Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

(Initiated 117 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 91 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 72 days ago on 4 April 2024)This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aoi:  Done. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Thank you for closing this discussion! And thank you for the suggestions you provided in your close regarding potential next steps. They are very helpful. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 69 days ago on 7 April 2024)Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 67 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 67 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 65 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 42 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 35 days ago on 10 May 2024)RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 24 days ago on 22 May 2024)I have ended this RFC a week early per WP:RFCEND. Because of a history of edit warring over this, I would like an uninvolved editor to provide a clear statement about what editors prefer (even if it's not one of the 'official' two options). Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 72 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 69 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 68 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 68 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 67 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 63 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 62 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 60 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 45 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 39 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 59 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 16 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Two questions:

• You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
• There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:

Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31: Hello Joseph2302,Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice?While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning.Let me know what you think,Alex ShihEnglish Wikipedia Administrator-----------------------------------------Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11:Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped>-----------------------------------------Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12:Hello Joseph2302,No problem,I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response.Alex ShihEnglish Wikipedia Administrator

--Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

• In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on this? Don't want to see this thread just archived. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.

Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.

Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.

Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.

So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes back the following users to the functionary team:

• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily relinquished his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in December 2015, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the Committee for return of the permission.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

erm... Katie, when did the selection process take place? I am surprised I didnt know about it. I had participated in it last year. Maybe it wasnt advertised enough/properly? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It was on both CENT and this noticeboard. And trust me, you should be glad you missed that clusterf***. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: —usernamekiran(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.

The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:

Sitewide blocks effect on a user

1.  Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
2.  Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.

Partial block’s effect on the affected users

1. Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
2. Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.

Partial block’s success as a tool

1. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
2. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
3. Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.

Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Some measurement of whether blocked users attempt to evade their block through new usernames/IPs would be useful, though for obvious reasons that may be difficult to measure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add that to the list as a suggestion. Let me know if you think of a good way to do it! SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By now many of you are aware of this ongoing vandalism. They are targeting Today's Featured Article, among any other random article. Vandalism on TFA is commonplace, but to this extreme I think we need to do something beyond relying on patrollers. Sometimes this remains for minutes, when TFAs get maybe 20-30 views per minute (judging by the last several TFAs). It looks awfully bad for the project.

I know it's a perennial proposal, but do you think it'd be okay to put TFA under pending changes protection, procedurally, until we get this vandalism under control? This way everyone gets to at least edit, and I assume it being the TFA, pending changes would be tended to quickly. I have other ideas that don't involve any form of protection, but they're quite complicated. It would be great to do something. The edit filter is not cutting it.

Reminder that the vandal may be reading this discussion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is fairly common for us to apply semi-protection to TFAs when it becomes clear that they are attracting vandalism. The question here, I think, is about pre-emptive protection; and we already do that in a sense, by applying move-protection to all TFAs (the bot does this). I would certainly be okay with applying PC protection at the first sign of trouble. I'm a little reluctant to support pre-emptive PC protection simply because the load on PC reviewers will increase considerably. MusikAnimal Is a TFA-specific, IP-specific, image-specific filter possible? Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what I really want -- to make the filter TFA-specific. If we can do that we'll be in much better shape. Unfortunately there's no way to detect this right now. We'd need the bot to add an empty template, maybe {{TFA placeholder}} (or something), or even just a comment somewhere in the wikitext. The filter would also have to ensure only the bot or an admin can add/remove the template/comment, which is possible. I think having this identifier could be useful in the future for other vandalism-prevention, too, so maybe it's worth the trouble of implementing it? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: My technical knowledge is limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if such a filter would be based on a template that had to be inserted into the TFA text, I think it would absolutely be worth implementing, as it could then be manually added to other main-page entries that were targets of image-vandalism, too. As such I think it's likely to be a worthwhile investment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea. It's potentially better than pre-emptive pending changes protection as it would allow for more good faith editing to be done in real time and potential vandalism edits to show a warning to the user. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Would you be interested in having TFA Protector Bot perform this for us? It should be rather simple to implement; at 00:00 UTC put <!-- TFA --> in the wikitext, I guess at the bottom. Then remove it the following midnight. If you are too busy I can pursue this, but I figure since we're doing this for counter-vandalism reasons, TFA Protector Bot seems most fitting.

