Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
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
(Initiated 16 days ago on 25 November 2024) Topic ban appeal that has been open for over two weeks. Discussion by uninvolved editors seems to have died down. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Done by Just Step Sideways. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 209 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. That's not a "no consensus". The consensus is neither. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 1 December 2024) This might qualifiy for SNOW, as there is no support for inclusion. However, the RfC statment appears to be not neutral, and one party claimed that the RfC was premature. The main disagreement that inspired the RfC seems to have been resolved elsewhere.[1] Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't need closing, Tinynanorobots. It's blindingly obvious and near unanimous.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 15 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 19 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 47 | 4 | 51 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
(Initiated 52 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 2 December 2024)
I think consensus is fairly clear on this one. The log page can be removed after this is closed. Cheers, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done by Patar knight. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 23 October 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 23 October 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 October 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 October 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 November 2024) Formal close needed. No new comments for two weeks. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doxxing: how fast did we react?
It appears that 143.231.249.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently doxxed US senators Lee, Graham and Hatch on Wikipedia. As usual, the personal information was quickly removed from the history.
I am interested in our response time on high profile pages. Could someone who can read the deleted history tell me:
[1] How much time elapsed before it was noticed an reported?
[2] How much time elapsed before a revert?
[3] How much time elapsed before a revision deletion?
[4] How much time elapsed before oversight?
Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: While I, a non-admin, cannot see all of it, I can tell that:
- On Lindsey Graham:
- Original edit made on 21:13, 27 September 2018.
- Gilliam reverts the edit that same minute the edit was made.
- K6ka RevDels the edit at 21:22, 9 minutes after.
- ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)
- On Lindsey Graham:
- Suppression occurred at 21:23 one minute after the RD, 10 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- On Orrin Hatch:
- Original edit made on 21:25, 27 September 2018.
- Oshwah reverts the edit on 21:29 (4 minutes? Considering him, that's pretty slow) and RevDels it that same minute.
- ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)
- On Orrin Hatch:
- Suppression occurred at 21:31 two minutes after the RD, 6 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- SemiHypercube ✎ 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will wait for an oversighter to answer the last bit. Related question: David Reaboi[2] says that 143.231.249.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person.[3] Do we know this to be true? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The same vandalism came from multiple IPs. The IPs are almost certainly NAT'd, and claims of traceability (from the outside) to a specific office or person are going to be a nonsense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will wait for an oversighter to answer the last bit. Related question: David Reaboi[2] says that 143.231.249.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person.[3] Do we know this to be true? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let me just say that I encourage ALL admins to be as proactive as possible in suppressing that kind of information. Reverting is one thing, but these kinds of edits call for immediate revdeletion/suppression. Now, if that damn bot retweets immediately, we're screwed no matter how fast we act. For the record, I agree with this edit summary. Apparently the bot's creator's intention was not to "belittle our elected officials"--well, great, but he's doxxing them. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, the bot operator isn't doxxing them, the editor using the House of Representatives computer is doxxing them.
- As a technical question, in case I'm missing something, if the bot operator ceased operations, the person interested in doxxing could simply post to a twitter account. Am I missing something? Is it possible the HOR computers can access Wikipedia, but not Twitter?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just in case some outsiders are reading this, I saw some discussion about this issue elsewhere and someone thought we should be using a filter to stop the posting of personal information. My response was that such an edit filter is far harder than one might imagine, but I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback from editors with edit filter experience. (I understand there may be some limitations, per beans, about what can be said.