Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pppery (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 3 May 2020 (→‎Creation request: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Apr May Jun Jul Total
    CfD 0 0 2 20 22
    TfD 0 0 0 9 9
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 1 26 27
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 8095 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Talk:Plenary Committee of the American Communist Party 2024-07-25 02:36 indefinite create Disruptive recreation of a deleted article under closely related name. Ad Orientem
    Sevens Football 2024-07-24 16:42 2025-07-04 17:49 move Persistent sock puppetry Elli
    Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present) 2024-07-24 16:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Background to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-07-24 11:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Jadaun (clan) 2024-07-24 05:22 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Executions and assassinations during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-07-24 04:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    American Communist Party 2024-07-24 03:59 indefinite edit,move Repeated efforts to convert redirect into an article contrary to recent AfD consensus. Ad Orientem
    Benny Morris 2024-07-24 03:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Weenus 2024-07-23 22:09 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist
    Weenis 2024-07-23 22:08 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist
    Wenus 2024-07-23 22:08 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist
    Katherine Franke 2024-07-23 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Real Malabar FC 2024-07-23 21:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP suggestion Daniel Case
    Gaur Brahmins 2024-07-23 13:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Doug Weller
    Rathore dynasty 2024-07-23 03:16 2024-10-23 03:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare
    Rathore (Rajput clan) 2024-07-23 03:13 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Mughal–Rajput wars 2024-07-22 21:43 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; will log it under WP:GCASTE given the usual Rajput-related sockpuppetry and warring Abecedare
    Branches of Rashtrakuta dynasty 2024-07-22 21:38 2025-07-22 21:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock farms Abecedare
    Baglana 2024-07-22 21:37 2025-07-22 21:37 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock-farms Abecedare
    Second Battle of Shuja'iyya (2024) 2024-07-22 21:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign 2024-07-22 19:45 indefinite edit,move Make move protection following edit protection per this RfPP request Favonian
    Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 2024-07-22 05:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Taylor Small 2024-07-22 04:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per ANEW and GENSEX Daniel Case
    I Don't Wanna Cry 2024-07-22 01:13 2025-07-22 01:13 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Isabelle Belato
    Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header/core 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3197 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2957 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Klepon 2024-07-21 11:58 2024-08-21 11:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

    unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

    I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS

    MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

    Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.

    There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

    Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walidou47

    (non-admin closure) Four endorses looks good enough to me. creffett (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user was just blocked for a long history of copy and paste issues by User:Diannaa. They have admitted to switching to this new account immediately after User:Lil heartthief. I have blocked this new account. Happy for others to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47. MER-C 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse, blocks like these, especially when journals are involved, are unfortunately nessecary. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is also problematic when it comes to the accuracy of the text they are relaying and by not adhering to the WP:Preserve policy. The editor doesn't understand WP:MEDRS and rules as much as they act like they do. I've seen Doc having to revert the editor a lot, and I was planning to report the editor at WP:ANI within the next few days or next month. It takes time to build a well-constructed report that won't just come across as a content dispute or minor issue, and then one has to find the time to report. Anyway, I endorse the block. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Checks out. Thanks for looking out, Doc James. El_C 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse: Nothing wrong with blocking someone who would evade a block. Appreciate it, Doc. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jhilr account and redirects, likely sock of Alarjar

    (non-admin closure) Blocked. creffett (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Looking at Jhilr (talk · contribs) and how they are being problematic with redirects, this may be Alarjar (talk · contribs), also known as Lepintin (talk · contribs); see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#User:Lepintin being disruptive with redirects. In any case, the editor is a sock.

    Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who is familiar with handling Alarjar. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. They were already blocked as a sock on two other Wikipedias. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interaction ban request

    There isn't any consensus here to impose an interaction ban. The principle of a no-fault interaction ban is a reasonable one, but if both parties aren't comfortable with it then it has to be imposed by a consensus. Unfortunately, that consensus is hard to arrive at without trying to find fault in the first place, which leads to an unpleasant impasse. Both editors seem happy to not interact with each other, and I would strongly encourage both to continue doing that to the best of their abilities. It's definitely on record here for all that interactions between the two are often mutually unproductive and strained, so if there is any further friction it may make it clearer which one instigated it. Hopefully, it will not come to that. ~ mazca talk 20:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban between myself and Sir Joseph as detailed at WP:IBAN. I have voluntarily avoided interaction with him since 2016, and we don't as a rule edit the same pages.