Unrelated oddity -- the system edit count of TFA Protetor Bot is currently at 22 edits, but the bot has clearly made many more than that. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [3]. It seems this may have initially been released in August, though there has been a recent influx of Wikipedia updates based on this, possibly due to the recent General Conference. Per our standard practice, Wikipedia does not automatically follow those guidelines. Some parts of it may be applied to articles if they become common usage, other parts may not even in that situation (I doubt we will be updating articles to refer to this group as the unqualified "Church of Jesus Christ" in the foreseeable future). A variety of LDS-related articles have seen updates from well-intentioned new editors that have had to be reverted as a result. I request that administrators consider themselves aware of this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No! I refuse to be aware!  :-) Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." Is part of this new? I know they've discouraged the use of "Mormon" for years, but I don't remember hearing discouragement of "LDS Church". Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I did see that in the news, but doubt anyone outside that religious organization will give any heed to it.16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

• funny that they would post that on “mormonnewsroom.org”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please examine the editing history of Lyhendz (talk · contribs). Has made similar nonsensical edits to the talk pages of several articles, mostly on Russia-related topics. Has ignored warnings and obviously needs to be blocked, but I'm curious to know if this is a bot, and if this kind of thing is common in wikipeda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef; this one IMO is a clear NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well obviously, but is it a bot? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a rogue Wikipedia vandalizing, chess playing robot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They were never offered to pass a Turing test, so that we do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyhendi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, Troll Bot sounds like the latest must-have toy for Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for investigating further, I knew there was something odd going on, this is not just a common garden vandal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

These two three accounts, while blocked, have been spamming multiple admins (including myself) with unwanted "thanks":

• Ashwoh
• Hi Ouhwdh
• GanuralizatiunsAweBud

Is there some way to disable this? It's more of a minor irritant than a high priority. Thanks, GAB^gab 23:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There's MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist --Vexations (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't believe users can thank other users while blocked. All three users you listed above were pestering people with the thanks function before they were blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:DBigXray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a question about deletion and content licensing. Earlier today DBigXray requested deletion of their userpage under criterion U1 (user-requested deletions in user space) and I obliged, because we usually just do these when the user requests it. A few minutes later DBigXray recreated the page with what was essentially the same content as before deletion. Does attribution require the history to be restored? As far as I can tell from the deleted history DBigXray is the only significant contributor, aside from other users reverting vandals. Is it alright to leave this alone? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• (pinged by Ivanvector) Hi Ivanvector, Please check WP:NOATT (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed) Which is very clear on this. The content on my user page, for which I am the sole contributor doesn't "require" me to attribute myself again and again. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to be a bit careful though, because someone actually added some content six years ago. Ultimately however, I don't see any real problems with what's already occurred. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for confirming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The photo of Paul Romer on the Main Page has the dimensions of the new, cropped photo on Commons, but is in fact the older one. Just look at my sandbox (and I don't know why my sandbox shows two different photos). wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo This parameter "width=100" is the only difference I see between the two images. rest everything is as expected. and After I added it , they are the same. It might be possible that your browser was using an old version of this image that was already downloaded, well clearing the browser cache or checking this link from another browser are two ways to fix it. Cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: This phenomena can be seen virtually anytime an image is overwritten; it briefly shows the new copy with the dimensions of the old. Some time back, a serial vandal kept uploading the same vandalism photo repeatedly to Commons, and when I would replace the image with text (to prevent it from being added to articles), it would briefly show the text squished to the dimensions that the photo had been. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at the last line currently under DYK, the bit about reading on the toilet. Is this serious? It almost seems like someone has snuck a joke onto the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bathroom reading is a valid article that met the DYK criteria, so why should it not appear? This is not really something for the administrators' noticeboard, however; perhaps you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Fish+Karate 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Dweller had (and has) consensus, so that's not wheel-warring? Fram (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not WHEELing GiantSnowman. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet, but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