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: edit filters need to have something to actually "match" on, and are mostly limited to the content of a single edit, patterns can be used. So for example we could make a filter that looks for the addition of a credit card number with high confidence (it has a fixed format, and would rarely be a "good" edit), filtering on something like a "home address" is much harder - for one, the format varies -but the big thing is that it would be very hard to tell the difference between a home address an the address of a company for example. — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-administrator, since these doxxing and various disruptive edits have been being made from inside a known IP range assigned to Congress, I have a question/suggestion. Is it possible to set editing attempts from within this range to not allow anonymous editing but to force a login? I realize that a determined vandal could simply create a bogus account and login using that, but this could be useful in deterring a more casual vandalism attempt. Blackfyr (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blackfyr - Yes, that is the default setting when blocking an IP address or range (as opposed to restricting both anonymous users and non-exempt existing accounts from editing). By default, editors with an existing account can log in from behind a blocked IP or range and edit as usual and without being affected by the IP block. Anonymous users won't be able to edit. This is known as a 'soft IP block' or typically just an 'IP block'. If the option is set to also disallow logged in non-exempt users from editing from behind the blocked IP or range, this is known as a 'hard IP block'. This is detailed more in-depth in this section of the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SIP: we have to be particularly careful when blocking sensitive IP addresses, and congressional IPs are at the top of the list of sensitive addresses. This doesn't mean that we don't block IPs that warrant it, but it means that we consider the situation before doing anything beyond an ordinary reaction to simple vandalism and outing. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to any softblocking unless it's the result of a careful discussion. If that discussion happens, I won't advocate "yes, soft block" or "no, don't soft block"; I just want to make sure that we do everything we can. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I respect that position, but would like to suggest that since this is apparently a regularly occuring situation, this might be the time to have that conversation. Where is the proper place to have that and how do we get it started?Blackfyr (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SIP: we have to be particularly careful when blocking sensitive IP addresses, and congressional IPs are at the top of the list of sensitive addresses. This doesn't mean that we don't block IPs that warrant it, but it means that we consider the situation before doing anything beyond an ordinary reaction to simple vandalism and outing. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to any softblocking unless it's the result of a careful discussion. If that discussion happens, I won't advocate "yes, soft block" or "no, don't soft block"; I just want to make sure that we do everything we can. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I happened across this thread after noticing the IP poster under discussion was allegedly doxxed on 8chan. My feeling is that instant-censoring truthful information about senators is not something to be proud of. The "harm", after all, can always be done in other forums, and that kind of instant suppression makes it quite impossible for ordinary posters to see if the information was really something not to be viewed by proletarian eyes. But my feeling is also that an IP account festooned with as many warnings as that one should not be given a royal exemption to being soft-blocked. Since when does Wikipedia offer widely varying levels of privilege and protection to user accounts and article subjects based on their political connections? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:SIP says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee." Oddly enough, there is no link to the place where either the Wikipedia community or the WMF established this requirement. Where was this decided? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's been in the page since it was first created back in 2006 by Pathoschild. I imagine Pathoschild established this requirement then. Wikipedia in 2006 was a bit different to the interminable naval-gazing bureaucracy we have now, people sometimes typed policies into Wikipedia and other editors worked collaboratively with them. Sometimes whole sentences were written without going through a single RFC and they made the decisions themselves! I know, right, what were they thinking?! Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Related question about WP:IPB: At the top is the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" note, but then I see sections with the titles "Policies" and "Guidelines". This seems deceptive to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it time to deprecate WP:X2?
Is the cleanup of pages created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016 done yet? I have never seen any articles in the relevant speedy deletion category, so can it be deprecated, since per WP:XCSD, Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed.
SemiHypercube ✎ 01:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I believe it is no longer needed only after the work on this page has been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have not seen any X2 deletions lately. Has the cleanup been finished or has no one bothered to delete the pages recently? I wasn't around when this happened, and I'm not sure if the community thinks the situation has been solved now. In my opinion, once deletions have stopped, the criterion is no longer needed. funplussmart (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think everything has been done that is going to be done. But this was not a well thought-out procedure: There was very substantial disagreement on standards among the various people screening these, and a good many articles were actually kept after discussion, fixed to varying extents. If we need to do something of the sort again, we shouldn't try to shoehorn it into speedy, which is supposed to work very differently: for the other criteria, deleting admins almost always agree with each other. Speedy is not for situations where reasonable people will disagree. To a lesser degree we had problems with X1--there was not really agreement in practice about which articles were worth rescuing. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban review request
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:
UTRS context, slightly trimmed
|
|---|
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 Shih English 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 Shih English 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)
- --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Close?
