested immediately after reversion, this sounds solidly like "please protect my version", especially as days were passing between reversions, so there was no significant chance of CerroFerro making any edits before someone saw it at RFPP. (5) Consequently, I consider both parties to have acted improperly, and the only way I'd consider protection appropriate is if CerroFerro's version is displayed until protection ends. [This is not a comment on Ymblanter, who probably didn't notice most of the items I raise.] I'm not sure what to do, but we can't treat this as if CerroFerro's the only one to blame. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: I agree that Montanabw's edit summary was sub-par, but I think you've to look at the whole history of the dispute, including the stuff on the talk page. CerroFerro's version was based on a source that wasn't 100% verifiable. When Montanabw reverted on 6th January, she also left a talk page comment (see this discussion). CerroFerro reverted before even replying there, two days later, and when they did reply, they included the snarky aside "Please use standard English on this site. "Gotta say" should be "I have to say"." A second editor also raised objections to CerroFerro's content, to which CerroFerro's reply included "How many sockpuppets are you currently operating, pal?" That second account is a tad suspicious, but not exactly WP:DUCK material. Montanabw reverts again soon after, and leaves a talk page comment. MONGO replies to said comment, with a fairly nuanced suggestion about the new content. Some hours later, Acroterion warns both CerroFerro and Yankeepapa13, reminding the former about the need for consensus. Despite now having objections to their edits from three different editors, and a reminder from an uninvolved admin, CerroFerro reverts again (with the summary "see talk page"), and their subsequent reply misses the point of Acroterion's comment completely. It's at that point that Montanabw reverts again, and Ymblanter protects the article, after which CerroFerro goes a little off the rails, posting warnings or notifications article hijacking to four user talk pages (including that of Yankeepapa13, who hadn't even edited the article during this kerfuffle), and doubles down on his incivility here. Montana could have made one fewer revert, but this is not a symmetrical situation. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You refer to several edit summaries, so I guess I should note that I don't remember paying attention to edit summaries, except for the ones associated with the diffs I provided. Thank you for the details, because I've missed some of this; somehow I thought that there hadn't been any discussion at talk, aside from stuff these two had written. The fact that Montanabw was reverting primarily on the basis of agreement with Yankeepapa13 completely changes the dynamic and invalidates my statements above. I'm sorry. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries; at first glance, that was my conclusion too. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I indeed looked at the talk page and the edit summaries and decided that the article would benefit for a short period of full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I'm sure it's a difference of culture and situation, but I struggle to think of a real life situation in my life where someone could ask "what the fuck" another person is talking about without offence being given. I realise that for some people this is everyday language, but those people need to consider that for other people it isn't, and err on the side of not stirring up needless trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that societies differ about appropriate language even within a culture. I have never heard someone say "fuck" within my family or friends so it is always kind of a shock to encounter it online. Also, I think it's important to remember that we have editors from all nations, faiths, areas of society and, most importantly, ages. I'm not talking about this particular situation but we have admins & editors who started editing at 12 or 13 and I hope we wouldn't use offensive or disparaging language towards editors that age. I'm not talking about sheltering children from life but Wikipedia is an educational resource, not some message board where anything goes. I hope we have higher standards here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, point taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ignoring for the moment the language that was used on either side, there's nothing wrong with protecting the article so that discussion can take place, and Ymblanter didn't hijack anything in doing so. Neither did Montanabw (who is female, by the way) in reverting to the status quo ante, nor did Yankeepapa13 for commenting on the talkpage, but they all got warned by CerroFerro for "hijacking" [35] [36] [37], along with this sparkling complaint about the Cabal and an unscrupulous administrator [38]. This follows this exchange by a now-blocked IP on my talkpage [39] [40] [41] complaining about Yankeepapa13, echoing this by CerroFerro [42] and this [43], MONGO is trying to work things through on the talkpage, and nobody has done anything to deserve the bile displayed by CerroFerro. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    I say give a day or three and see if CerroFerreo helps out on the chitty chat page where we can draw up some suitable bargain. Too funny...I saw the notice to my talkpage that my name was here and I expected to once again be the deer standing in the headlights wondering how I was gonna talk my way out of the latest hole I'd dug for myself! Whew...--MONGO (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO: My apologies if I didn't make that clear; I was required to notify you, but I didn't want to go and say "you can ignore this if you want" because that's not really the point, is it? As you can see, no criticism was intended, I only linked your edits above to provide some context. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    No worries and thanks!--MONGO (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see my name also appeared on this. Yup, I asked for full protection of the WP:WRONG version, and I am sad that Ymblanter took the heat for an entirely appropriate action. The issue is pretty clearly laid out at the talkpage and the now-blocked editor in question pretty much treated Ymblanter the way that individual has treated everyone else... attack when criticized. I alerted members of the appropriate wikiproject to take a look at the article and as far as I am concerned, there should now be 3 or 4 people with some expertise who can review the content and move forward as needed. Looks like this is one to close, nothing more to be said. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't create talk page[edit]

Page was created. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't create the talk page for the recently created article ..... sofferte onde serene .... The action produces a "Permission error" which mentions that the name has fallen foul of blacklists. The message then advises to post a request here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just created a blank talk page. Please put something there when it's convenient for you, so nobody comes along and marks it for speedy deletion :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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


Have just received legal threats by email from 2607:FEA8:3C9F:E82A:3DA7:998A:5982:3622 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have therefore blocked them for two weeks and protected the article in question. If anyone wishes to see the email in question or have concerns with these actions let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • James sent me the email and I acted before I saw this. I've blocked the /64 for a month, which should prevent the IP from hoping and also be limited enough to not have collateral damage. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I note there's also a legal threat in their edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Pakol[edit]