:-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. Who knew that whether poop smells or not could be so controversial (this filter immediately comes to mind)... Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RblbZQth0KE --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"In one celebrated instance farting became a source of safety instead of fear. A boy in Jungian analysis used flatulence to create a ‘defensive olfactory container’ to protect himself, skunk-like, against fears of disintegration and persecution and to create a ‘protective cloud of familiarity’ when threatened. The clouds started to lift after the analyst blew loud therapeutic raspberries back at him (Sidoli, 1996)." [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a DYK hook I might actually click...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP is serious business, guys. Knock this shit off. Cleanly, in a large mass and with minimal smell. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the banned user template on his userpage be replaced with either {{banned user|link=[[WP:3X]]}} or {{banned user}} as the current text is incorrect. I've not posted on his talk page as it's semi protected. 51.9.92.58 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for catching the error. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I am requesting a set of admin eyes on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ) and on its talk page and at User talk:Legacypac. The interchange between the author, either User: SiddiqFarooq or User: DJ Kamal Mustafa (possible sockpuppetry), and the nominator, User:Legacypac, is a little ugly on the part of the author, who is accusing Legacypac of hate. See also https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Legacypac&type=revision&diff=863685448&oldid=863684572&diffmode=source in which the author tries to erase the interchange.

Articles for Deletion is often pretty heated, but Miscellany for Deletion can get ugly too. This is just a request for a set of admin eyes for the remainder of the seven days (and of course for closure at the end of the seven days).

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the accounts accused everyone at Wikipedia of hating Muslims and Pakistanis - not just me. I restored the deletion of a whole section of my talkpage, and am managing the situation. The accounts have little interest in Wikipedia except to promote the DJ so I've not sought any Admin action other than a CSD and to force a rename of the one acct. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson has left a message on DJ Kamal Mustafa's talk. I have left an agf-sock on both DJ Kamal Mustafa's and SiddiqFarooq's talk pages. This may need to go to ANI and SPI. DJ Kamal Mustafa has said Yap i accept that i edit my page with my team what I'm saying is I'm adding notable links of those newspaper who have already wikipedia pages if I'm not notable then those pages shouldn't be too as simple as that.

I was topic banned almost two years ago from witchcraft. I would like to appeal this ban. I haven't violated the ban. Once I made an edit but quickly reverted. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you could provide a link to the discussion that led to your ban, that would be helpful to those participating in the appeal discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum (topic ban discussion) Asterixf2 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not plan to edit Malleus Maleficarum. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it would also be helpful to express where you went wrong and show evidence of how you've behaved since the ban. Just saying "I want to appeal the ban" won't help anyone in determining if the ban is still necessary.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I was editing https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User_talk:Asterixf2#Malleus_Maleficarum when I met with the very persistent, strong and, as I see it, irrational opposition from user Ryn78 related to some specific points. This is the last version of the page without the controversial additions by Ryn78: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Malleus_Maleficarum&oldid=749385708. The article has since deteriorated and the "Reception" section is still hidden in an html comment. Since that time I was not involved in any disruptive behavior or prolonged discussions. I failed to drop the stick. Asterixf2 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• In attempting to present the case for lifting the ban, you have in fact presented the case for keeping it. You are still exhibiting one of the key attitudes that led to your ban: a conviction that you are RIGHT, and anyone who has a different view from you is "irrational". Also, despite being invited to "express where you went wrong" far from doing so you have dedicated most of your latest post to expressing how wrong you think another editor was. The only token gesture towards indicating that you know what you did wrong is the brief and unelaborated statement "I failed to drop the stick"; as far as that goes, it follows three sentences, together amounting to about ten times the length of that one, in which you express your view that you weren't wrong, and that the problem was another editor who was being unreasonable I'm not sure how you could better demonstrate that even after two years you have still not "dropped the stick", as you call it. In fact, you have done a remarkably good job of showing in a few short sentences that you still have exactly the attitude that led to the ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course I was correct but it was said that being correct is not enough. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Following the imposition of the topic ban, the editor was absent for 18 months. Since their return to editing, they have worked on a few articles. One of those is Martin Delrio, an article clearly related to witchcraft. They have violated their topic ban by making six edits to this article this month. I am very concerned that they will resume and continue their disruptive behavior if they are allowed to edit witchcraft articles without restriction. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis directly above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

