Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 96 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 56 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	13	28	41
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Category:Online-only games

(Initiated 26 days ago on 19 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 302 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Toadspike. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 14 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (44 out of 8839 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case User talk:42.119.93.195 2024-11-12 10:32 2024-12-12 10:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:182.229.34.80 2024-11-12 09:47 2024-12-12 09:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:219.240.5.188 2024-11-12 09:32 2024-12-12 09:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu 2024-11-12 08:33 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Doug Weller: Community sanctions enforcement Protection Helper Bot Trick Weekes 2024-11-11 19:52 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Wadi Saluki 2024-11-11 11:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:91.210.238.104 2024-11-11 09:40 2024-12-11 09:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-11 07:13 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Battle of Sumy 2024-11-11 06:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Draft:Khashayar Farzam 2024-11-11 06:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Battle of Makariv 2024-11-11 06:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Chopra (surname) 2024-11-11 06:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 2024 drone attack on Benjamin Netanyahu's residence 2024-11-11 00:58 indefinite edit,move Dr vulpes Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox galaxy 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:103.71.101.206 2024-11-10 16:46 2024-12-10 16:46 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Ireland–Zambia relations 2024-11-10 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Zambia relations (3rd nomination) OwenX

User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox

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

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T198156

I just nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant NOTWEBHOST violation, but discovered that it has some 40,000 edits in it (user has made four mainspace edits since 2014). This requires a steward, no? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep - try m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous, I've got these requests processed there before. Hut 8.5 17:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Hut 8.5, thanks. You think it'd be a good idea to get another admin from over here to endorse? Would you? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect they'd be happy with one admin but yes I'm happy to endorse it. Hut 8.5 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Fun fact, User:Hut 8.5, they (well, one of the stewards) won't sign off on it just like that...would you mind having a look? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's too large to be deleted from the front-end. Please request server-side deletion at phabricator.wikimedia.org. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Requested at phab:T198156 — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Holy moly--thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

LorenzoMilano (talk · contribs) is still actively editing, more than 500 edits a month. If he's doing nothing useful but violating WP:WEBHOST, should some action be taken? I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wow! Xtools ([1]) says the user has 40,266 edits on a total of four pages. There were two edits in September 2017 to Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography and two edits in October 2016 to Fedez and Laura Xmas, so the other 40,262 edits must have been to User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to see if the user responds to Ed's comment. If the user does not respond and resumes their sandbox editing, then they should be blocked until they do respond. Fish+Karate 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  Users abusing Wikipedia as a host for fantasy reality TV shows is a known and recurring problem. The page uses O instead of 0 to evade detection. This user is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. I'm blocking. MER-C 09:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely tell you that stewards cannot delete this page because of a timeout - but it's better than breaking the whole Wikipedia, isn't it? — regards, Revi 08:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be good if we were to get a database query for (non-talk?) non-mainspace pages with more than N revisions. 40k edits in 4 years should have popped a red flag somewhere.... --Izno (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages with the most revisions but it includes all the namespeces. I had a quick look though it and while there are a few other user sandboxes with a large number of revisions, there isn't anything that looks concerning. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:East London Line is an interesting one. No mainspace edits since 2013, carried on making 22000 edits to User:East London Line/Sandbox for a further three years until 2016. Blank now though, as per this MFD back in 2016. Couldn't see anything weird webhosty stuff in the other user space pages with lots of edits. Fish+Karate 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I run into these things all the time, but my previous record was one with 8,000 edits. That this can't be deleted without breaking the Wiki is deeply ironic. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update from the technical side: The page has too many revisions to be safely deleted from the back-end at this point. I recommend that it be blanked for now (like the previously-referenced other webhost sandbox) and deleted once a suitable technical solution is available. At any rate, leaving this history intact shouldn't provide any harm here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blanked it. Perhaps it should also be fully protected so it doesn't accumulate any more edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected it in the blanked state as a workaround. Hut 8.5 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks both. Looks like a solution is in the works, I'll ping back on AN to confirm when it is deleted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can't a dev just waive the three second transaction limit temporarily to allow the page to be deleted? Or is there a reason it can't be waived? Fish+Karate 08:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• It may bring the site to it's knees. MER-C 20:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, it's still going on. phab:T198156 Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Erasing block log

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

---

Please erase all older blocks (ie. more than a year old) from my block log. This record is abused too often to justify long blocks. Even blocks from over 10 years ago are used to justify an increase in blocking time. People should be forgiven after some time. I don't see how publishing this log forever and without any erasure after a certain amount of time could possibly be justified. Even the criminal record is more forgiving than that. Also, this inclines users to create "fresh" accounts after some time that don't have any blocks in the list. That certainly can't be the desired state of affairs. --rtc (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand it correctly you were just blocked for a week for edit warring, while your CU-confirmed sock was blocked indefinitely. It seems to me you have bigger fish to fry than worry about your old block log, which isn't all that long anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • See that's entirely the point. false accusations pile up. fishy blocks lead to more fishy blocks and ultimately infinite blocks. I have never used any sock. You're simply making this up. based on false accusations. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I am not making this up, I am trying to figure out what I can glean from your talk page, that's all. So I don't understand it correctly? Thank you for correcting me. But you were blocked for edit warring. Was that fishy? Weren't you edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit-conflict) Be aware, JzG stated, "See above: and as it happens this time it's the 1%." It's unclear from context whether he's saying this is legitimately a case where the checkuser-confirmed sock was a joe-job, or if he's using sarcasm. My point is there may not be sockpuppetry issues at play regarding Rtc, here. Regardless, of course, there's nothing for us to do here. Block logs aren't purged. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How is this gross violation of the GDPR justified? It is my right to have my block log entries erased after some time. The status quo is more draconian than the criminal record. Why are log entries not erased after some time? Why is my block length increased partially because of edits I did 10 years ago? --rtc (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is not allowed under the revision deletion policy. Hut 8.5 17:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It is my right to have my block erased after some time, as per the GDPR. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A) block logs cannot be erased and b) it is not a good idea to reopen a closed thread. See WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So you mean its technically impossible to erase a block log? How can that possibly be true? You can erase articles so you can certainly also erase block log entries. The GDPR says I have a right to have my data deleted when there's no strong justification for keeping it. I don't see taht justification for short blocks from years ago. Do I have to open a new account to get a clean block log? Is that the solution you would suggest? --rtc (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