    I am hoping that Sir Joseph will agree and that we can then move on without any further drama. If he does not agree I will leave it to him to explain why the interaction is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, I don't care whether the IBAN is one way or two way, either way I will continue avoiding any interaction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, maybe if you don't generally edit the same pages why the iban is needed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Our policy at WP:IBAN specifically mentions "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". It sounds like you are asking me to specify why further interactions with Sir Joseph distress me. This appears to be inconsistent with the words "no-fault". I respectfully decline to say anything bad -- or indeed anything at all -- about Sir Joseph and trigger more of what I experienced in 2016. All I have to say is this: Sir Joseph has chosen to resume interacting with me I do not want to have any interactions with him.
    I voluntarily stopped interacting with Sir Joseph in 2016 and hoped that he would stop interacting with me. That didn't work, so I am requesting that the voluntary interaction ban be made official. If you want to dig up the corpse of a four-year-old conflict, go ahead but I will not participate. Everything you need to know is there in the list of blocks and AE actions from 2016. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough on declining to specify. However that does make it harder, at least for me, to weigh the potential positive value to you vs the reluctance of SJ to enter into one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have not interacted since 2016. Please note that I did not consider his !vote on my RfA an interaction. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on Sir Joseph to convince you that he now has a need to address me directly, talk about me, etc.? Whether or not my IBAN request is granted I will not respond in any way. I just want to be left alone. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except a standard no-fault two way iBAN doesn't just effect discussions. It impacts which articles each of you could edit. It imposes a burden on each of you. I agree you deserve to be left alone but it's not like an iban is friction-less. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, like Talk:Joe Biden where I edited first and been there since 2016 and edited most recently a few days prior to Guy Macon. So as I said, when a formal IBAN is not needed and will only cause more trouble, why do it? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it will help, I will be happy to make a commitment to bend over backwards to AGF and assume that any technical IBAN violation was a simple mistake if we end up editing the same page. I have already unwatched the Biden article; it was a mistake to get sucked in to anything related to US politics given the editor behavior typical of such articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, I don't think it's needed, as he said we generally don't edit the same pages and I don't reply to him. Other than him posting in my TBAN request (which I think was a big "violation" of the unofficial IBAN), he is upset because I posted on the Signpost interview with him, but not about him. I stay away from him because I don't like him and I don't want anything to do with him. I just don't need more bureaucracy. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, you participated in my TBAN discussion. Did you forget that? I have kept to the unofficial IBAN for years. My first direct reply to Guy Macon was on the Signpost talkpage. I don't recall interacting with him prior to that. That being said, I have no problem with putting this being us and continuing on with our lives. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, I expect Guy will not respond to you here in light of his desire to have an iBAN and I would suggest it helpful for you not to talk to him directly but rather the rest of the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, I'm OK with that. But he's not telling the truth when he says he hasn't interacted with me since our incident in 2016. He participated in an ANI requested to TBAN me six months ago. He also brought me to AN about me archiving threads before three days, he also accused me of being a sockmaster and he hounded me and reverted me. He then yesterday replied to me, and then I replied back to him, the first time I ever replied to him (to the best of my memory) in years. I have no problem with not interacting with him. 1)I just don't need it to be formal. 2)Again, he says he hasn't interacted with me since 2016 and that isn't true.
    I have no problem staying away from him, but I don't like when he says he has stayed away from me since 2016 and people will take that at face value and lay all the blame at me and then use that against me in the future. As was said, we never edit the same articles, so no need for an IBAN and more rules and bureaucracy when just staying away is all that is needed, Sir Joseph (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no justification even listed for a community-imposed IBAN. Likewise, given even just the recent history, Guy's claim that he's avoided SJ since 2016 seems pretty clearly less than truthful. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Guy is requesting an IBAN; Sir Joseph says I have no problem with not interacting with him. I just don't need it to be formal. They both seem willing to abide by an IBAN, and if making it formal rather than informal will save the community future headaches, I say we give it to 'em. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Wugapodes, You miss the part where I am not requesting this. The part with making this formal means that both of us can be sanctioned if we mistakenly interact with each other or participate in discussions that some may find to be interactions. Sometimes people read ANI/AN etc and just respond without reading very carefully. Perhaps they should, but that's the reality. We haven't interacted in years, and I haven't interacted even more. As I said, I'm OK leaving things the way they are. There is no need to write things in stone. If he wants to make a one way IBAN so he's more careful, let him do so, after all, he has a past of hounding, reverting, calling me a sockmaster, etc, I don't have a history of following him around. I 'oppose any IBAN when one isn't needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, I'd also be fine with a one way IBAN. I sympathize with your point about an IBAN being warded over you. My general concern is that this bickering is a waste of time, and from this discussion it's quite obvious that the status quo is just going to continue to waste time. Whatever solution you two can mutually agree to, I'm willing to rubber stamp and enforce it as a community sanction whether it be one-way, two-way, or some weird Treaty of Tordesillas. I really just want Guy Macon-related disputes to stop being a thorn in the community's side. No one wins; we all just get angry and stop doing actual work. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Wugapodes - Give it to 'em, Keeping it informal just means potentially more drama, Don't agree with this at all but who cares, Support. –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose making WP:RESTRICT incrementally longer unless an actual explanation (or at least a simple link I can read without playing junior detective) is forthcoming. Maybe Guy isn't willing to explain the background of the dispute in 2016, but I just spent 5 minutes trying to figure it out, couldn't, and I'm not going to spend more of my time trying to find what he's hinting at. If both supported, I'd say "OK, I guess", but not if one of them opposes. I suspect this is unnecessary anyway, as both seem to have rediscovered their reasons for not interacting (whatever they are). If pebble throwing continues, we can make a tailored 1- or 2-way IBAN, or just block for disruption and/or harassment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, on reflection, Sir Joseph's post complaining of the use of the word "unfortunately" in the Guy Macon Signpost piece was a dick move, and I'm not going to reward that. Support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Floquenbeam, as I wrote in my edit, that had nothing to do with Guy Macon, but with the first paragraph. It was supposed to be neutrally worded. I continued from 2016 onward to not interact with him, until he commented in my TBAN request and supported my TBAN, when he was supposed to avoid me, and of course I got admins to get him to stop hounding me earlier on and to warn him when he accused me of being a sockmaster, but none of that means that you need a real IBAN since this is now 2020. As I said up above, I don't want any of us to be sanctioned for inadvertently editing in an area where we jointly edit, such as AN/ANI/VP/AFD,RFC, etc. secondly, even if you don't believe me that I wasn't referring to him when I made that edit, being a dick in one edit is not reason for an IBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel bad about not being willing to give details from 2006, but, rightly or wrongly, I am convinced that if I say anything to or about Sir Joseph, my words will be brought up again and again on various talk pages for years. If it is the consensus among administrators that the "no-fault" wording of WP:IBAN isn't real and that I have to either give a reason with diffs or the IBAN request will be denied, then go ahead and deny it, because I am not willing to go through that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm not sure what is supposed to happen here. Sir Joseph is supposed to be held to sanctions that he doesn't agree with or want, based on a request from a third party who is not willing to provide any reasons as to why those possible sanctions should be applied? And this isn't weird star-chamber behavior? What am I missing here?--Jorm (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Jorm, not just that, Guy Macon says above that if he provides proof, his words will be brought up again and again for years, implying that I've done that in the past. I think someone is paranoid, considering that until he interacted with me trying to get me TBANNED six months ago, I haven't had any interaction with him, nor mentioned him in years, to the best of my memory. Yes, I did oppose him for RFA. If anything, this looks like a one way IBAN territory at this point considering that someone seems to have something out for me. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It honestly feels like an attempt to set you up to fail. I would have voted "oppose" but the thing closed before I could. Should anyone else who feels that the RFA failure was not "unfortunate" also be subject to these restrictions?--Jorm (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Jorm, yep, and Barkeep below is now making up history claiming I removed good wishes for Guy Macon. The deck is stacked of course. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What you are missing is that our policy at WP:IBAN says "a no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". If you disagree with that policy, please go to that page and remove the "no-fault" wording and replace it with language specifying that all contested IBAN requests must contain evidence of fault. Whether you believe me or not, interaction with Sir Joseph distresses me to the point where I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. I do not say this lightly, but that is how I feel about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I understand that. I'm failing to understand why your stress requires that he be subjected to possible sanctions when you cannot or will not demonstrate why it is needed. You literally just said that this is a "you" problem. Just avoid him. That's voluntary. Keep doing that. Problem solved, and we're not arbitrarily hanging a Sword of Damocles over someone else's head just because you want it so.--Jorm (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)This isn't about opposing him at RfA. It's about incidents like going out of your way to remove good wishes for a longtime editor who experienced cardiac arrest while going through RfA - which is not a joy filled experience in the first place. I would suggest you reflect on what led you to decide to fight that battle rather than attempting to boomerang this. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you strike that, since I never removed any good wishes at all. And this is why I do not want any IBAN because people will use any formal process to use against me. So you just implied a terrible thing that I supposedly did. Shame on you. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Picking a battle with me is a choice you can also make. Personally I wouldn't try to play semantics over whether going out of your way to remove good wishes means that you were doing it actively or merely requesting that Signpost editors/writers do it for you. I don't think it's going to help your cause here but you fight the battles you want. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's right, never question an admin, that's how it works here, right? Asking the Signpost to remove a word to make an intro paragraph neutral about an RFA is not removing good wishes that someone is now doing better after suffering a cardiac arrest and implying it is, is terrible. Am I in the Twilight Zone? Someone makes up facts, brings no diffs requests a IBAN claims no interactions but there are and yet I have to have an IBAN because that's how it is in Wikipedia? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I didn't say never to question an admin. 2. I was the first person to ask for diffs. Diffs were subsequently brought. 3. You don't have an iBAN yet. In fact I believe I've expressed more skepticism than support for the idea which is why I suggested picking a battle with me was not going to help your cause. 4. You are not, to the best of my knowledge in the Twilight Zone. 5. You are in a time when this writing holds very true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Barkeep49, OK, but again, those diffs don't show anything, and as I and Buffs also pointed out, the claim of no interaction FROM Guy Macon since 2016 is not true. You and I know very well that editing restrictions are often used against certain editors and I don't need it used against me, when there has been no evidence to the need for it. Thanks and good night. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've read this thread and cannot help empathize with all Sir Joseph points and positions. For I feel my experiences w/ Guy Macon are much a mirror the same as SJ's. Specifically after a history of contention, Guy proposed in a community board discussion an informal Iban between us, he said the articles we edit are different, that I edit chess-related articles while he edits articles related to computers and chess-playing computers. I stated on the board that I agreed. Nevertheless, he opened an ANI against me over behavior in a content dispute on a chess topic article (Three-Check Chess) which had also gone to WP:DRN. I have been avoiding any contact with Guy Macon for years and hopefully for the rest of time on WP, however I pointed out to him then that he was violating a previously agreed-to informal Iban. He rationalized the breach. I've instructed Guy Macon more than once to not post to my Talk page, but he has summarily dismissed those requests, even after being advised by an Admin that he should honor such requests and Macon agreeing with the Admin. The recent chess dispute ANI Guy Macon opened against me resulted in an Indef block on me, and during my block Guy Macon subsequently posted numerous times to my Talk again in some sort of unsolicited "here's-what-I-can-do-for-you-now-that-you're-indef-blocked" sympathy invitations to which I did not reply at all but simply removed. (He was already told more than once to not post to my Talk. I had no desire to become his "hobby" or "captive", and, I do not trust him or like him at all.) I have never initiated any contact with him and never referenced him since our informally agreed Iban. But I'm human, and after the ANI and more unsolicited harassment at my Talk after the ANI block, I deliberately commented about him indirectly to another user on Jimbo's Talk, which resulted in a 6-month block of me. There is so much one can take of this user, I had reached my limit.