One change was reverted before I posted here, quickly after making the change when I recalled I was topic banned. When I recalled I was topic banned I appealed the ban. The other change was made after posting here. I have just lost my attention due to switching between language editions of wikipedia. :) Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see JamesBWatson has helpfully expressed my thoughts better than I could. I agree with his assessment, and I oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Keilana (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Keilana for her years of service.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC) x-post: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change in oversight team

Hello admins. Is there anything that can be done at Talk:Terry Hall (singer)? For several months an IP has been making comments about being the article subject's wife. Initially I interacted with the editor, and tried to explain how Wikipedia works (i.e. sources preferred over personal testimony), but I gave up when they started accusing me of destroying their marital status. Despite nobody else interacting with them, this anon editor is continuing to have a conversation (with themselves) about this matter, and the talk page has veered off, shall we say, into uncharted territory. I haven't posted this at ANI because I believe a bit of sensitivity is required with this matter, and I don't think it would particularly help to post the standard editor notification on their page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) I would recommend blocking the IP per WP:NOTFORUM. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to clean up the talkpage by deleting the offendingnmaterial citing WP:NOTAFORUM and keep doing so until the IP gets the hint. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel confident that they will get the hint. The term obsessive springs to mind. Can the page not be protected also? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No crystal ball is needed to see that hints will not be taken. I would have deleted the last section (Representations of his family) but others have replied. If deleting the stuff is considered undesirable, the page could be manually archived and further material repeatedly removed with occasional explanations on the current IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As the IP account was making legal threats regarding the removal of this material, I have blocked it for a year. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they were making legal threats as such - they had, supposedly, already contacted the British police and Home Office regarding this, with no impact on anyone here. But never mind. We shall have to see if they start using other IP accounts - they've used at least two so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/2602:302:D1A2:C740:4561:CE91:E430:80F7
• Special:Contributions/2602:302:D1A2:C740:B575:BA69:E4FE:32FF

They have tagged various pages for deletion (as well as requesting bans for some users), generally without providing any reason. Despite there not being any reason, Wesley Duncan was deleted for a while which I only found out by accident. Can an administrator check the deleted contributions from these IPs to see if any other pages have been deleted? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The only edit that is in either of their deleted contributions is to User:JocelynLPIA/sandbox/Jake Porter. ~ GB fan 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: thanks. That page is actually about https://jakeporter.org/meet-jake/. I don't know if he's within the scope of WP:NPOL and what was written on that page, but it may be useful. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If account creation is blocked on a certain IP in one wiki, does unified login prevent the creation of user accounts from that IP on any wiki or just the home wiki? DrKay (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just the home wiki where the block is placed. It can also prevent automatic account creation on the home wiki where an account is previously created on another wiki. Global blocks (and global locks) affect all wikis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did a spot check of three recently added episode summaries[5] and confirm ed that they are word-for-word same as summaries on multiple other websites, a direct violation Wikipedia's copyright policy. Looking at the edit history of the list, this same IP range has added several other summaries that are very likely to be copyright violations as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 19)#Copyright violations about how to remedy the situation. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello , I come here because I have a dilemma (according to your policy).As the problem is in french on enwiki, I am also looking for someone who speaks French to help me (miminum Fr-2). so...