They can certainly be hidden from non-admins but as I've noted we won't do that aside from exceptional cases. If you want to file a GDPR request then contact the Foundation instead of trolling on admin noticeboards. You are of course assuming that (a) your block log constitutes personal data, (b) the Foundation won't choose to interpret your request as a request for the erasure of an account, and (c) the Foundation is subject to GDPR. Frankly someone who is prepared to use legal tools to conceal their editing history should not be here. Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is all an utter time sink. Is it not time to consider an indef block for Rtc, who is evidently WP:NOTHERE? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please discuss my request instead of accusing me again and again of being a timesink? Propose any reasonable solution for my concern. All I get from you and your fellow editors is threats I will be blocked and should leave wikipedia, and only because I insist that a source says "not important" and not "not useful". You go at great lengths to get me banned just because I am a defender of the WP:V policy here. I am a good faith editor and certainly here to build an encyclopedia. The hostility I am seeing from you and others because I disagree with you is not making that a pleasant experience. You always have the right to ignore me, so it's unfair to say I am a timesink. A lengthy discussion requires more than one person. --rtc (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that block logs can't be erased permanently; but they can be hidden from non-admin eyes, and I've sometimes wondered why that kind of option isn't taken more often. I'm just musing though; it would probably count as a serious favour rather than a right, and almost certainly not one to be demanded at AN on a whim and/or a burst of aggression...such as is appears to be the case here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also been curious why blocks aren't hidden when someone blocks the wrong person. It specifically says on that page that it isn't done. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

This user appears to still be at it. A longer (or possibly indefinite) block, perhaps? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An indef would certainly end his worries that his block log might result in more blocks. EEng 05:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Page creation log is live -- be careful with attack pages

See Special:Log/create. The fun part is that there are two gotchas:

1. Page titles qualifying for revision deletion should be deleted from this log.
2. The edit summary of the revision that creates the page is the log reason. This is particularly problematic if the edit summary would qualify for revision deletion, or it automatically quotes objectionable content in the page itself.

See phab:T176867. In the meantime, please be aware of this when deleting attack pages and vandalism. MER-C 16:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" notices

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

closing a long held discussion about merger of TPP vs PATPP

Discussion and vote was held here [2]

Discussion is since january. currently it is 11 vs 6 in favor of merge. (1 of the 11 is conditional)

I understand that an admin needs to close the discussion and post the decision. Then there is a procedure of merger which I am not familiar with, but might it also be an admin limited thing?

Thanks Jazi Zilber (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Whiteleaf30

I was fortunate to nip this one in the bud. Some sort of random mass page moving. It begs the question, that if it has happened once, then it can happen again. Maybe some sort of edit filter / page move throttle? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that editing pattern, or edit summary, before... GiantSnowman 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Whiteleaf30 and other accounts are operated by a cross-wiki vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/68 is tailor-made for this situation, except for the comically-low conditions to bypass it. —Cryptic 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. he makes the right number of edits and cracks on... Maybe time to increase the conditions? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Started a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_increase_trigger_of_Special:AbuseFilter/68 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Page creations are now logged

Just wanted to let folks know that all page creations are now logged at Special:Log/create (T12331). This should make tracking the activity of spammers and vandals a bit easier (especially for non-admins). The down side is that these log entries may occasionally need to be suppressed (similar to other page logs) if a page title or first revision text includes private data or harassment. (See T176867.) Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, why does this sound familiar? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Page_creation_log_is_live_--_be_careful_with_attack_pages Natureium (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Looks like MER-C beat me to it :) Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

LeBron James involved admin

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

---

While the reliably sourced sporting news world is discussing LeBron James' signing with the Los Angeles Lakers, [3] Bagumba has come up with some WP:OR about why Wikipedia should not reflect this [4] ... and then full protected the article [5]. Attempts to explain WP:INVOLVED to them [6] have been unsuccessful. NE Ent 18:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NE Ent: Your timeline is misleading in that protection was done a full 20 hours earlier, and it’s a stretch to frame a mere opinion on a talk page as “OR”. You have been invited multiple times in our discussion to form a consensus at Talk:LeBron James, where there are arguments to call an “agreement” the same as an actual “signing”, or to say nothing at all until there is an announcement from the Los Angeles Lakers, his announced preferred destination. You were also told to use WP:RFRPL if you believe the protection level should be decreased. You have also been informed about {{Edit fully protected}}, which you could use to request your preferred edit from an uninvolved admin. Instead, you have done none of these, and your recent edit history suggests you are more interested in WP:VAGUEWAVEs of INVOLVED and now posting on a noticeboard. What do you really want?—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Er anyone can check the article history and see you have made a number of edits on article content regarding his employment - prior to you full protecting the article, which you then (after protecting it citing an edit war) reverted back to the version which included the content you had previously edited. Looks pretty standard by the definition of involved editing. Do not use your admin tools in a content dispute in which you are already engaged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe those prior edits are unrelated to this current dispute. Please provide diffs of earlier edits if you believe they show that I would be biased in this instance per INVOLVED. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We should unprotect immediately. Regardless of the involvement issue, the current state of the article is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There’s probably weak consensus to add in prose only that there is an agreement in principle, something like at Talk:LeBron_James#Lakers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, this diff [7] clearly indicates that you are involved (and INVOLVED) in the discussion over the matter. Use of your admin tools in that instance was inappropriate, and if you do not shortly reverse it, I intend to. Out of courtesy I'll give you the chance to do so yourself first, but this is very clearly inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The comment was 20 hours after I took admin action to protect the page. It was a good faith attempt at moderating discussion after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I see that you anyways went and downgraded protection at 3:32 4 July. I would still appreciate a response further explaining your INVOLVED concern. For your convenience, please also refer to the timeline I presented below (at 05:27, 4 July 2018). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there was similar long periods of full protection for James in July 2010 during James’ famed The Decision announcement and again in July 2014 when he announced his return to Cleveland.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not having any prior involvement with this issue, it does seem utterly absurd that two full days after LeBron's agent announced the intent to sign with the Lakers, the word "Lakers" does not appear anywhere in his entire biography, let alone the lede. We should not let technicalities of free agency regulations get in the way of informing our readers. There is no shortage of reliable sources to be found, and if we have to nuance the wording slightly, that's better than pretending this hasn't even happened at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotect immediately- this is absurd. The article should at least mention the Lakers. I get the point that Bagumba is making that the deal is not official yet. But we can easily reflect this, its just in the way to word it, maybe something like "James has agreed to accept a deal with the Lakers which he is expected to sign on July 6". It really shouldn't be that controversial. I'm not sure if this raises to the level of INVOLVED, but it still was a poor decision by Bagumba to lock the page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that at least some mention of the Lakers and the agreement should be made in the article. This is a clear case of WP:HOSTAGE and poor admin judgement.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record The timeline in question is as follows:

• 16:10, 29 June 2018‎ I revert that he is not a free agent. Edit summary: "unsourced that it’s official"
• 1 July: NBA free agency period begins[8]
• 08:14, 1 July 2018‎ I make minor edit that he is not a "potential" free agent anymore
• 00:51, 2 July 2018‎ I apply full protection
• 01:00, 2 July 2018 I revert to last stable version. Edit summary: "WP:PREFER: last stable version before dispute"
• 21:19, 2 July 2018‎ I make a talk page comment to provide understanding and facilitate consensus
• 6 July "Free-agent moratorium ends, allowing players to officially sign contracts and trades to be completed"[9]

Also given the precedent of previous full protections in July 2010 and July 2014 (by other admins) during similar James' free agent announcements, it's disappointing this is not seen as good faith. Such is life.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The broader point here is that the apparently-accepted practice by some NBA-focused editors of removing well-sourced information about players' free-agency decisions on the flimsy grounds that there is a .000001% chance that the decision changes, is absurd, hostile to readers and fails to serve our purpose. When Britannica beats us to have a more-updated biography of LeBron than we do, merely because some Wikipedian thinks it's not "official" yet, it's time to take a step back and rethink what we're doing. Sometimes a flood of outside editors and IPs is right and we're wrong. This is one of those cases. There are no reasonable grounds for excluding this well-sourced information from James' biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem with the community having that conversation, but AN is not the best forum for content discussion. Talk pages are. I commend you for having just started that at Talk:LeBron James. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversions resume In the 2+ hours since protection was downgraded, reversions have resumed (and this is with most of North America already asleep). While, the good intentions above was that mention of an agreement (not signing) is suitable, disagreements continue on whether James should be shown as actually being a member of the Lakers or as a free agent. The most recent reversions are here:

• 04:11, 4 July 2018‎
• 04:17, 4 July 2018
• 05:55, 4 July 2018‎
• 06:10, 4 July 2018‎

At a minimum, extended confirmed protection is probably needed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that Bagumba apologize and step aside from this BLP for several weeks. Pedantic arguments to avoid any mention of this development in the LeBron James article border on the disruptive. Bagumba could have helped craft accurate language but instead chose to obstruct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct, User:Bagumba, which is why, at AN, the community isn't discussing content, but your mis/use of tools on an article in which you have a consistent and persistent involvement which stretches back years, whereby not only did you protect an article you were / have been engaged in, but then fully-protected in favour of the version you advocated, citing WP:PREFER. By this, are we to assume that you saw mention mention of the subject's free-agency (or otherwise) as either "defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people"? Because nothing else in that piece of policy supports your protection; and the fact that it does so so weakly makes relying on it potentially questionable judgement. As, in fact, does calling your actions "all good". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Actual policy WP:INVOLVED: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Yes, I've edited the article before. Nobody has shown diffs of where the bias is. If you still believe it's bad faith, so be it. Ping me if my involvement is needed back here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is all well and good, Bagumba. But you are not addressing your own behavior which is widely perceived to be obstructionist, and the fact that you used your administrator's tools in the midst a content dispute that you were involved with. Are you incapable of seeing how bad that looks to uninvolved editors? Your history with that article is far from "minor". Evidence of bias is not required to conclude that an administrator is involved in a content dispute, and should not use the tools in that dispute. Please show some self-reflection here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You specifically edited the article about his employment prior to upping the protection to full and then reverted to your preferred version. And not years before. About this very same change of employer. Now you have frankly made the article a laughingstock to sports fans because of your involved actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, as per your comment above, you have not been involved in just an administrative role. You have participated in the article's content development. That's entirely fine; admins are still most certainly editors and can choose to take the "editor" role on an article they're interested in. What we're not allowed to do is to act as both referee and player in the same game. If you choose to interact with an article's content as an editor, leave any needed adminning on it to someone uninvolved. You could have easily posted a request at WP:RFPP if you thought protection needed to be changed, and it would've been perfectly fine for you to do that, but you shouldn't have made the call yourself. (And for the record, if an uninvolved admin decides full protection is warranted, I do not object and would not consider that wheel warring.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the general issue of "reported sports transactions". It's not as absurd as it sounds to be patient before updating these articles. The Lakers' own website does not mention LeBron James! Their "latest news" is about their Summer League team and rookie Moe Wagner. The problem I always saw with people updating the articles early is that the wrong signing date would be entered into the article, and never corrected later. The dates that will be recorded in NBA history are not the dates when a contract was "agreed to," but when it was signed. (Lately, many teams have even made a point of photographing the moment when a player completes the paperwork.)

I sympathize with Bagumba in this case. Most people don't understand the subtleties involved, and aren't patient enough to wait a few days. It wouldn't hurt to have a line about the Lakers in the body of the article, but it's absolutely correct to wait a few days before updating the first sentence and infobox and such. It's unlikely that the deal will be scuttled, but if we're patient, there will be a point when we KNOW that the deal is official. Zagalejo^^^ 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here, it seems, is beyond the article content. Actions were taken by someone trusted with admin tools, and those actions are being deemed inappropriate due to admin involvement in the article. Instead of apologizing or at the very least affirming that the lesson was learned, Bagumba reassures he correctly used admin tools, digging into a bigger hole in the process.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR applies. Sports articles are a huge pain in the neck to maintain. Bagumba has surely seen this same situation hundreds of times, and knew what had to be done for the sake of other editors' sanity. This isn't like other content disputes; in a few days, the situation with LeBron's contract will be resolved, unequivocally. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where the player (especially a high-profile one) has publicly, undisputedly announced that he will sign with a given team as soon as he can, the existence of that announcement is a statement of fact—a very important fact for someone looking at the article about the player. There is no argument against including that fact in the player's article, and in fact it is misleading not to include it. I agree that is different from claiming in the article that the player has already signed with the team, but full-protecting while keeping any mention of the announcement out of the article was an overreaction. This is not like situations in which fans are trying to update the article based merely on unconfirmed rumors or wishful thinking. So I conclude that this article should not have been full-protected and certainly not for as long as it was, purely as a matter of judgment, without reaching the question of involvement. Since the full-protection has been lifted and I don't see anyone seeking to reinstate it, that should resolve the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section title made me think it had come out that LeBron is secretly a Wikipedia admin. I’m very disappointed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited

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

---

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would clarify that editors are not permitted to use automated tools or bot accounts to issue discretionary sanctions alerts. The community is encouraged to review and comment on the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions

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

Hide Edit

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

---

Please hide this edit and the edit summary. There is another one before this as well. Thanks.Gharouni ^Talk 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Closed RM

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

---

Hi, I closed this Requested Move unaware that the page was Move Protected. Can anyone help to implement the workflow. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted citing Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The result will require action by an administrator: ... Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor WP:BADNAC. Requesting that an administrator who does have authority to address the Move Protect close the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to call attention of Administrators and interested editors to at least 2 other cases where Mahveotm's actions around moves have been quesitonable judgement: Moving Module:AfC (which reportedly broke many AfC project workings), regarding a "technical request" move (for which there was not accuracy). I present these as additional touchstones that may be worth looking at. CC: (AlexTheWhovian—Oshwah) as editors who raised the concerns. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed them all... there were articles and AFC modules and templates that were left completely broken because of these moves..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of past issues or mistakes regarding module or template moves - whatever is decided here, just know that we need to be absolutely careful when proposing and making these kinds of technical changes. The moves were very small and simple in nature (only 2 modules were moved not including talk, doc, etc) and it broke many articles and other modules and (see the module pages that were moved here, including a module to formulate map images for geographical articles based in the UK). Regardless, we can at least breathe easy... the damage is undone. We need to take what happened here and use it as an opportunity to formulate how this should be planned and executed and with disaster avoided in the future..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was also concerned by those careless actions, and I have asked for the granting admin TonyBallioni to consider revocation of the page mover right, per criterion #2 of WP:PMRR. See User talk:Mahveotm#Module:AfC. Many thanks to Oshwah for clearing the damage. — JFG ^talk 23:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Removal of NPR permission

Please remove new page reviewer right. I do not now see myself using it any time soon. If I need it in the future, I will request again at that time. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."

The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

Revision delete

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

---

Request revision deletion in List of programs broadcast by BET, this version in the edit summary, via WP:CRD #2. --B dash (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit summary doesn't rise to the level of needing revdel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Login help needed, please

Howdy guys, 12-year wikiveteran and daily editor here, old man now and apparently have gotten really stupid with age or else somebody has screwed up my account. Yesterday or the day before I was logged out automatically (I thought) and the system asked me to make a new password, which I did by a small variation on the one I've used all these years. Well now the new password does not work, nor will the system send a reset email to any of my 3 email accounts (I forget which one I started with on Wikipedia).

I've already read the info at Help:Logging in and Help:Reset password, neither of which were very helpful. I would really rather not create a brand new account and lose continuity with my 12 years of edits. Can anyone help me out here? Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password? -

"Otherwise you will have to create a new account under a different username. After doing this, if a user page and user talk page were created for the old account, it is advisable to make them redirect to the equivalent pages for the new account. (To carry the content and history of these pages over to the new location, you can use the "move" function—contact an administrator if assistance is needed.)"

so basically unless you used WP:Committed identity then your only option is to create another account,

You could be anyone and as such we can't really help - The account hasn't made any edits after the 4th so it's not been compromised - You'll either need to try & remember the account details or create a new account. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. Yes, I read the Help article, and I just hoped somebody might know an easier way to get around this problem. What I really don't understand is why Wikipedia apparently does not recognize any of my email addresses, all of which I believe I've had since before I joined the project here - that is very strange. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you don't have an email set. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AEmailUser&target=Textorus says: "This user has not specified a valid email address.". SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Well crap, maybe I never entered my email address. That bites. Well after dinner tonight guess I'll be creating a new account, and probably will be back here for help moving the old content & history over, as the Help page says. Thanks SQL. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we ought to change our registration process. We permit new registrants to register without specifying an email address and I'm not proposing to change that. There may well be legitimate reasons for someone to wish to register without specifying an email address. However, I think such a decision should be accompanied by a warning in big red letters with exclamation points, explaining that while they are permitted to register without specifying an email address, they will absolutely unequivocally not be able to update their password should they forget it, and many, many editors have learned this the hard way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Textorus, you might be able to get help from the tech staff on this one. Even though you don't have a committed identity (hardly a requirement to resolve a problem like this), they could take other steps to confirm that you are the account owner, like checking the most recent IP used by the account against the IP used to make the request. They can be reached by filing a ticket at phabricator.wikimedia.org (you may need to make a new account to do that). Good luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An aside to this: I've never heard of MediaWiki forcing someone to do a password reset - does anyone know anything about that? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I never remember it happening before on WP - I just figured it was the New Normal. But I may try the phabricator thing, though looks like they are pretty slow to respond to queries over there. Thanks Ajraddatz. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajraddatz - Apologies my reply could've been clearer but you're correct it isn't a requirement - I only mentioned it as it could've helped that was all. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reedy: any insight in to this, such as any updates to badpasswords that may have gone out? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it could have been phishing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Some recent attempts at phishing have been made using malicious js, but the user doesn't appear to have any local js files, so it's probably unconnected to what I'm thinking of. But it may be a different sort of attempt. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajr: Sysadmins can force people to reset their passwords via command line command, but last incident that happening (IIRC) was in 2013 with wiki replica problems. — regards, Revi 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is Textorous. I was under the impression that it is not possible in these circumstances for the new account to have the history of the old as it would in a normal rename.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Soooo... Poking around a bit. It does seem that Textorus had an email address confirmed all the way back in 2006. But the field in the DB is blank, and no way to easily find out what it was... Or when it was changed.

On the 3rd May, there was a login to enwiki, and very shortly after a password change. On the 4th July, a successful login was made to enwikiquote. I see one revert shortly after... [11] - Do you remember logging into the English Wikiquote? Are you still logged in if you visit it?