- 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)
Review of block appeal at User talk:TaylanUB
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:TaylanUB has been indef blocked by User:GorillaWarfare for the logged reason "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" and with a block message comment "Your transphobia is not welcome here". The resulting unblock appeal has attracted significant comment, and I think it is one that should not be left to an individual admin to decide but should be referred to the community. As a strong supporter of gender-based equality and one who abhors gender-based bigotry (whether anatomical, genetic, cultural, psychological (which itself is at least partly genetic and/or partly cultural) or whatever), I clearly can not decide this for myself - and I don't think any individual admin should. I think it needs community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. (edit conflict) This is the controversial edit summary. I don't support blocking TERFs for being TERFs, but we should have some consensus on mainspace disruption. wumbolo ^^^ 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This diff is relevant, as well as this one where TaylanUB claims that edit summaries are not relevant to MOS:GENDERID. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, on a purely formal ground - the user has been here for quite a while, reasonably active, once dragged for ANI without any consequences, couple of times warned - once for edit-warring, once for pushing an agenda, but this is about it, unless I am missing smth. An indef block is the last resort, not the first resort, no? To me, unless it was a very specific horrible policy violation, which was not referenced in the block notice, the case does not match WP:NOTTHERE. I blocked a lot of people per WP:NOTTHERE, and these are typically POV pushers who drive by the articles replacing India with Pakistan or smth like this. If they manage to stay under the radar, they can only get discovered after several hundred edits and still be blocked per WP:NOTTHERE, but here we clearly have a very different case. Not all POV edors are NOTHERE, and this one does not look to me like the case where the first block must have been indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think this falls somewhere in the realm of WP:POINT better than NOTHERE. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would suggest to the administrators that, if the indef block seems excessive, a topic-ban from all gender-related articles and discussions might achieve the needed effect. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This user has been a problem, needlessly TENDENTIOUS, BATTLEGROUND ([4], [5], [6]), and otherwise offensive on transgender/TERF articles. I don't have a solid opinion on how best to handle this user's behavior, but I feel it is necessary to show how disruptive this user has been (imho). Examples include:
- Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman. See also [7]
- Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem. See also [8]
- Accusing bad faith of other editors. See also [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (see edit summary)
- Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women. See also [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
- Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we. See also [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
- BLP violations
- Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women.
- While pushing against the status quo and challenging POVs is healthy and useful to Wikipedia, there is a point where it moves from healthy to crusading. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: your comment is more WP:BATTLEGROUND than the entire contribution history by TaylanUB. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- What? Providing diffs of behavior is exactly what AN encourages; it's not battleground at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Providing fewer diffs encourages better judgment, while alleging that every policy was broken only leads to wasting time arguing the weaker points. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: I appreciate parsimony but I wished to demonstrate the widespreadness (#makingitaword) of the issue. These are not cherry-picked diffs to try to paint a user in a bad light. My first set of diffs was from TaylanUB's last 100 edits. But it seems odd to claim I'm being BATTLEGROUND about this... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Providing fewer diffs encourages better judgment, while alleging that every policy was broken only leads to wasting time arguing the weaker points. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- What? Providing diffs of behavior is exactly what AN encourages; it's not battleground at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- How does that make sense? Taylan's words speak for herself; she dug this hole, she can lay in it. It's very clearly battleground.--Jorm (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jorm: Quick note but per Taylan's userpage I believe he is male. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: ah but we know that she doesn't seem to have a problem misgendering people, so, you know.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jorm: Quick note but per Taylan's userpage I believe he is male. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not battleground to defend yourself against inaccurate comments, if no one else attempts to defend you. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: your comment is more WP:BATTLEGROUND than the entire contribution history by TaylanUB. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- endorse block for disruption and pointiness Thanks, EvergreenFir for refreshing my memory. I'd gone cross-eyed looking at the user talk page earlier. I think the point is the user refuses to follow the MOS that the community agreed upon regarding transgender issues. Though the user is quite eloquent in many ways, including claiming victimization, the problem and the reason for the block is some sort of WP:NOTHERE or POV pushing agenda, and willingness to do battle to rewrite Wikipedia to their personal taste and against consensus. While the block may have been seen as premature and precipitous, it also comes after a log period of strife. And that this has gone on so long w/o remedy is no reason not to effect remedy now. I see no problem in unblocking if the user agrees to leave aside transgender issues, stop POV pushing, and conform to/accept the MOS, or if the user agrees to a WP:TBAN on transgender in particular.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum TBAN if unblocked.' TBH, I think an unblock will just be asking for more trouble, but a TBAN might slow it down.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Upping to strong support of indef per this by Nblund -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum TBAN if unblocked.' TBH, I think an unblock will just be asking for more trouble, but a TBAN might slow it down.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse per the pile of evidence presented by EvergreenFir. Tag, bag, and move on. Nihlus 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of this editor's ≈450 edits, far too many contain disruptive conduct in mainspace or elsewhere. The appeal was unconvincing. Endorse. AGK ■ 20:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Replying to this elaboration on the block reason by GorillaWarfare:
- Do you have any specific receipts/examples regarding the claim that I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles unbalanced? For instance, how big of a role do my edits regarding the incident at Speaker's Corner relate to this, if any? (Or is your claim meant very broadly, such that citing individual edits or even topics would not be useful?) As for my alleged "consistent use of incorrect pronouns for trans subjects," can you please confirm that this has actually happened more than a single time, which was within an edit summary? As far as I remember, the only time I used wrong pronouns as per MOS:GENDERID for a trans person was in an edit summary in which I referred to Tara Wolf with male pronouns. Can you clarify to what degree MOS:GENDERID or the whole Manual of Style applies to edit summaries? (My assumption up so far was that the MOS applies only to article bodies.) Regarding "dehumanizing people," could you show any examples in which you've perceived me as doing this?