Ahmadjansadat2 (talk · contribs) has added "Afghan Cap" to the mentioned page as an alternate name for it with a source that is from elsewhere in the page meant for other information in the lede. The source does not refer to it as "Afghan cap". It is a blatant misuse of the source, obviously using it for OR. I have reverted these edits 4 times.(1 time it was reverted by LouisAragon (talk · contribs)).) I gave a final warning twice, reverted the edits, explaining why, and the user added the content 2 more times since. Here is [my removal on 1 Jan], [4th addition], [5th addition].- R9tgokunks 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User has added the content again, a sixth time. - R9tgokunks 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked X 36 hours by Oshwah.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

New editor having serious problems[edit]

Would an admin my taking a look at Special:diff/Jurita Kalite/878691877 and perhaps try to help this new editor out without throwing the book at her? I think this editor is frustrated about some photo possibly being deleted from Commons and doesn't understand why she cannot get her profile/page published on Wikipedia. Also from reading her posts, it seems safe to assume that English is not really her first language; so, she might be having some difficulty understanding comments left by those who have tried to help her so far. Her last post seems to be an obvious problem per WP:NLT, but I don't think she would understand it if {{uw-legal}} or some other threatening sounding message was posted on her user talk page. I also realize that I should notify her of this post here, but I'm not going to do so at the moment because I don't think she'd understand {{AfD-notice}}, and it just might confuse her even more. She's posting in Russian on her user talk page; so, just wondering if by the off chance there's a Russian speaking admin who might be able to communicate with her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, would you have a chance to look at this? Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a blatant legal threat, and although she has language difficulties, what she's saying is clearly expressed in English. I've therefore indeffed. I also note that she's currently blocked on Commons for a few days for intimidation/harassment. If Ymblanter wants to talk to her about her issues, that's fine, but unless she retracts the threat and behaves appropriately here, she must remain blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Without yet having looked at the page, which I will do now). I came across this user on Commons, and she clearly had very little understanding of the local policies and generally the copyright issues. Someone mentioned in the discussion that ten years ago the user was indefinitely blocked on the Russian Wikipedia under a different name (I believe it was User:JuKa or smth) for persistent disruptive editing, also somehow related to copyright issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I left on her talk page a message in Russian. The first point of the message is that she must retract the legal threat, otherwise she remains blocked. I am not very hopeful, but I added her talk page on my wacthlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Did we remove any images on which she asserts WP:COPYVIO? Or did I misunderstand the assertion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a lengthy discussion on Commons at commons:User talk: Jurita Kalite. Most of it is in Russian, but Google translate will give you the flavour of the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Two images were deleted on Commons. I did not check, but apparently the metadata of the images mentions copyright by Sergey Stepovoy (no ide who this is). She first said she does not know what metadata is, and now she says that this Sergey Stepovoy has stolen her pictures (which she herself uploaded).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Prong$31 Edit Warring[edit]

OP blocked.-- Flooded with them hundreds 15:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings! There is a user Prong$31 who has blocked me on hiwiki without any reason. He keeps on reverting my edits on Wikimedia commons as well as on enwiki. There is a conversation going on the Chris Gayle Talk page between me and Spike'em. And he reverted an edit of mine before I can answer Spike'em the reason of my edit on the Chris Gayle page. I request the respected administrators to block Prong$31.I even gave the warning of a possible block on his talk page but he deleted it. Now I have wrote the warning again. Dr Samkiv Kumar (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dr Samkiv Kumar: You are required to notify users of reports here. I have done so. Bellezzasolo Discuss 15:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dr Samkiv Kumar: Do you really know what is edit warring?-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi, can someone please create a wiki page for so we can list our company and what we do on Wikipedia?

Thanks, Babak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babsal (talkcontribs) 19:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This probably isn't a matter for admins, I suggest asking the teahouse. However, your use of "our company" concerns me. Is your account operated by multiple people? Wikipedia accounts are only allowed to be operated by one person. You may also wish to read WP:PAID and WP:COI. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF[edit]

User talk:Oreratile1207[edit]

I request that an uninvolved adminstrator take a look at the personal attacks against me on this editor's talk page, and take appropriate action. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have revoked the talk page access and removed harassment from their talk page. I was considering reblocking them indef (they are currently blocked for three months, which roughly equals the time they have been editing), but decided to give them the last piece of rope. In my statement, I made it clear that the next block, for whatever reason, will be of an indefinite duration. If anybody observes problematic behavior of this user in three months from now, please let me know, I will block them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


I WP:DUCK blocked Wiki3310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) due to re-creation of Natty Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a G5 deleted spam article by an earlier ban-evading sock, part of the FFHypeTeam sockfarm. The new article is only slightly different from the deleted version. The master is stale so can't be CU verified but the article focus - creation of articles previously created by socks - plus non-newbie familiarity from day 1 strongly suggests this is yet another one. Pinging @SamHolt6: who is familiar with this LTA. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy, would you mind moving or duplicating your comments here? Thanks —DoRD (talk)​ 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries[edit]

2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a general appeal for admins to watch the page 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. There's been quite a lot of edit-warring over the past few days, as candidates are finally starting to announce. I don't feel that IP editors are behaving worse than extended-confirmed editors overall, but there are several very new accounts advocating for Andrew Yang (entrepreneur). I am extremely involved and don't want to make any specific recommendations as to actions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)