The other option is with the web of trust... Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life? Anyone that can vouch that you are who you say they are? And as such, any that I, or other people I trust, can use their authority to verify you.

Reedy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the checkuser confirmation, why do we need any further proof? At this point, either we should be saying "sorry, you can't get back into your account" and preparing to grant Textorus' user rights to a new account, or we should be focusing on ways to get him back into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparent hoax and vandalism by User:Defensecontributor

Apologies if this isn't the right or best place to address this; feel free to move this or let me know of a better venue!

It appears that User:Defensecontributor is attempting to create a hoax article. A cursory search of the subject shows no hits and the "company's" "executives" are undergraduate students. This editor logged out and made similar edits, including adding one of those same people to the article of a real company. Unless I've missed something or made a mistake, this editor has clearly earned a block and a summary deletion of their hoax article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks for spotting this. The company seems real but based on the two editing histories, we can't trust anything the creator has written. Draft G3'd and editor indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the company exists but thanks for taking care of this anyway! ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement requests for General Sanctions

With cryptocurrency and professional wrestling added to the areas under community-authorized general sanctions, is there any enthusiasm setting up a board similar to WP:AE that would handle enforcement requests? WP:ANEW can handle violations of revert restrictions but is unsuited to discuss behavior and WP:AN does not have the organized structure WP:AE has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally the Arbcom system is better organized than the community system. The simplest would be to run a combined board, dealing with both arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. But that would be like crossing the streams and most likely Arbcom wouldn't go for it. You could also combine Arbcom alerts and community alerts just by issuing new two-letter codes for each kind of community sanction. (You would still say subst:alert topic=xx for new values of xx). Since the Arbcom alert system set up in 2014 is much easier to use than the former one this saves work for admins and others who want to give the alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a structured board would be an improvement over free-form ANI discussions, but combining community sanctions into AE would limit sanction discussions to admins, and limit non-admins to stand-alone statements with no threading. That works for AE because the admins in the bottom section, who are deciding on sanctions/no sanctions can thread, and the statements from non-admins are just informational, but a community sanction needs to be able to be discussed by all parts of the community, not just admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Kind of confused here. "Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case... Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions." It's still admins deciding on an editor's sanctions, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, Neil. I was thinking of community-imposed General Sanctions as being along the same lines as a community imposed block, which shouldn't be lifted by an admin without community approval, but it does appear that General Sanctions are defined in pretty much the same manner as Discretionary Sanctions. I've struck that part of my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have argued the same before - two similar yet (confusingly) different systems is needless bureaucracy Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with setting up WP:AN/GS, which could also handle appeals in a more structured way if those ever happen. Right now there doesn't seem to be a clear way to request GS enforcement besides ANI, which of course defeats the point of community authorized discretionary sanctions in a way: its not as streamlined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with a new board, but it should be structured in some way (though it may need 2-3 different templates for enforcement/appeals/complaints); unstructured complaints are handled as well as possible at AN/ANI and I don't think a new forum will help with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with moderate enthusiasm. I think a parallel system would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would prefer lumping in with AE to reduce bureaucracy, but would accept a new board begrudgingly. I've been reminding various patrollers that summary deletions of pages where the creator has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest and tendentiously resubmitted drafts at AFC are available under the blockchain sanctions if they ask me. There should be a centralised venue to report these -- ANI doesn't seem to be the best fit. MER-C 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• If it could be merged with AE, but with it's own non-Arbcom-dictated process, that would be idea. However, Arbcom is usually not receptive to having their creations messed with. Assuming that's the case here, I would support a similar enforcement venue (WP:GSE?) to provide structure and a wee bit of decorum.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should minimize the confusion and send these reports to WP:AE. Most people probably can't tell the difference between AN and ANI; how will they tell the difference between AE and a GS-specific noticeboard? We should organize Wikipedia's bureaucracy in a way that simplifies work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