      This Iban request must be evaluated in the perspective and context of Guy Macon history with users whom he has abused. I'm a recipient just as Sir Joseph is. I've tried to avoid Macon as Sir Joseph has. I am opposed to Ibans same as Sir Joseph. (I had an Iban imposed with an editor whom I now get along fine with, but the Iban itself introduced complexities and inconsistencies and unfairness that is good for nobody, and also resulted in subsequent wasted time of several users on noticeboards after those problems were evident.) And like Sir Joseph, I can attest that what Guy Macon says must be taken with a large grain of rocksalt. And like Sir Joseph, I do not like Guy Macon, I have found his behavior bullying, and grudge-infested. I would like him to stay away from me rather than more of the same from him. But I understand the drawbacks of Ibans and agree they are undesirable for all concerned. Last, I do not trust Guy Macon, even the underlying motive or intent of this Iban request. Sincerely submitted, thanks for your consideration, and good luck Joseph! p.s. I would Oppose this request, but more than one Admin who doesn't like me have used my !votes as springboard to oppose my vote along with adding derogatory remarks. So I don't wish to enable them. But nobody can stop that kind of crap either; there is always risk to posting anything on noticeboard on WP without drawing flak & badgering. --IHTS (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Floquenbeam's original comment, which I'm not sure why they struck as it's on point. Since we don't have both parties agreeing to this, and we haven't been told the rationale or given evidence of why this is necessary, it's not fair on the disagreeing party to create a rod for their backs. As already noted above, IBANs create limitations on what parties can do that aren't direct discussions between each other so are not completely free-of-charge.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per the bad-tempered commentary above. Guy (help!) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Guy M., if SJ voluntarily promises to not mention you in any shape, manner, or form without having to impose a horrible, logged iBan, would that work for you? iBans do more harm than good because they end-up being used by the opposition against an editor to gain advantage in a dispute regardless of the parties involved in the iBan. They are an inadvertent gift to the opposition and don't do anything more than what a single promise to you will do without the need for it to be labeled/logged as an iBan. There were times when I wanted an iBan against someone but as it turned out, we became WikiFriends so in retrospect, I was glad that it wasn't imposed. Please reconsider...Atsme Talk 📧 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I am completely fine with any kind of custom restrictions that any admin thinks would work. A simple "don't directly respond to a talk page comment by the other editor and don't talk about the other editor" with no other restrictions would be fine with me. I would have zero problems with Sir Joseph reverting any of my edits, reporting me for edit warring, etc. -- he does not strike me as being the kind of person who would do that sort of thing without a good reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Guy - and I say that with the utmost respect and admiration. Atsme Talk 📧 16:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Guy has made it clear that, at the very least, he wants a one-way IBAN formally logged. Why is that a problem, or something people are agonizing over? Why does that require SJ's consent? If Guy wants it, then let's log it. But I'm actually in favor of a two-way ban, because I haven't seen a good argument for opposing this, just general concerns that "I don't trust Guy" and "people often try to weaponize IBANs"; if, in fact, you don't edit the same articles, that doesn't help support the position that logging a ban is problematic. Also, people offering to accept a one-way ban undermine those concerns. And also, per Guy. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Grandpallama, a one-way iban would not have prevented SJ's signpost comments that were the catalyst of this thread. That is, unless you mean a one-way iban against SJ, which is something we absolutely should not impose simply because the other party wants it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, they wouldn't have, and I understand that, which is why I lean more toward formalizing a two-way IBAN between two people who are saying they want to stay away from each other. Grandpallama (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unnecessary bureaucracy. I agree the "unfortunately" thing was kind of a dick move (including that single word was more about politeness than neutrality), but this one dust up at the Signpost doesn't justify a formal sanction. "We haven't interacted since 2016" was easy to check and it's not accurate. They've interacted without incident a number of times just in the past year. These two editors don't need a formal sanction to keep them apart and I don't think this thread is the best use of editor time. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't wish to appear insensitive to Guy Macon's frustration, but surely he can understand why some of us are unwilling to support an iban when he can't/won't provide the evidence that shows why the ban is necessary. SJ's signpost comment was ill-considered and unhelpful, but that lone incident is not enough to warrant an iban. I've had my own negative experiences with SJ and I'm inclined to believe that Guy has good reason to avoid SJ, but it simply isn't fair to impose an iban that only one party wants when that party won't provide proof that the ban is necessary. If I may be so bold as to speak frankly, I think Guy is overreacting to the Signpost slight. It was an impolite moment that made SJ look bad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not worth stressing over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Honest question: if you disagree with the "no-fault" wording at WP:IBAN and believe that I am required to find fault ("provide proof that the ban is necessary"), shouldn't you be asking that the wording of the policy be changed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The wording in question merely indicates that no-fault interaction bans are a possible solution in certain cases. I don't disagree with that. But there's nothing in the policy that guarantees you can procure such a ban simply by requesting it and I don't think a no-fault iban happens to be the right solution in this case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The burden of showing need has not been met. I don't see any evidence that SJ has done anything in the recent past that would cause them to require an enforceable iban. To pre-suppose the oft-repeated question that GM will now, immediately below this oppose, ask as they have done multiple times above, the idea behind a "no-fault" iban is not the same thing as a "no-reason" iban. A no-fault iban simply means it isn't finding that either person named in the iban is "more correct" than the other person. Even without a finding of fault, a reason is still necessary to enact one, and GMs reasoning provides us no recent disruption or other inciting incident that would merit an iban. --Jayron32 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and reject the request then, because my experience in 2016 and SJ's responses in this thread have convinced me that if I say anything bad about SJ he will throw it in my face for the next few years. I am going to unwatch this page now. Please post a note on my talk page if anything happens that I should know about. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deceased Wikipedian

