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
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 215 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 70 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 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)
- Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 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)
- Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 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 37 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)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 9 December 2024) Conversation seems to have winded down. It doesn't seem likely further votes will change the consensus, in my opinion.Originalcola (talk) 00:24, 17 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 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 22 | 35 | 57 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 71 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 62 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 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 41 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 20 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ECP Question
Why is Semiramis Hotel bombing on ECP indefinitely? The other ECP'd articles in the table have the protection expire reasonably soon. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- That would be WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Every I/P article is supposed to be under permanent ECP now? Wow that is intense. Thanks. I wonder how many articles it is. That much conflict in articles usually means the articles are useless anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones
Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.
Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:
- [1] reverts [2] and [3] reverts [4]
- [5] reverts [6] and [7] reverts [8]
- [9] reverts [10] and [11] reverts [12]
- [13] reverts [14] and [15] reverts [16]
Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [17]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [18] a revert of [19]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [17]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
- So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
- Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
- Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse." - In other words, Smallbones claims that since he perceives that other editors don't behave as he wants them to, he feels authorized to violate the active community sanctions. That is what I do not find acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.
- "The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
An Ip (72.69.98.176) has twice attempted to close this discussion. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with me and appears to be some kind of provocation or trolling.
- I would however request that this be closed. The edit I originally made has been reinserted by another editor and stayed in the article for 4 days now. The discussion at Talk:Bitcoin#Price_movements_citing_Coinbase now supports the edit (look at the bottom) as factual.
- Others should feel free to make additional comments here, but if they are just accusing me of WP:TE, RightingGreatWrongs, or accusing me of being the reason Wikipedia losing contributors, then I'd like them to present serious evidence in a serious discussion. Otherwise, they should get the boomerang. After all is said and done here, I made a simple factual edit to the article and several editors went ballistic over it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't sock. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years and made 40,000+ edits and nobody has ever credibly accused me of socking. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of socking, but I don't think that anybody who knows me here would ever take such an accusation seriously. If they do, please take it to SPI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed WP:FOWLPLAY. And as Smallbones points out, nothing will change as he knows where to be careful of the rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see it being Smallbones. If Smallbones were to sock (indeed any experienced editor), it would not be something so transparent (and quickly reverted) as closing a AN discussion. It's much more likely to be an LTA with a grudge against Smallbones (or just plain vanilla trolling), trying to make it look like Smallbones socking. IMHO. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Review of JohnThorne topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.220 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @67.68.28.220: The main issues were my mistakes in editing not following the Wikipedia standards, such as copying from from unreliable sources, copying without attribution/plagiarism, and original research. To date, I have learned to copy from verifiable sources with neutral point of view, make sure to respect copyrights, always include proper attributions, and avoid original research. I plan to keep doing these practices as long as I contribute to Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JohnThorne: What is your understanding of when and how public domain material can be used in Wikipedia articles? How do your current views differ from those you held at the time you were topic banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think that is adequate, and I endorse the suggestions made below by Guy and DGG (i.e. new articles to Draft and try a starter article first). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with lifting the ban, ion the understanding that people will watch and likely reimpose the ban or some other restriction if you edit tendentiously or fail to defer to others who remove contested material. Pinging DGG and Doug Weller who made particularly thoughtful contributions to that debate. Maybe we should require new articles to go through Draft first and be reviewed? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would very pleased if JohnThorpe were to return to editing on the Bible, if he were to do it properly. The current state of the articles since he left them is very unsatisfactory, for nobody has done even the most basiccleanup. I hope JT understands the problems well enough tofirst do that, and then to try to add sources from a wide range of viewpoints. As I said in earlier discussion, a traditional religious POV can be used as a starting point , although it cannot be presented as the only view or even the curren academic consensus. I would however strongly urge JT that in articles about the OT it would be more logical to start with the traditional Jewish POV, for which there are many out of copyright online sources, and continue with the traditional Christian POV. (This is especially relevant in many of these articles because the material in them is at the core of the Christian reinterpretation of the prophecies to refer to Jesus and any good modern (or even older) Christian presentation will also make clear the key differences). People have killed each other for centuries over the interpretation of some of these verses, and writing a NPOV article is a serious responsibility. As a practical matter, I would suggest working on one or two of the articles, and then asking those of us who have commented here on this if we think it's a reasonable start. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think I'm ok with this, but I'd like to hear from User:Alephb first. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've been working on clean-up of some of those articles even this week, as has User:Wallingfordtoday. There's still a long way to go on all of them, and I don't think anyone as far as I know has volunteered to do the large quantity of work required to get these articles up to snuff. If JohnThorne is willing to take the guidance of the community and policies and guidelines on board in a serious and careful way, he may have something useful to contribute. I hope no one would object if I and any other interested users were to "follow" their edits for a while and provide feedback as the community works out whether things are going to work out here. I would strongly encourage them to focus his editing on existing Bible-chapter articles rather the formation of new ones, though, at least at first.