Good day (or whatever it is for you),

hereby, I am appealing my topic ban once again. I was „indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed.“ Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Back in Spring 2017, I created a controversy surrounding the use of SI units in Wikipedia automobile articles that lead to a devastating conflict during Summer and Autumn. Now, one year later, I consider my own behaviour unreasonable, stubborn and sort of obsessive. I have wasted months desperately attempting to change consensus, ending up fighting against several other authors – which led to the topic ban and even a 6-month-block. Frankly speaking, it was stupid and did not only cause days of frustration for just myself. Therefore, I wish to apologise to everyone who was involved back then. I do not intend to return to my old behaviour and I am willing to accept the concept of consensus. Before drastically changing or even attempting to change well established ways of „how to do it“ I will ask other editors. At this point, the topic ban is not required anymore since I do not wish to harm any further. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossible, sorry. You were originally indefintely topic banned in July 2017. In October you were blocked for 24 hours for violating that ban. After what can only be called either selective deafness or pushing the boundaries, Boing! said Zebedee extended your block six months. You also had your talk-page aces revoked. So, in fact, the only reason, for all intents and purposes that you have been able to adhere to your topic ban is because you were blocked? I think this is one of those cases, where, although officially you could (as you are doing) appeal within six months of it being issued, in fact, I think we would want to see six months of editing in uncontroversial areas. In other words, demonstrate that you can edit outside of the problem areas without a block enforcing it. Let's say: the next appeal no less than six months from today? I propose that, but, no problem—the community may say otherwise. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too soon. You were blocked for topic-ban violations on 2017-10-09. That block was for six months. There was a subsequent block, on 2018-05-01, but that was by your own request and definitely not something that should be held against you. My concern here, though, is that since 2017-10-09, you've made no edits to articles at all. As such, I don't think we have any significant evidence of you editing constructively. I want to be clear, I am saying "too soon" rather than "oppose". I'm glad to see your comments here, they indicate that you are a good candidate for having the topic ban lifted at some point. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with Yamla. I'd like to see a few months of positive contributions to articles. I think they are knowledgeable, and have potential to be a solid contributor, but I'd like to see some evidence before lifting the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defence: Virtually every article here contains units of measurement. Therefore, I feel like I cannot edit Wikipedia without violating the topic ban. This means that I have adhered to the topic ban by not editing Wikipedia at all. Just a quick reminder: The block in October was imposed because I had asked user:1292simon to refrain from adding Original Research to the article Flathead engine which was then considered automobile-related. I had not expected the ban to be this strict. Since I really do not want to violate the topic ban once again, I have stopped contributing. I do not want to risk another block and I cannot see where the boundaries are. To give you an example: I am working on engine articles a lot and the original Diesel engine was not designed as an automobile engine. In fact, due to it's technical limitations, it was impossible to use the Diesel engine as an automobile engine. (To make it easier to imagine, I am talking about something like this). So, initially, the Diesel engine was not related to "automobile". However, since working on the article flathead engine led to a block, I expect that editing the article Diesel engine would also lead to a block. To be fair, I am exaggerating this by using this example, since starting in the late 1920's, Diesel engines became popular as engines for lorries which are definitely automobiles. But what if there is something else? Just a tiny little something somewhere in an article that I might not even see? Would you consider that a topic ban violation? I mean, there are just too many things that are somehow related to the topics that I am currently banned from. Accidently editing something that has some unit of measurement somewhere or is somehow related to automobiles would be a reason for another block. No matter whether it is an accident or not. (And consider that people would hardly believe me when I say that it was an accident.) At least, that's what I think is the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I don't think that it would be a reasonable idea to start editing Wikipedia at this point with the ban still in place. Maybe you have not seen this and I admit, it's hard to believe something that is in German (I suppose that most of you do not understand German), but in the German language Wikipedia, I am contributing almost every day and other editors mostly consider me a good author. I am known for high-quality articles and properly cited sources. In fact, I am even a Mentor for new users. I mean, why would I be a Mentor if I was a "problem user"? I admit that I have made a mistake by completely ignoring consensus. I thought that the rule "sources > opinions" would apply here. But it turned out that I caused actual harm and I regret that. Actually, I have learned that those people who I thought were hostile, are reasonable editors. I even found myself working together with Andy Dingley on Commons; he helped me categorising my photographs properly. Yamla, you have said that I am appealing too soon – I think that almost 12 months later is not too soon. During the time period in which I was blocked, I have learned a lot and while I have not contributed to the English language Wikipedia, I have created several high-quality articles in the German language Wikipedia, two of them being featured articles. Yes, it might seem like nothing was going on in the past few months, but my mindset has changed. Definitely. I think it would be nothing but appropriate and fair if I stayed away from automobile articles for a while voluntarily in case of an unban. I neither want to harm nor annoy anybody, I would definitely re-start Wikipedia slowly with editing occasionally. Maybe I find some minor mistakes here and there which I would correct, maybe there are new things I am interested in. I'd also like Alex Shih to comment since he was involved in the process back then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly. Look at WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Yes, tons of articles have measurements in them, but parts of those articles not dealing with measurements aren't covered by your ban. For a random example, Van Wert County Courthouse has measurements of area (infobox) and the height of a statue, but as long as you don't touch those parts or add something measurement-related or automobile-related, you have no more restrictions on this article than anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The appealing too soon refers to appealing too soon after the previous declined appeal, particularly when this new appeal doesn't really address the points raised in the previous appeal. Like I mentioned before, if you cannot write in a more concise manner, you are still going to frustrate everyone here. For the record, I would support suspending instead of lifting the topic ban on the condition that it may be re-imposed by any uninvolved administrator with good reason at any time. The slow edit war over not redirecting User:Jojhnjoy to your new username however is really bizarre, but I suppose it's not explicitly against policy; although it can reasonably interpreted as evading scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: There are many unconstructive edits that are not against any specific policy but fall under various rubrics like disruption, incompetence, and NOTHERE. At a minimum his wanting to say that he's retired on that page instead of the redirect causes problems for other editors if they try to follow a link from his former username. I've warned the editor to leave the page alone, and I'll enforce my warning if necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too Soon You caused a lot of unnecessary drama that was only ended with a long term block. I am glad you recognize this and your opening statement accepting responsibility is encouraging. However, I have to agree with those who think this is too soon. Come back next summer (2019). For the record you are not prohibited from editing articles that contain units of measurement in them. The TBan only applies to articles where units of measurement constitute a substantial aspect of the article or attempts to edit actual UM in an article. If you want to improve RMS Titanic, which does contain UM, i.e. her gross tonnage length beam etc., no one is going to ding you as long as you stay off those statistics and don't start counting rivets or port holes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think some of the comments here are understandably confusing Johannes Maximilian and will come back to haunt everyone. If the topic ban is to be interpreted as all edits related to automobiles and all edites related to units of measurement, both broadly construed, then Johannes should not be able to edit the UM in the Titanic article. If one administrator says he can but another doesn't know that and blocks him for violating his ban, how is this Johannes's fault? Unless we want to change the ban, it should mean what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, the ban says „broadly construed“; what is that supposed to mean in the first place? How broad is it? You are saying I am interpreting it too broadly. In the past, I had interpreted it the opposite of "too broadly" – and I was blocked. I really want to be more careful, but thank you for your reply. Alex, well, you are right that I am not really being concise, but trust me, you are not the only one who has told me. I appreciate your suggestion of suspending the topic ban instead of lifting it at this point and I think that this is a good idea. My old username was horrible and I prefer to abandon it. My "old" edits are still visible under Special:Contribs/Johannes_Maximilian so I cannot evade scrutiny, even if I wanted to. But I understand that one could reasonably interpret it as evading. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, in my comment above I pointed to the Titanic article, I am stating that JM may not edit any units of measurement. As long as he stays off that, he is free to edit or discuss the rest of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Ad Orientem, I misread it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is premature and that the best way forward would be to edit in areas not covered by the topic ban, which is almost all the encyclopedia. The OP was blocked in October for violations of the topic ban, that block expired in April. The OP has only made a handful of edits to Wikipedia since, apart from topic ban appeals these were all in user or user talk space. The topic ban doesn't cover all articles containing units of measurement, it only covers articles which are about units of measurement or edits which add/change units of measurement in other types of article. "Broadly construed" just means that the OP isn't likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous cases and can't use hair splitting to justify making edits which arguably fall under the topic ban. If someone can show through constructive editing that a topic ban is not needed then the topic ban is likely to be lifted. Hut 8.5 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't forget that the ban also covers "automobile"; automobile means something like "moving under own power" and that covers any kind of vehicle as well as things that are related to that. There are so many things that can be found in a vehicle that could be related to "automobile". I could start contributing again – but who guarantees me that editing articles like Diesel engine for instance would not get me blocked? What if some editor who has no idea sees me editing and asks an administrator who has also no idea to get me blocked? Laymen would most likely associate Diesel engines with "automobile" because they don't know that the Diesel engine was never designed for automobile use (which is something I cannot even blame them for). In fact, the section of that particular article that describes the air-blast injection is quite poor and I have got plenty of books lying around covering that topic. I could contribute a lot there. But I believe, that, even if I cite a source that clearly says that air-blast injection cannot be used for automobiles, some people would still say that it is a topic ban violation and I am very sure that someone would block me. So I'd rather not edit at all. Anyways, any support for Alex Shih's proposal of suspending the topic ban? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering this into the ground. Automobile has a common meaning. You shouldn't make any edits related to automobiles. The edit you hypothesize about diesel engines would be included. Really, what difference does it make that diesel engines were supposedly never designed to be used in cars? The point is they are. There are huge areas of the encyclopedia that are not even remotely related to automobiles that you can edit. I get the sense that the only articles that interest you are those covered by your ban. I don't favor a suspension of the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• That is exactly what I mean. Air-blast injection has nothing to do with automobile. And yet you are saying it is covered by the ban. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