    RIP Kattenkruid, Closing as no further admin intervention needed. NAC –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Kattenkruid has sadly died (see nl:Overleg gebruiker:Kattenkruid); please protect their (red-linked) user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A message to administrators about UTRS

    UTRS is in the process of moving over to UTRS 2.0 of the software. We needed to do this because several users were unable to file proper appeals due to IPv6 IP addresses not being accepted by our severs. Therefore, we made the decision to move over to a rudimentary beta software instead to allow everyone to appeal properly.

    Please note:

    • In doing this, please understand that there will be bugs and issues. We will try our best to keep up with those issues. You can get assistance at the UTRS talkpage (preferably) or by placing "{{UTRS help me}}" on your talkpage.
    • New features are not being considered at this time. Though your idea may have already been thought of and be in development.
    • Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0. The only thing that needs to match is your Wikipedia username. You should receive a confirmation email to verify your account within 5 minutes. At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons).
    • Temporary tool administrator status can be requested on WT:UTRS, and will be granted liberally at this time to help create templates from the old version. All bans, user management, and other tool administration functions are only available via the database or automated scripts already running on the server at this time.
    • More information will be available in the days to come about the features of UTRS.

    Please cross-post this message as needed

    We appreciate your patience in advance,
    For the UTRS Development Team, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, DeltaQuad. Is there a phabricator ticket or project associated with this? Is it looking for volunteers to contribute to the software? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: We are on github. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0 ... At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons)" - that's the end of my contributions to UTRS then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm same question, even ACCtools does not have OAuth and OAuth is much more mature now. There's mwoauth for Python and mwoauthclient-php for PHP clients which are pretty stable, doing most of the work behind the scenes. It's probably more ideal to onboard more people into the development process and do it, if the workload is the issue. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @QEDK: We've been trying to onboard people since it's inception in 2012 - we've only gained SQL and lost 2 others. No one has expressed an interest - or if they have, it missed my desk. I did not know about the PHP client, but I still struggle to understand OAuth and how to properly integrate it with Laravel as the login system is pre-build in there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @DeltaQuad: I'm not that used to PHP but I can take a look into the OAuth integration. Maybe @DannyS712: can help as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the comments below, I'd also be willing to pitch in to at least get OAuth working. Depending on what other tasks need done I may be able to lend a hand elsewhere as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @QEDK and Wugapodes: If anyone wishes to pitch in, they can via pull requests, just be aware, we don't just use PHP, we use Laravel on top of it, which is the complicating factor. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @DeltaQuad: It's not small enough to resolve via pull requests, can you set up a development instance or if you already have one, grant us access. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked the Wikimedia Cloud team if I can limit access to one instance I create that would allow you to do that. I think the answer is yes, but I'll have to get back to you - because I can't blanket hand out access because CU data exists on the server. In the mean time, if you don't have one already, you'll need to create a WM Dev account and tell me the name. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked the team, and there is no way I can limit access to only one instance. Also, if I understand you correctly, you just want to go in and code on an instance, and then have me integrate it back with whatever changes I've made in the meantime. That's a lot of extra time that a PR can solve while still allowing code review to make sure security remains intact. There is no limit to the size of a PR, in fact ACC has one here. The code is able to be ran on a local computer, and it only requires one install. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @DeltaQuad: I will try but I have no experience with VPS (I work with Toolforge) and even if I could get it to work locally, there's no guarantee it will be usable at all in production. The ACC pull request is still open from 2017, so can you really say it's helping, either way, is it possible to get an instance up at Toolforge, or is it some VPS feature that is required, even a barebones instance is fine as long as we can test the flow in production, just saying it because it's known be finicky. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's something we can't put on toolforge. As far as I understand it, rules 2 & 5 would be violated to put it on toolforge. Beyond that, I would have to request individual pieces of software to be added which would not be guaranteed to be added and would take time. When we created UTRS, we were specifically told to stay away from toolforge (what it was at the time) with it. So the two options left would be that myself or @SQL: could push your changes to a test server when we have the time, that or I have to request (if it gets accepted) a separate wikitech:Help:Cloud VPS project and rebuild everything from ground zero. Speaking to personal development, if you google "how to install a lamp stack", it will tell you how to install all the things needed on a virtual machine that can run off your computer in any flavour of linux. Google is great for how tos on setting these up, and they don't need much resources at all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's always been a struggle to get admins to monitor requests at WP:UTRS. I think the OAuth made it easier for admins to pop in and check requests since it was introduced. I'm worried that adding extra layers for access will really drive down interest in participating and we'll lose any ground gained in this regard. This is absolutely not a criticism of all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in maintaining the system, just a concern from someone who has been active there pretty much since its inception.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with those above that ditching OAuth isn't desirable, I've popped in to UTRS occasionally when asked, but now will be more likely not to. — xaosflux Talk 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on all points with Ponyo. Back when there was a separate UTRS login, there were at least several admins I know who were confused by the faff of having different logins for different bits of admin work (including me). I also had concerns about the security of the UTRS login at the time, and I refused to use it - I don't know what the security of UTRS 2.0 login will be like. When it changed to OAuth and just two clicks to get in and no new password, that made it a lot more accessible. Very easy to click through UTRS notifications on user talk pages, for example, and then perhaps review a couple of others when there. It made it so that every admin could see it easily, not just those who went through setting up a special UTRS account - and I remember a number of "No, it's easy now, just click" discussions I've had with other admins. Going back to a separate login again, I will simply not be bothered with the complication of the extra faff and I'll just give up on it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. (And, as per Ponyo above, that's not criticism of the people working on it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • login difficulty = 1/likelihood of my usage. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update There are four requests in queue and I couldn't stand it, so I longed in. So much easier than beore! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      How did you do that then? The links still take me via OAuth to version 1.8.5 which says "UTRS is down :(" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)
    • @DeltaQuad: The registration form at [3] is trying to POST a password to an http:// (insecure) URL. ST47 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boing! said Zebedee: Here. Though I guess there are still a few problems. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But how do you create the login in the first place? It's OK, I see ST47 has just linked it above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party" is not a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it is all being straightened. And once you are logged in, you can go to individual appeals from the Category:Requests for unblock page w/o bothering with OAuth. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say my first impression is that it's a horrible user interface, with important elements separated by vast areas of white space wasteland, and with enormous pointless icons. A good UI should take your eyes straight to the parts that matter, and this doesn't do that at all (at least, not for me). Anyway, I'll say no more - I'm walking away from it, but I might take a look in the future to see if it's any better. (Various parts of the UI contain spelling and other errors, if anyone fancies fixing those - they should be obvious). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand OAuth made life a ton easier for everyone, I poured over the relevant documentation for days, and still couldn't figure out how to get it to work with our system. Some people have offered to try and help above, and if they can do it, i'll put it back in. I just simply don't have the ability to do it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DeltaQuad. Wish I could help, but it's way over my head. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do have some experience with OAuth (IPCheck uses a very hacky client to accomplish it - the very same that the original UTRS used). I cannot make a firm commitment of when I would be able to look at integration due to off-wiki circumstances at the moment, but I will try to do so in the near term. SQLQuery me! 02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensitive/private information