- My biggest concern is the hundreds of times, in the past, that the claims made in the text were not backed by the sources cited, or that material from fringe sources was taken at face value. I hope, if he is allowed back, that JohnThorne will be patient and responsive with us all if we have questions where we would like to verify some things. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would say that me and Aleph have done quite a bit of cleanup on those articles, mostly in the last month. The "number" of fixes I've done is in the hundreds or thousands (mostly removing unreliable sources and grammar editing -- I've had to remove over 20,000 characters from Isaiah 52 alone). However, there's thousands to go and there are many other pages on biblical chapters that need creation. If JohnThorne can continue working with people following his edits to making sure the same problems aren't repeated, I'd say his effort would be well appreciated. I'm in support of removing the topc ban.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
An issue that has not yet been addressed is whether all these articles should even exist. There is, for example, no wikipedia article on 2 Chronicles. It redirects to Books of Chronicles because "1 Chronicles" and "2 Chronicles" are essentially artificial divisions of a single work. Well, chapters are much smaller artificial divisions, introduced in the middle ages, and other than in the case of Psalms and some special cases, not reflective of any actual structure to the books. This is why even enormously comprehensive biblical encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Biblica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which go much farther than Wikipedia by including every little proper name in the Bible under its own entry, don't have articles on individual chapters. It would be a little bit like having articles on individual pages of Shakespeare's works. I don't know if there's some appropriate forum for discussing the notability of Bible chapters as a whole, but it should probably be done somewhere, especially if JohnThorne will be getting back into the game. I think the unsuitability of chapter articles for Wikipedia articles is probably a root cause of why the Wikipedia community hasn't, to my knowledge, been able or willing to replace the current copy-pasted articles with real Wikipedia-style articles (except in special cases like "Isaiah 53" or individual Psalms, which are actual "topics" of conversation). Alephb (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to say it given the amount of work I've done cleaning up those articles, I think aleph is right. Besides aleph's points of notability, there are some other points to consider on whether or not these pages should even exist. 1) Despite the work that's already been done, unreliable sources are still referenced hundreds, if not thousands of times in all these biblical chapter pages. 2) There is at least 1 grammar mistake on every single one of these pages (as each page is essentially copied and pasted, the same mistake was taken to all of them, making it horribly tedious to remove them all). 3) The vast majority of the subsections of each chapter is just a quotation of this or that verse in the chapter without any discussion or reliable sources referenced at all. 4) Almost all biblical quotations are from the KJV or NKJV, which are non-scholarly biblical translations. In other words, to completely clean up all these pages, the many thousands of quotations in these pages would have to be replaced or deleted. 5) Quite frankly, another point to consider is the sheer impossibility to regulate all these pages in the first place. There are hundreds of them, and as history shows, random users have been able to go to them and add any sources they want with no one noticing or removing them. They simply have too little notability for any group of Wiki editors to quickly revert bad edits.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought (and I haven't put a ton of work into these articles). It's a discussion to have (or search for, maybe it's been had), I don't know if there exists some sort of WP:GEOLAND for Bible-chapters. Start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Bible, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Close?
There appears to be a consensus to vacate this topic ban, with a few proposals being made that are unclear whether or not they are binding (are we requiring or suggesting JohnThorne to using the draft space for the first couple Bible-related entries that they are planning to create? Also is participating in general notability discussions for Bible chapters something that is being proposed as part of a successful appeal?). The rest of the discussion appears to be about asking JohnThorne to work closely with Bible project members and make sure the same issues are not repeated, which has already been addressed by JohnThorne in their follow up comments. I suppose we can close this discussion if JohnThorne can address on whether or not they are fine with these Bible project members working closely with their Bible-related edits for a while? Alex Shih (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am definitely happy to work closely with other Bible project members and have no objection for other users to closely review my edits. For a start, I will only work with a few limited articles on the topic related to the Bible, to improve them to meet the standard, and to see how it is accepted by the community. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking just for myself, since I brought up the notability thing, I'm not asking for JohnThorne's participation in such a conversation to be made a condition for the appeal. I thought it was worth bringing up just because it was the first time in over a year I'd seen a significant number of people who I knew to be interested in the Bible-chapter issues in one place. My apologies if that caused any confusion. As far as I am concerned (though I do think the other editors would join me in this), I'd like to welcome JohnThorne back, and wish him a successful editing future. I'd also like to thank JohnThorne for being a model of civility. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
IP hopper targeting Reichstag (Nazi Germany)
An IP hopping vandal reinserted their "Adolf Hitler's monarchy" instead of the correct "Adolf Hitler's dictatorship". Hitler was not a monarch. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's not an IP hopper – unless it hopped to a different continent. Just warn the vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Or request page protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes a regular occurence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- am Reichstag nichts Neues. I've taken the liberty of adding pending changes to better watch for things.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit War on "Batman and Harley Quinn" Page