But well, this doesn't lead anywhere, to make this clear, I am not going to make an edit related to air-blast injection. As you have said, it was a hypothetical thought I have brought up to explain my point. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your topic ban covers any edits "relating to automobiles". I'm struggling to understand how anybody would think that a type of engine widely used in automobiles does not relate to automobiles. Hut 8.5 16:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Air-blast injected engines cannot be used in automobiles. Just take a look at the edit I made at 16:36. If you happen to know German and still have questions regarding this, feel free to ask them here. But I think we should stop this here since the example I have made doesn't seem to make it easier for you to understand what I want to express. We would end up wasting too much time. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TBAN - The Wikilawyering is strong with this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Last attempt, but quick info first: To show you when we use units, I have left out all units of measurement in the following post. Instead of "violating the topic ban by using units", I have replaced all units with "placeholders" in brackets []. So, here is my last attempt to explain this: I have the feeling that you might not be imagining the problem I am facing to the last detail. At first glance, being banned from editing everything related to "units" doesn't seem like a big deal, Hut 8.5 even says that the part which is not covered by the ban is almost all the encyclopedia. Well, it is not. The reason why seven chaps have decided to ban me from units was a dispute about a time unit ([the unit the big hand shows you on your clock]). To give you an idea, we are surrounded by units alomost everywhere. Ad Orientem says I am stating that JM may not edit any units of measurement. I think that also means JM must not add any units. Right? Technically, I am violating the topic ban each time I am signing my posts on talk pages because I am adding units of time. And even if we ignore that, units are part of almost every article. I have clicked on Special:Random ten [insert auxiliary unit of quantitiy here] to get a random list of articles. And I have checked if I could edit any of these articles with the topic ban still in place:

• Big Brother (Portuguese TV series) → Is sort of a list and contains dates = time units.
• John Carmichael, 3rd Earl of Hyndford → Is a person article stub; contains dates mostly = time units.
• Tesnatee Creek (Chestatee River) → The most important part of a river article is a description, that means length, width, depth, water volume per [insert time unit here] → time units.
• Mazzei v. Commissioner → Article on court proceedings which I could edit, however, it is about a certain amount of money; quantity and money have to be expressed with units.
• We Had It All → Article on a studio album; main part of the article is a tracklist, the length of a track is expressed using time units.
• Walter Kingsford → Another person article, I think I could safely edit this one.
• FIBT World Championships 1981 → Stub article that relies heavily on [time unit that changes soon after Christmas] = time units.
• Vangelis discography → Stub article that contains a list of albums Vangelis released, however, they key is the relase date = time unit.
• Ulysses S. Grant Memorial → Is a ship = something that moves under it's own power = automobile? Also, consider the section Description which almost only consists of units.
• Cirsonella globosa → Stub on a species of sea snail that lacks a description. Great, so I could add the description, right? Well, that would mean that I had to add units of measurement. The key factor of a description of an animal is the size of the animal so people have an idea: How am I supposed to describe the difference between an ant and an ape?

But at this point you could say that I could still make minor edits like correcting typos, grammar, etc. S Philbrick says: I'd like to see a few months of positive contributions to articles. But would fixing typos, minor things, etc. be considered positive contributions? Isn't that insufficient for determining whether an author contributes properly or not? Yes, I have used a tremendous amount of sarcasm and irony in this post and if you get the feeling that I am illustrating a point: I am doing that on purpose. But I hope it shows you what I mean. One could say that dates are an exception, but that would render banned from any units obsolete; on the other hand, consider that I am apparently also banned from editing the non automobile related air-blast injection because it is related to an engine that can be used as an automobile engine. Am I banned from air because it can be used in automobile tyres? I am facing a point which let's this whole ban appear bizarre because it was not imposed with reality in mind. I think we all agree that I should not get blocked for reasonable edits, but, technically, the ban prohibts very many reasonable edits despite never being designed to ban me from these. I am not trying to troll and I am a reasonable author. I get the concept of what is approproiate and I would not edit Wikipedia in a way that is clearly non-benefical but still covered by the policies just to prove the point that the ban is wrong (German editors most likely know WP:BNS). Speaking of German language Wikipedia, I am known for being what you could call a good author, I suppose that most editors over there would not even understand why anybody would ban me from editing certain topics. I have not the intention to troll and the frustration about the ban is mostly gone. I simply don't want to face any risks editing Wikipedia. I still think that Alex Shih's idea of suspending the topic ban is a good idea. Or maybe just suspending certain aspects of the ban so I could edit safely without constantly risking a block. I get that you expect me to contribute "properly" for a couple of [time unit with names such as "July"]; just take a look here. Anyways, this post turned out to be way too long once again. If it just causes annoyance, I apologise. I have honestly tried my best to explain why the ban should be suspended (sic). If this still does not convince you, I'd say this is bad luck. I cannot do anything about it and I will accept any administrator decision. Feel free to ask me any questions (if you still have any). Best regards, Johannes Maximilian (talk) [several units of time]

Need help tidying edit history on prominent article

(Please see here for background -- it's a long and varied discussion, but for this topic, look for the comments from me and from Czar.)