    • @DeltaQuad: Is the new UTRS open to everyone to register an account and not just admins? UTRS is supposed to be used when unblock requests contain sensitive/private information (like IP addresses or real-world identities) and therefore surely needs to be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add that the reason I ask is that I just saw a note on a non-admin's talk page denying their request for an account, but only because they don't have a registered email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is this LTA?

    I know that one of you knows who this is: [4], [5]. And if you do, maybe you know what else we might could do besides just blocking the IP--is there a range we can do something about? a filter we can introduce? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See the logs for Special:AbuseFilter/1050 and Special:AbuseFilter/2 where some admins have been working to address this. Yesterday, Enterprisey was blocking IPs that triggered the filter before the LTA could adapt. I'll use the new misses to try and fix the edit filter. Thanks for bringing this up here as more eyes on the problem would be incredibly helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated them, hits on 1050 should be immediately blocked. 2 is used for testing, so it may pick up problems the first one doesn't catch. If other admins see similar postings somewhere, let me know so I can update the filter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No User:Wugapodes, thank you! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47, Tks4Fish, you may be interested in this. ST47, you dropped a one-week block on one of the IPs; is there any point in extending the ones I placed? BTW I revdelete this shit as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: assuming you pinged me here so I can globally block the IPs, both are done :). 188.240.208.105's /24 for 3 years as an open proxy, and 114.134.189.16 for 1 month as a possible one. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tks4Fish, actually, I pinged you really just to keep you informed, but yes, that will work! Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, Special:Diff/953991014 :/ Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The silver lining is that the filter is preventing human readable rants. Suffusion of Yellow made a wonderful edit that fixes the false positive problem caused by the growing filter, so that was a huge help. I've updated 1050 to account for the issues in the recent diff. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is reason to suspect cross-wiki abuse - (presumably) the same vandal has also been affecting en.wikt. It is probably safe to assume that any IP they are using after their main range got blocked is a proxy. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I am smelling too. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Origin (Brown novel)

    Can some other admins take a look at mess of edits on this article? I just stumbled across this on AIV. The short summary is that it appears that some guy is falsely claiming to be the author of this novel (and other novels by Dan Brown). Looks like an IP makes the change, edit wars with edit summaries about copyright, gets blocked, finds a new IP, rinse and repeat. I would assume some edit filter could be used to stop this nonsense, but that's beyond my knowledge. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More context here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just semi-protect the affected articles. It's not spreading outside of a few articles about Dan Brown novels, right? Also, I don't understand why you're using revdel on everything. This is just some random IP who's posting rants, not an LTA vandal who's spreading misinformation about criminal charges in an attempt to destroy someone's reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, it looks like Ohnoitsjamie protected all the other articles. I wasn't the one who revdeled everything; only the latest IP on the Origin (Brown novel) article. That was done by other admins, so I followed suit. I guess we can disregard this, but I thought an edit filter would help with the number of IPs being used, the articles affected, and user's unique editing pattern doing it. I guess this isn't the correct line of thought. No worries. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The person behind the IP was essentially using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, linking from his various external sites to his rants here; the revdels are an attempt to put an end to that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A14.203.52.66&type=revision&diff=954065149&oldid=954064924 More of that vandals posts here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.124.29 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg

    Can someone undelete this file? It was deleted as unused but a copy of it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar). --MGA73 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This one was uploaded by User:Jason 8837, who identified themself as author and licenced is as PD-self. The date of upload (and tagging), which may not correspond with the date the photo was taken, was 16-12-08. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    These files are used as source for files in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas. Sadly there is no information about uploader/author etc. Can you undelete these so I can check?