- (end first comment)
- (start second comment)
- For anyone who considers a topic ban: please reconsider. There is fairly good evidence that there is a repeated pattern of bias in transgender related articles, in favor of the positions of transgender activists. For instance, I recently restored some documentation on my user page of repeated, persistent attempts to remove from the page Feminist views on transgender topics a very well-cited case, with significant media representation, of a transgender activist having assaulted a feminist in a public gathering. Further, shortly before my block some editors started edit warring with me with the claim that what happened was not an assault, even though reliable sources confirm that the case was one of assault and that the assailant was eventually convicted for "assault by beating". (References: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) Currently the page Feminist views on transgender topics once again calls the incident an "altercation" rather than an "assault". My behavior which others have called "disruptive" or "tendentious" has often been based on this repeated pattern of bias that I was in fact struggling against. This struggle is made especially difficult as multiple editors are involved in supporting the positions of transgender activists.
- A second case study: the page trans woman starts by defining a transwoman as "a woman who was assigned male at birth." I've proposed to change this to "a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman." The proposed wording is neutral, avoids contradicting the first sentence of the article woman as well as common English dictionaries, and is better supported by reliable sources as you can see on the talk page. In the RfC poll you can see on the talk page, it won the majority of votes with a small margin. Despite this, my past attempts at changing the article to use that wording have been strictly opposed and my behavior called disruptive. The ordeal ended in the massive RfC debate you see.
- I would conclude that my behavior is perceived as disruptive because I insist on neutrality, balance, and objectivity, in areas that make some editors uncomfortable due to our deep differences in ideology. I expressly do not want Wikipedia to have an unbalanced presentation of the subject matter, even in favor of the ideologies I support, because that would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia's "take" on the matter. There are enough platforms out there for a one-sided representation, and I use them when I feel the need; the point of Wikipedia as I understand it is that people can get a hopefully completely impartial representation of the subject matter and make up their own minds.
- (end second comment)
- Thanks again. Taylan (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add the following point-by-point response to EvergreenFir. This might be somewhat long-winded again, but I think it's important, especially since the AN entry is fresh and those reading it might not know any of the surrounding context.
- (start comment)
- Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman.
- Indeed, I personally find gender identity ideology offensive, because it reduces "woman" and "man" to sexist stereotypes in my view. I have personally been severely hurt by the collateral damage sex stereotypes cause men, so this is personal to me too. I am, I believe, entitled to this opinion. I believe I did not try to bring undue representation of this opinion into Wikipedia articles.
- Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem.
- I think this is a misrepresentation of what I've said. I said that I personally find it very difficult to use female pronouns for Tara Wolf, since they as a male-bodied person have committed something I see as supporting male supremacy (or "patriarchy"): the use of physical assault against a politically dissenting female-bodied person. I did not comment on the appropriateness of using male pronouns for transwomen in general, especially not within Wikipedia articles. For instance I don't think I ever breached MOS:GENDERID, unless it applies to edit summaries, which if it does I was not aware of at the time and did once.
- Accusing bad faith of other editors.
- I have been called a POV-pusher, disruptive, tendentious, a bigot, a transphobe, and worse, for insisting on bringing well-sourced material into Wikipedia with due representation. (The most extreme case is documented in my user page. Thank you EvergreenFir for having dealt with the abusive person back then.) I honestly have to admit that it has become very difficult for me to genuinely assume good faith in all instances, especially when I'm being egged on.
- Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women.
- Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we.
- As stated above and explained in the links you provided, I indeed find gender identity ideology offensive, and I believe I'm entitled to this opinion. Leaving my opinion aside, the statement that transwomen are women is not one supported by reliable sources, as was revealed in the discussion on the talk page of trans woman. Rather, it represents a dispute and a political position as evidenced by the Pew poll you mention. (Here: [41]) Are you implying that Wikipedia should take a side on this dispute? Note that I'm not disputing MOS:GENDERID, which is about pronoun use.
- BLP violations
- I sincerely don't understand how what you linked falls under BLP violations, especially since it was an expression of personal opinion on a talk page. Regarding whether it was wrong to use male pronouns for Tara Wolf in an edit summary, I've already asked for clarification.
- Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women
- I feel that this is a particularly unfair and pernicious misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else on the Internet nor in real life, that I see transgender people or transwomen as a particular danger to anyone. What I do occasionally point out is that women have no reason to believe, without evidence, that a specific subset of male-bodied people should be intrinsically more trustworthy than the general population of male-bodied people, especially when the only unifying aspect of said subset is a verbal declaration that they make about themselves. (That is, the expression "I'm a woman/transwoman". In the discussion you link I've provided some citations to back the claim that this declaration is the sole requirement for being considered a transwoman nowadays.) And please remember that I'm a male-bodied person myself, lest somebody start thinking that I'm discriminating against male-bodied people in general.
- By the way, I'd like to point out that as mentioned here, there are several transgender/transsexual individuals (some prefer "transsexual") who are on the "same side" in this debate as me. For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women. I'm especially a fan of Kathleen Stock for her eloquent speaking.
- (end comment)
- Thank you. Taylan (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Copied over per request from User talk:TaylanUB. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- The block was based on your overall pattern of conduct, not just a handful of recent edits. Even the most brief look through your contributions show you've been here to push your various opinions on feminism (TERF, anti-pornography) etc. since day one. As for using the wrong pronouns, yes, it was outside of just one edit summary (for example: [42]). You're probably right that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to edit summaries, but BLP still does. And the "dehumanizing" comment was meant to summarize your campaign of arguing that trans people should not be referred to by their correct pronouns.
- As a side note, you've already been encouraged to keep your replies reasonably brief on your talk page. A comment like this (or set of comments, I guess) that's longer than the entire discussion so far is a lot to sift through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- "For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women." These two groups have been described as "anti-trans" by reliable sources: [43] [44] --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Lots of diffs, but certainly - in my opinion - this one is worth either an indef or at least a TBAN from gender-related articles. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse, NOT per the WP:POV railroad presented above or the lengthy user talk page discussion or because plenty of editors believe TERFs are a hate group or similar, but per Black Kite. wumbolo ^^^ 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose indef at this time but support 30-day warning block. The incivility in Black Kite's example is clear. I think it is quite healthy for Wikipedia to have a TERF editing gender articles but not like this. Unfortunately, Taylan continues with the walls of text and not acknowledging any wrongdoing. Conversation with Taylan doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I would give him a chance to think about it, come back in 30 days, and explain that he understands the problem or at least understands that the behavior won't be tolerated here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Re DIYeditor's comment just above: An indef is exactly correct and the user is welcome to think about it, come back in 30 days, and offer their understanding of the problem and how they would avoid it in the future if an appeal was successful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose indef, support topic-ban. Wikipedia is supposed to be based upon a system of warnings and escalating blocks, targeting problematic behavior. Jumping straight to the extreme measure of indefinite block is excessive. Carrite (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me that he was blocked for misgendering in an edit summary. People may dislike his view on transgender, but that doesn't mean that is WP:NOTHERE or POV pushing an agenda. I would note that almost all of the cited edits above were edits to his own talk page in which I believe he is free to express his own opinions and stating such opinions on his talk page is not POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Regardless of the proper boundary of Talk page freedom of expression, the evidence of Taylan's POV pushing is all over Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics, Talk:Trans woman and the related discussion on NPOVN; indeed, the history of each page to which Taylan has made a contribution is marked by his singular POV. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would remind you that per WP:POVPUSH
The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions.