A week or so ago, I restored the previously-deleted version of this article. The article was getting covered in the news, and I felt it would be helpful for the news-reading public to have access to the earliest versions of the article, which were deleted. However, there was an unfortunate side effect, pointed out by Czar: the new edit history tended to lead to the erroneous conclusion that they (Czar) had deleted the article, when in fact it was another Wikipedian. Czar described to me how to restore the condition I had found it in, and last night at about 3am New York time, I tried to do so: re-delete the entire article, and then click through 815 checkboxes to restore only the revisions that came after the initial deletion.

However, when I clicked "restore," I got an error message: "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem..." I believe restoring so many revisions in one click is what lead to a problem, as the site seemed to work fine other than that.

Could a more technically-minded admin please advise if there is another way to accomplish the same goal? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your restore went through properly, as you can see at Special:Undelete/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. —Cryptic 17:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct...sorry for the false alarm. There are two restore buttons, and I thought the one I clicked to make that happen was a full restore of all revisions. Using the other button is what lead to the error described above. Still confused by how the software is supposed to work, but glad to see the article is now as it should be. Thanks Cryptic. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Captain Occam unblock request

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked Captain Occam in April as a normal admin action based on this AE request. While it was an normal admin block, I think it should be reviewed by the community since it took place with the consensus of uninvolved administrators. I am neutral on the outcome of this unblock request. The unblock request is as follows:

As I've said in a few other places, I accept that my block itself was valid, and if it had been a standard one-month AE block I'd have waited it out rather than trying to appeal. However, considering this was my first topic ban violation, I think that a one-month block (or three months, which is now how long it's been) would have been a more appropriate result than an indefinite one.

Blocking me for a month had been the initial consensus in the results section of the AE report about me, until MastCell presented his argument that I should be indeffed based on what he thought my motives were, which shifted the direction of the discussion to make the outcome an indefinite block instead. This matters because MastCell probably is an involved admin with respect to the R&I arbitration case, and shouldn't have commented in that section. Shortly before my block I discussed this matter via e-mail with a member of ArbCom, Euryalus, and Euryalus offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to refrain from further participation in that section of the report. I don't have the space here to present the evidence for why he's an involved admin (and my interaction ban prevents me from discussing some of it in public), but I've shown this evidence privately to Penwhale and I invite his comment.

Since the decision to block me indefinitely instead of for a month was based largely on an assumption about my motives for helping to set up the psychometrics task force, I think it's important to point out that this assumption was incorrect. I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about proving something about their thoughts, but there's one piece of evidence that seems to have been overlooked: Everymorning, who created the task force and did most of the work setting it up, has a perspective about intelligence and behavioral genetics that's very close to the opposite of mine. If my goal had in fact been to advance my point of view on those topics, it would have made no sense for me to help set up a task force with him in charge.

At the time, it didn't occur to me that my involvement in this task force would be viewed as a topic ban violation, because I assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions. (That is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed"; the edits for which I was blocked involved human abilities and behavior but did not involve race or ethnicity.) As I said in the request for clarification that I made shortly before being blocked, now that I more accurately understand how the scope of my topic ban is interpreted, I intend to avoid all content at Wikipedia related to psychometrics or intelligence for as long as my topic ban is in effect. I didn't understand this about my topic ban in March, but now that I do, there isn't a danger of me repeating this particular mistake. I'm also open to the idea of disabling my Wikipedia e-mail feature, if the community feels that this should be an unblock condition.

My interests at Wikipedia are pretty eclectic, but other people can get an idea of what I'd edit if unblocked based on my editing history from January 2017 until I became involved in the psychometrics task force this past March. I edited articles related to religion, video games and books, and my editing history going forward will be similar to that. If I can muster the time and energy for it, I also hope to eventually raise William Beebe to FA status, having previously turned this article from start-class into a GA. (See the article's edit history from April 2010 to June 2011.) In the past I've also been one of the main people maintaining that article, so even if I never manage to get it up to FA status, I would like to at least continue making Wikignome formatting edits as I did here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this up for the community to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Captain Occam has pinged Penwhale and Everymorning, but not @MastCell and Euryalus: I've done that now, as I think they may well want to comment. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I changed it to no pings here (they were pinged in his talk though) and notified MastCell. Thanks for pinging Euryalus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unblock after having read the April discussion that led to the block and the associated evidence. Bishonen's observations back then were especially persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting CO's response here per his request, see this diff: [12]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I am utterly unimpressed with that "explanation". Captain Occam observes while defending his ally: "However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references." We do not need trolls posing as Nazis editing Wikipedia, and we do not need editors who defend those who engage in such reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - CO has been a perennial problem each time he's been given some ROPE, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that his behavior will be different this time around if he were unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not need another warrior using the project to push a favored point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on an unblock, for largely the same reasons given by the oppose votes so far. If an unblock happens, the TBAN should be on subjects related to race or intelligence, which is far broader than the DS area of race and intelligence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Request narrowing of ban

I would request the narrowing of the ban that was imposed on me, so that it would include only high schools. This is the only place where I fell amiss of the community, on three issues: poverty-related background, religious post-nominals, and spiritual activities. I came into the dispute thinking that policy and guidelines controlled content questions, and that administrators would judge the merits of the arguments in the end. It was only at the end of the dispute that I learned that content issues were settled by a vote. I fully accept this now, and I will be wiser in defending or letting go of my edits in the future.

Failing this request, could I receive permission to merge my deleted material below onto the ten websites listed, with possibly new references. In these cases I was going by the principle that institutes should be moved to a separate article when they take excessive space in the university article. And when reviewers accepted these articles (and many more) I thought that they found the institutes notable in themselves. In the future I have the benefit of what I learned from the 34 proposed deletions of my articles this year.

Here to Regis University; here to Fairfield University; here to Boboto College; here to Creighton University; here to Hekima University College; here to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai; here to Thiruvalluvar University; here to St. Xavier's College, Jaipur; here to Catholic Church in South Africa; here to Immaculate Conception Church (New Orleans). Jzsj (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time due to their stubborn refusal to accept consensus and our well-established guidelines. He mentions a small example above: he persisted with his notion that adminstrators adjudicate content disputes despite being told that is not the case repeatedly, and he continues to confuse consensus with a "vote". The worst disruption was in connection with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School only because he chose to dig in his heels there. I lack confidence that he will not begin disrupting other articles about educational institutions if the topic ban is narrowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)