    --MGA73 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For this group, all the .GIFs were uploaded by user:Loxley~enwiki (with no further information). That user has been inactive for many years. The .png was uploaded by user:Keenan Pepper, who remains active now. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're asking about the licence for the .GIFs - we don't know. Back then it wasn't mandatory to put licence information on uploads. I don't think it's safe to assume these GIFs are really licenced with a Wikipedia-compatible free licence. The .png was tagged with GFDL - if you're concerned about it, Keenan Pepper is still around to ask. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Finlay McWalter: Thank you. Okay so the GIF-files are not really good. But the 2 x png should be fine. Can you undelete the png so I can move it to Commons? I prefer to have the direct source. --MGA73 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD-request of CSS-pages

    Hi, I wish to have some pages speedy deleted. As they are CSS-pages, I cannot nominate them the usual way, so I am posting here instead. They are:

    G7 applies to all of them. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin curiosity) @Hebsen: why can't you nominate them with twinkle, as usual? ——SN54129 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SN, you need to be an IA to edit interface pages, now. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. No, the reason is that you nominate pages for speedy deletion by giving them a template. But for CSS-pages, all content is treated as code, so they don't recognize templates. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check! Cheers Hebsen, makes sense. And thank you {{u|Killiondude} for assuming I have lived under a rock  ;) ——SN54129 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I could've sworn that non-IA users couldn't edit .css or .js not in their userspace, but see now that it is just a limiter in userspace and MediaWiki namespace. Whoops. Killiondude (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Killiondude: (apologies for ballsing your name up there^^^) yeah, the odd thing is that (as a test) I G7d my own css page, and although it treats the template as code, it still puts it into cat:csd. And the css page was deleted by a non-IA admin. Does that make sense? ——SN54129 08:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that checks out. IIRC: templates do work on JS/CSS pages, but they don't render. So a CSD tag on a JS or CSS page will place it in the correct category and other behind-the-scenes stuff, but will still appear on the rendered page as {{csd-whatever}}. Regular admins can still delete user JS/CSS (for vandalism reasons), but only intadmins can undelete or modify them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Writ Keeper, vey interesting indeed. Thanks for the detail; @Hebsen:, fyi too.
    WK, while you're there, now my deleted css page has been deleted, nothnig seems to have changed? (I assume it has, somehow, but nothing has suddenly "broken", if you knaow what I mean.) ——SN54129 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Well, it looks like the CSS rules you have in there are pretty subtle, so you might not have noticed the difference yet. It looks like it only really affected two things: the "you have new messages" box (changing it from blue text on orange to orange text on green) and the maintenance tags on citations (unhiding them). I can restore the page, if you like. While poking through your pages, I also noticed that you have some raw CSS code in your vector.js page relating to the text color of redirects; that's at best not going to do anything, and could mess up other scripts, too. Do you want me to move those into your CSS page, where they can become active? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Writ Keeper: very kind of you; yes, if you would. As a dumbass, I know I've occasionally installed scripts and then wondered why they don't do anything. If I've been putting them in the wrong place, that would explain much. ——SN54129 12:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, done, let me know if anything needs adjusting! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

    Administrator changes

    removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

    CheckUser changes

    readded Callanecc

    Oversight changes

    readded HJ Mitchell

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RIP Ronhjones

    For those who may not have heard the news, I am very sad to report that it is believed User:Ronhjones has died. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or getting permission. Graham87 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no words... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem, Oh my goodness, how sad. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What a terrible way to die. I hope they succumbed to smoke inhalation first. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Edits

    Blocked. In the future, consider posting requests like this to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    24.186.98.83 (talk · contribs) is disruptive editing again including multiple reverts. See their contributions. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. --Kinu t/c 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:1RR

    No infraction. Consecutive reverts by the same editor count as one revert. DrKay (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @MrX: has performed several reverts ([6] [7] [8]) on the Joe Biden article within 24 hours and claims that he hasn't violated WP:1RR, stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert. As far as I understand, this interpretation of the rule is completely wrong, and while several edits performing a revert do indeed count as one revert, obviously several edits reverting unrelated pieces of content added by independent users count as several reverts. If his interpretation is correct, would that mean that WP:3RR means I can perform the same revert three times? That sounds quite ridiculous to me. Could someone please clarify the situation here and, if needed, provide MrX with some guidelines on this matter? BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BeZet, you forgot to provide a link to where you claim MrX was "stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert". Please provide that evidence. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. BeŻet (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) April 30 to May 2 is more than 24 hours. Also, the first and second revert you listed were performed back-to-back, so they are counted as one revert. I don't see the issue here. Nihlus 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But those reverts reverted completely separate things added by completely separate users. Wouldn't it be silly to interpret the rule as, you can do more than one revert in 24 hours if you manage to squeeze them in quickly enough without anyone else making an edit in the meantime? BeŻet (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't matter. He could have done them in one single edit or multiple consecutive edits and would have produced the same result, which is why they are considered one revert. Nihlus 20:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So it does matter then. If he reverted two different things 5 hours apart, surely that would be a violation of the rule? BeŻet (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No. Please read WP:EW: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Nihlus 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Good Article ban proposal