He is free to express his opinions on what the most appropriate way to discuss the topic in mainspace on the talk pages and try to build consensus around his viewpoint. He is not free to push his POV into mainspace against consensus. -Obsidi (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)- October 2018 (UTC)
- You mean like these recent edits, [45] [46] or these older ones? [47] [48]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would note obviously you are highly involved in these edits given he was reverting your edits, but lets discuss them directly. On the second group of edits, it looks to me like you have a dispute concerning WP:SPS vs WP:SELFPUB. I wouldn't say that constitutes POV pushing, I've gotten into my own disputes over that before, for some reason people think that selfpublished sources can never be used. The first set is worse. There is a clear push into the article on that even after it was reverted and someone objected to it on WP:DUE grounds without first getting consensus. He did discuss this on the talk page, which I give him credit for, but still this was an aggressive move by him to re-add this. A pattern of this kind of behavior (over more than just one edit) is what I would be looking for to prove POV pushing, but one instance wouldn't do it for me (and even then I think a TBAN from that topic area would be more appropriate if you proved he was a POV pusher). -Obsidi (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I was involved in the first example I gave above, but not in the second. Perhaps the clearest example of Taylan's PUSH behaviour, though, is the following (in which I was peripherally INVOLVED: I made a mistake which I then immediately self-reverted). Taylan insisted in this case that his non-consensus text stay in place while the Talk discussion continued.[49] [50] [51] [52] While not a 3RR volation, to me this is clearly BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE behaviour. Note that Taylan has quite recently indicated that he considered himself to be in the right on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Obsidi: Wikipedia certainly gives more leeway on user talk pages, but people are regularly blocked for offensive or trolling behavior on those pages. Users do not have license to be racist, for example, especially in regard to living people who have articles on this site. I'm not sure NOTHERE indef is here best response, but I don't get the sense Taylan is HERE to create a good encyclopedia... just one that comports with his worldview. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- No one should be removed for merely stating something "offensive" as Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED and so
may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Trolling is a different story obviously and would violate WP:CIVIL among others, but I don't get the impression that he is what he is trying to do. -Obsidi (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC) - Edit summary: also TERF is not a slur
- Really. Maybe you'd best get over to Feminist views on transgender topics, then:
- Feminists with exclusionary views have been referred to as "TERFs" (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). They generally object to the acronym[1] and have called it a slur or even hate speech.[2]>[3].
- And from the second footnote:
- "If “TERF” were a term that conveyed something purposeful, accurate, or useful, beyond simply smearing, silencing, insulting, discriminating against, or inciting violence, it could perhaps be considered neutral or harmless. But because the term itself is politically dishonest and misrepresentative, and because its intent is to vilify, disparage, and intimidate, as well as to incite and justify violence against women, it is dangerous and indeed qualifies as a form of hate speech. While women have tried to point out that this would be the end result of “TERF” before, they were, as usual, dismissed. We now have undeniable proof that painting women with this brush leads to real, physical violence. If you didn’t believe us before, you now have no excuse. - Meghan E. Murphy (September 21, 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current.
- The phrase "You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- If your going to quote an edit summery link to it so people can see it for themselves [53] -Obsidi (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- And Calton, you are providing a really good example of why opinion vehicles should not be used as sources for facts and their findings can not be presented in WIkipedia's voice. You have just cited the opinion of a FRINGE source as "fact". This has been one result of Taylan's fairly tireless editing on his chosen single topic. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Obsidi: continuing with the racism parallel, NOTCENSORED still doesn't mean you get to promote racist stuff or say racist things repeatedly on your user page. @Calton: check that article's edit history maybe? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:POLEMIC:
statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
Which covers most racist statements. For statements not attacking editors/people/entities the statements cannot just be offensive, but must be extremely offensive on the order of promotion of Nazism or pro-pedophilia advocacy before the rules kick in to prohibit them. -Obsidi (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:POLEMIC:
- @Obsidi: continuing with the racism parallel, NOTCENSORED still doesn't mean you get to promote racist stuff or say racist things repeatedly on your user page. @Calton: check that article's edit history maybe? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- And Calton, you are providing a really good example of why opinion vehicles should not be used as sources for facts and their findings can not be presented in WIkipedia's voice. You have just cited the opinion of a FRINGE source as "fact". This has been one result of Taylan's fairly tireless editing on his chosen single topic. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- If your going to quote an edit summery link to it so people can see it for themselves [53] -Obsidi (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- No one should be removed for merely stating something "offensive" as Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED and so
- @Obsidi: Wikipedia certainly gives more leeway on user talk pages, but people are regularly blocked for offensive or trolling behavior on those pages. Users do not have license to be racist, for example, especially in regard to living people who have articles on this site. I'm not sure NOTHERE indef is here best response, but I don't get the sense Taylan is HERE to create a good encyclopedia... just one that comports with his worldview. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I was involved in the first example I gave above, but not in the second. Perhaps the clearest example of Taylan's PUSH behaviour, though, is the following (in which I was peripherally INVOLVED: I made a mistake which I then immediately self-reverted). Taylan insisted in this case that his non-consensus text stay in place while the Talk discussion continued.[49] [50] [51] [52] While not a 3RR volation, to me this is clearly BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE behaviour. Note that Taylan has quite recently indicated that he considered himself to be in the right on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would note obviously you are highly involved in these edits given he was reverting your edits, but lets discuss them directly. On the second group of edits, it looks to me like you have a dispute concerning WP:SPS vs WP:SELFPUB. I wouldn't say that constitutes POV pushing, I've gotten into my own disputes over that before, for some reason people think that selfpublished sources can never be used. The first set is worse. There is a clear push into the article on that even after it was reverted and someone objected to it on WP:DUE grounds without first getting consensus. He did discuss this on the talk page, which I give him credit for, but still this was an aggressive move by him to re-add this. A pattern of this kind of behavior (over more than just one edit) is what I would be looking for to prove POV pushing, but one instance wouldn't do it for me (and even then I think a TBAN from that topic area would be more appropriate if you proved he was a POV pusher). -Obsidi (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would remind you that per WP:POVPUSH