Vous parlez donc en français pour lire un texte d'une IP (69.174.249.79) qui vient me demander sur ma page de discussion enwiki (User talk donc) de modifier une page sur frwiki. Il ne peut le faire puisque cette page est en semi-protection étendue (3 months and 500 edits). Mais pourquoi il vient m'écrire sur ma page anglaise ? Simplissime ! Cette IP ne fait que des modifications sur des entreprises sur enwiki et frwiki (je n'ai pas les outils pour contrôler tous les wikis). Je n'ai pas su faire un lien entre ces entreprises ou une société mère. Mais je suspecte fortement un Puppet (Faux-nez chez nous). Je pense que vous avez la même politique sur enwiki. Si c'est le cas un blocage global devrait être envisagé. Il doit utiliser un VPN. Probable qu'il ait utilisé plusieurs comptes et/ou plusieurs IP et qu'il vient me démarcher pour faire le "sale boulot". Plusieurs articles sont protégés du même vandale et la page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs devrait fortement vous intéresser. Les administrateurs de frwiki me lisent ici pour déterminer leur marche à suivre. D'ailleurs, un admin global ne serait peut-être pas superflu. Je donnerai une réponse vague demain sur ma user talk, en teneur :

:Bonjour [[User:69.174.249.79|69.174.249.79]] [[Image:Waving.png|20px|Bonjour]],:Tout d'abord merci pour le compliment. J'espère seulement que vous pourrez me lire avec une IP. Vous me parlez d'un article sur Wikip<big><u>'''é'''</u></big>dia (francophone donc), vous pouvez m'écrire sur cette partie de Wiki<big><u>'''m'''</u></big>edia, [[w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Eihel|ici donc pour discuter en français]]. Alors rendez-vous là bas {{smiley}}. Salutations.--~~~~

C'est bête, il ne savait pas à qu'il avait à faire "The best patroller in Wikimedia".
He only touched one page on frwiki, but there are already several articles in his history on enwiki. I let you decide and {{Reply to|Eihel}} because I can not follow all the discussions of all the wiki. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy translation:

An IP user (69.174.249.79) has come to my talk page on enwiki to ask me to change an article on frwiki. The IP can't do it because the page is "extended semi-protected" (3 months and 500 edits). But why write on my talk page on enwiki? Simple! This IP only edits articles about companies on enwiki and frwiki (I don't have the tools to check all the wikis). I wasn't able to link these companies to each other, nor find a parent company, but I stronly suspect a sockpuppet. I think you have the same policy on enwiki. If that's the case, a global lock should be considered. The IP must be using a VPN, has probably used many accounts and/or many IPs and is asking me to do their "dirty job". Many articles are protected from this vandal and the page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs on frwiki should highly interest you. The admins on frwiki will read this thread here to decide what to do next, and a global admin would probably be useful. I plan to answer the IP tomorrow on my talk page, something like:

Hello 69.174.249.79. First, thank you for the compliment. I only hope that you'll be able to read this, being an IP. You are talking about an article on the French wiki, so you can write to me over there in French. So, see you there.

It's stupid, they didn't know they were dealing with "The best patroller in Wikimedia". .

Isa (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eihel and Isa: Je pense que je ne sais suffit Français pour vous aider, mais cette IP est certainement un sock puppet de w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline, et il est aussi un proxy ouvert. Je l'ai bloqué ici, et je demanderai des stewards pour un blocage global sur meta (regardez ici). Merci beaucoup.

Bad translation of my bad translation: I think I don't know French well enough to help you, but this IP is definitely a sockpuppet of ConsumersDistributingonline, and is also an open proxy. I have blocked them here, and I will ask the stewards for a global lock on meta (see m:SRG). Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note that faux-nez in french means sockpuppet. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)