    Currently there is a proposal to indefinitely ban an editor from contributing at the Good Article project (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN). The discussion is already underway there so it might be best for anyone interested to participate at that page regarding the ban. There was some discussion as to the appropriateness of deciding such a ban at the Good Article Nomination talk. I am not overly familiar with the history in this regard, but it might be worth getting some clarification on this from some editors here. If it is the wrong venue then we can move it here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Small note, I fixed your wikilink above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure that is not allowed, the banning policy says community sanctions discussions have to take place at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am seriously nervous about this. I should note that AfC has occasionally done reviews of AfC reviewers, and I don't know whether that would be counted as similar or different (as we also control giving our de facto userright etc). The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I think that this is the place to carry out such a ban. And who would enforce a ban made there anyway? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too agree - this is the correct venue for a community TBan (which is what this would amount to) to be discussed. I have offered my tuppenceworth at the discussion there. GirthSummit (blether) 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the difference between the discussion being linked here and taking place elsewhere and vice versa? It just makes a difficult decision unnecessarily harder and more burdensome on the editors involved, and is absolutely not based in the quoted policy which does not mandate that community sanctions must occur only at AN/ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Bilorv, the relevant bit of WP:CBAN, as I read it, is Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I guess it doesn't go on to say that they can't happen anywhere else, but nor does it say that they can - this venue is clearly specified as the preferred venue, with AN/I being the only other option given. It's less of a problem now that it has been linked - but why not simply move the whole discussion here? I do appreciate the difficulty involved in making a decision like that, it can't be comfortable for anyone, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors can be banned from taking part in community processes without wider scrutiny. GirthSummit (blether) 11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per GS, how about just moving the discussion here, where there will be many more administrative eyes on it, and generally of editors independent of the GA project (which is not implyng that members of the GA project cannot "police" themselves, mere that, on principle, distance is good). In any case, although the letter of the policy indicates that other venues are availble, in reality an appeal based on "It didn't take place at AN/ANI" will almost certainly suceed, if only because the reviewing admin considers WT:GA too narrow a venue. ——SN54129 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experience with GA is limited (I've submitted 2 candidates, and happily both were accepted), so I'm not an expert there. I also have no knowledge of the particular editor in question here, so all this is in the abstract. There's two issues here:
      1. Can editors be banned from participation in GA due to WP:CIR? Surely the answer has to be yes. There's a variety of administrative tasks (new page patrol, AfC reviews, various forms of clerking, OTRS, NAC, DRV, DYK, etc) which don't necessarily require admin rights, but do require specialized knowledge and skill to perform correctly. Surely GA (particularly reviewing) is one of those. In almost all ways, we bend over backwards to be inclusive, but we do have standards and as you move up the hierarchy, those standards get stricter, and there needs to be some way to enforce them.
      2. Where is the right forum to discuss it? I think the current approach was correct. Start with one-on-one communication, and try to provide useful guidance for how the editor can improve their work. If that fails, a project-wide forum such as WT:GAN makes sense. But, ultimately, WP:AN is where sanctions get imposed. Basically, you're come here and say, "Look, these are all the lesser steps we tried, they didn't fix the problem, so now we're asking the community to impose a TBAN".
    -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: that's an excellent assessment of our "chain of command", and should probably be pag-inated. ——SN54129 13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thoughts:
      1. WP:SOFIXIT If you really think that discussion should be here, move it, and leave a 'this discussion has been moved' template. Now anyone can do that, but addressing specifically administrators commenting here who think it should move, here, you are in administration, which in part is administering process.
      2. Keep in mind WP:NOTBURO, and what are the trade-off's, everyone here now knows about that discussion and can comment there if they want. If it's closed against the editor, there will be a record of a bunch of editors telling an editor not to do something, and if the editor continues doing what a consensus says they should not, pretty much prima facie disruption by the editor.
      3. To me, that looks like a rather sad or embarrassing situation, perhaps ask the subject if they want it moved here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation request

    Please create R/shitniggerssay and /r/shitniggerssay with 

    #REDIRECT[[Controversial Reddit communities#FatPeopleHate]]

{{Rcat shell|
{{R to section}}
{{R from subreddit}}
}}

    and also append {{lowercase title}} to the first one. Thanks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Does everything mentioned need a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, since this redirect is clearly unintended collateral of the title blacklist entry. If you think this redirect, and the redirects for the other 3 communities mentioned in that section, shouldn't exist, feel free to RfD them. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: how to you see this as "unintended collateral" - the blacklist entry is fairly specific to include titles with this phrase in them at all, it was not a scunthorpe problem. This is basically an edit request, and it was clearly being at least questioned for further discussion; why did you feel using your template editor access was appropriate here? — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because one doesn't ususally need special privleges to create redirects, and the appropriateness of these redirects has nothing to do with the fact that they contain the N word in them. Either none of r/hamplanethatred, r/neofag, r/transfags, and r/shitniggerssay should exist, or all of them should, and the correct venue for that discussion is WP:RfD (as I said earlier), but the situation in which this request is not fulfilled, and all of the controversial subreddits banned on 10 June 2015 have redirects except for the one whose name happens to be on the title blacklist, makes no sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One does require special privileges to create pages that violate the title blacklist, specifically because they may be controversial - that the page is a redirect doesn't make it special. I'm not arguing if these pages are actually appropriate or not, just why you didn't allow for the discussion to continue before acting. The TPE usage standards are fairly clear and it is quite a stretch to extend that access to this use case in my opinion. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually look at the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, you can see that this term was added in 2012 due to current, ongoing abuse, not due to controversial creations of pages whose titles legitimately include the n-word. 1234qwer1234's request was clearly made in good faith, so is in that sense not within the scope of the title blacklist entry. I disagree that my action constitutes blocking the discussion, merely redirecting it to the correct venue for challenging the existence of redirects (if anyone wishes to do so). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Page not found

    Hi there, I remember a page named Pakistan International Public School and College Abbottabad to which I had contributions as well. Earlier today when I searched it, I couldn't find it. I searched in my contributions log as well and couldn't find but there were some deleted edits as well which I was unable to open. So I assume the page got deleted. I request admins here to help me finding that article and let me know whether it was deleted and when, why?? Thanks USaamo (talk · contribs) (uSaamo 13:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    @USaamo: I presume you mean Pakistan International Public School and College (I found it in your deleted contributions, which admins can see). It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan International Public School and College (2nd nomination). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DAP388 userpage move request

    Greetings. I was wrapping up a few minor edits for an ongoing FA nomination and accidentally logged out of my account User:DAP388. I've had this account for a while (since preteen actually) but never bothered to provide any associated email address, even after a somewhat recent password revision from a security issue. With my password forgotten, it appears I won't be able to retrieve my old account (ugh). Could I have an admin redirect the old account's user and talk pages and any equivalent content to my new account User:DAP389? Thanks in advanced. DAP 💅 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=954662241"