- Oppose Stated reason for block not supported by compelling evidence. Also indeffing someone for WP:NOTHERE (thats a supplement, not a policy), not to mention labelling them transphobic, is both heavy-handed and a violation of WP:NPA. TERF is also a well-documented slur for those editors who are casually throwing it around. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse (largely per AGK) but also support a topic ban on editing trans topics as a more long-term solution, as other editors suggested above. In cases like this where an editor has a long history of bias, a temporary block (whether lifted now or appealed in time as some suggest above) often only trains the user to "civilly POV-push". A topic ban would allow the editor to return and edit the encyclopedia, assuming that is indeed what he is here for, outside the problem area. (Editors who have only commented about the block, how do you feel about a topic ban?) -sche (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with a TBAN on trans topics for 6 months or so. That would push him to edit other topics for a while, if he isn't a 1 topic POV pusher. My only problem with that is I don't much like adding bans unless I have seen clearly wrongful behavior. But it should satisfy those that claim he is a POV pusher. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird block rationale that I don't believe applies. The user responds to comments, however much one might disagree with them. This is basically a content dispute block. Arkon (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine with the block being replaced with a topic ban, but did want to point out that TaylanUB has said
a topic ban from transgender-related topics would have the same effect as a permanent block
[54]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC) - Comment Regardless of your political views, willfully misgendering people is petty and disrespectful, and it inevitably raises questions about an editor's ability to edit neutrally on articles dealing with trans people. I know these are old diffs, but I'd really like to hear some kind of explanation for this pair of edits:
- this - why this pointless mention of Tara Wolf in connection with another protest?
- this why did you include "AKA" and then add another name for Tara Wolf (not quoting here because I'm not sure if it needs to be oversighted)? This name doesn't appear in the cited source, or any of the mainstream coverage that I can find. Googling that name led me to a pair of indisputably transphobic websites which appear to be primarily dedicated to doxxing trans people.
- I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that the second edit, taken alongside your apparent hostility toward Wolf, scares the shit out of me. It smacks of an effort to publicize the name of an trans person who you obviously dislike. I'm trying to assume good faith, but what encyclopedic purpose could possibly be served by adding this apparently non-public personal identifying information here? Nblund talk 23:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- edit it appears that the original edit cited this article. After it was reverted, Taylan restored it with a new source but without changing any of the text. I don't know if this changes my point, since the cited Feminist Current article is also incredibly disrespectful and non-reliable, and since adding a first middle and last legal name for this person still serves no purpose other than to further publicize their identity. Nblund talk 23:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- The original source also used "(also known as full <first middle last name>)," so he may have just been following the original source. This was NOT her prior male name prior to transitioning, which would have been a much bigger problem. I don't consider he did to be a problem per WP:BLPPRIVACY
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources
-Obsidi (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)- "widely published by reliable sources" - can you find this name in any reliable source? Mainstream press coverage appears to exclusively use the name Tara Wolf (ex, ex). Citing this screed for BLP-related material is a problem in and of itself, but Taylan even restored the name after dropping the source. It was widely reported that Wolf expressed a fear of being doxxed on hate sites. She specifically mentioned Gender Identity Watch, which happens to be the second site that pops up when I Google that other name. Accidental or no, this is not okay. Nblund talk 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about the The Times or the Daily Caller, or the Morning Star? -Obsidi (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do you think Daily Caller is a reliable source for a BLP? A Telegraph editorial and a Morning Star Online article (which actually deadnames Wolf) probably don't constitute "wide coverage in reliable sources", and there's still zero encyclopedic purpose for including both names. Nblund talk 16:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about the The Times or the Daily Caller, or the Morning Star? -Obsidi (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- "widely published by reliable sources" - can you find this name in any reliable source? Mainstream press coverage appears to exclusively use the name Tara Wolf (ex, ex). Citing this screed for BLP-related material is a problem in and of itself, but Taylan even restored the name after dropping the source. It was widely reported that Wolf expressed a fear of being doxxed on hate sites. She specifically mentioned Gender Identity Watch, which happens to be the second site that pops up when I Google that other name. Accidental or no, this is not okay. Nblund talk 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- The original source also used "(also known as full <first middle last name>)," so he may have just been following the original source. This was NOT her prior male name prior to transitioning, which would have been a much bigger problem. I don't consider he did to be a problem per WP:BLPPRIVACY
- Endorse per the mountain of diffs. A user who's dead set on pushing a hateful POV, and wantonly violating BLP and other policies along the way, isn't a user we want here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support: indeed, the evidence is pretty compelling that the editor is "not here" to improve the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. This whole issue isn't as obviously black-and-white as is being painted. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- endorse we all have work to do here, and dealing with a person who is a) committed to working in a given topic and b) also committed to fighting broad and deep community consensus about how we edit on that topic, is a timesink for people who understand how to work in a community and want to work on building content. Not to mention everybody else when it hits the drama boards, as it is inevitably does. This is a behavior issue, not a content issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- endorse per the diffs above. If unblocked, I support a TBAN or a 1RR restriction. Vermont (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ Terry MacDonald (16 February 2015). "Are you now or have you ever been a TERF?". www.newstatesman.com.
- ^ Goldberg, Michelle (August 4, 2014). "What Is a Woman?". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
TERF stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." The term can be useful for making a distinction with radical feminists who do not share the same position, but those at whom it is directed consider it a slur.
- ^ Meghan E. Murphy (September 21, 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current.
If "TERF" were a term that conveyed something purposeful, accurate, or useful, beyond simply smearing, silencing, insulting, discriminating against, or inciting violence, it could perhaps be considered neutral or harmless. But because the term itself is politically dishonest and misrepresentative, and because its intent is to vilify, disparage, and intimidate, as well as to incite and justify violence against women, it is dangerous and indeed qualifies as a form of hate speech. While women have tried to point out that this would be the end result of "TERF" before, they were, as usual, dismissed. We now have undeniable proof that painting women with this brush leads to real, physical violence. If you didn't believe us before, you now have no excuse.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
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,
Katietalk 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)
- @Power~enwiki:
- 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)
- 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)
List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks
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
- Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
- Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
- Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
- Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
Partial block’s success as a tool
- Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
- Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
- 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)
TFA vandalism
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)
- 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)
LDS terminology issues
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [55]. 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)
- 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 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)
- funny that they would post that on “mormonnewsroom.org”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Possible troll bot
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)
- Well obviously, but is it a bot? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 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)
Disabling thanks spam
These two three accounts, while blocked, have been spamming multiple admins (including myself) with unwanted "thanks":
Is there some way to disable this? It's more of a minor irritant than a high priority. Thanks, GABgab 23:52, 9 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)
Copyright/attribution question re: U1 deletion in userspace
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)
- 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)
Main page photo
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)
Okay, seriously
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)
- 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,
- 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)
- @Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 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)
- Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 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)
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)." [56]. 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)
Range block assist
Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock that will cover:
- 103.252.25.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
...and more within that range? I've reported this guy before here in June, but this most recent flare-up was brought to my attention by Vivek Ray. The vandal submits gibberish, typically in the form of film titles and actor roles in Indian cinema articles. Often months or dates will appear in the garbage he submits. He is quite prolific. Some examples:
- The Once Again Parents Meeting At Mathruka Nikethan Higher Primary School At 9th April 2018 At Karnataka Baiyappanahalli is alleged to be the name of a film.
- More alleged film titles: November 2012 As Travel Joiner Returns, Dussehra 2017 On Navratris, The Grihapravesh Pooja At 25th March 2018 At Karnataka Thambu Chetty Palya Bengaluru, etc. Under "Cast" he adds: "In Voice In Radio At Salman Khan, Asin, Chunky Pandey". WTF does "in voice in radio at" mean?
- Awards ascribed to fake titles April & May 2011 As Travel Joiner, etc.
I don't know if he's doing this by hand or has some mechanical assistance, but he's definitely got some kind of a system going on. Anyway, a long-term range block would be appreciated. I'm probably going to have to create some kind of informal LTA page on this guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- 103.252.25.32/27 has been blocked before; I'd like someone to check for proxying. Not that that really matters much for my block--given that the last one was for three months, I made this a one-year block. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed edit to User:Kiko4564
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)
Disruptive edit summary
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could any admin please delete this disruptive edit summary?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=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.
Backlog at AIV
Just a note that there's currently about 20 reports on AIV. Cheers! Isa (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban
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)