Due to the mixed reception of the film, there are users who keep deleting sourced information from the "canonicity" section of the page in order to paint a picture that the film isn't part of the DCAU franchise. One editor in particular, Mabromov, has reached out to me on another message board specifically stating he was aware his deletions would be causing an edit war with those interested in keeping all pertinent information intact. Is there anything that can be done to stop this from being a recurring thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.37.163 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- all quiet now. I would seek consensus building, dispute resolution, and page protection if it starts up aagin.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch
There is a page, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, that was made on November 16, 2018 by Favre1fan93, regarding the in-development series. The series itself was announced as "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" by a Deadline Hollywood source (which later removed the title), while the current title, "The Vision and Scarlet Witch", was announced with a report from The Hollywood Reporter. Robberey1705 created a separate page after The Hollywood Reporter report under the name "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" and further worked on the page despite a more-developed article, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, having already been made. I proposed a deletion request of the Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch so the Draft:Vision and Scarlet Witch page could be renamed and moved to that title, as it was the first draft article made. RHaworth acted upon my request by merging the history of Robberey1705's Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch into the history of Favre1fan93's Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch. Since merging the history of the two pages was not my request, I'd like to see if the revisions from Robberey1705's draft were deleted from the page as it was from a separate page that doesn't need to exist, and should not have been made in the first place. The selected revisions to be deleted are starting from this revision (the first by Robberey1705 on his own draft) up until this revision by RHaworth of him merging the histories together with a rename to the proper title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to be very little point in doing this. What benefits would be gained? Fish+Karate 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- If these are all about a single subject, I think we should leave the edit history intact unless (a) revisions contain(s) copyvios.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- My main complaint with this is that the original page should not have the history of the page, that wasn't meant to even exist, be apart of it's history. The new page's history is compiled with two different page histories with the history of the new page being completely unnecessary. The page along with it's history should've been deleted rather than merged. I'm simply requesting that the history from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page is deleted from the page as it never should've been merged into the article into the first place. I had just requested that original page was to be deleted and for the original Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch to be renamed to "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" to maintain the earliest amount of the page's history, rather than having the history of both pages be merged into one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRUNE, I am suggesting that the revisions from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page are pruned from the page as they don't contribute to the main page as a whole and a simply unnecessary clutter left behind from a history merge that was not requested by me in the first place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- My main complaint with this is that the original page should not have the history of the page, that wasn't meant to even exist, be apart of it's history. The new page's history is compiled with two different page histories with the history of the new page being completely unnecessary. The page along with it's history should've been deleted rather than merged. I'm simply requesting that the history from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page is deleted from the page as it never should've been merged into the article into the first place. I had just requested that original page was to be deleted and for the original Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch to be renamed to "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" to maintain the earliest amount of the page's history, rather than having the history of both pages be merged into one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If these are all about a single subject, I think we should leave the edit history intact unless (a) revisions contain(s) copyvios.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Asking for a review of my protection
Earlier today, I reacted on a request at WP:RFPP and fully protected Mann Gulch fire because of edit-warring and content dispute. One of the edit-warring users, CerroFerro, was apparently upset about the protection. They left me a talk page message accusing me in "hijacking the page" and suggesting that I should be blocked, without actually giving a link so that I could not understand what they were talking about [20]. When I asked them what the fuck they were talking about, they called me a "foulmouthed" administrator [21], and when I asked that they crossed this out they instead suggested that I should refer to myself "Mr. What the fuck" [22]. Since my administratve actions seldome cause such an expressive reaction, it is possible that I have done something wrong before asking what the fuck they were referring to (which is a pretty much common expression, but apparently they have taken in as offence, which I did not mean it to be). Therefore I request an independent review of my protection of this page. May be indeed I hijacked the page and should be blocked, I do not know. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- A small correction: I capitalized the "F" in the proposed moniker. CerroFerro (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You obviously protected the wrong version, you clod. Seriously though, CerroFerro, you might want to contemplate what other options an admin has in such cases (like blocking you for edit warring) and reconsider your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- No issues with the protection. CerroFerro has clearly put some effort into that article, but they need to focus on reaching consensus for all or a part of the content they wish to add, rather than continuing to edit-war over the exact change that they made, which is only likely to end in escalating blocks. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, having reviewed all of this exchange, if CerroFerro doesn't moderate their tone the next time they log in, I for one am willing to issue an immediate civility block; this was completely unacceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is that the Wrong Link? That diff is about changing a f to a F. Fish+Karate 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, having reviewed all of this exchange, if CerroFerro doesn't moderate their tone the next time they log in, I for one am willing to issue an immediate civility block; this was completely unacceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- [edit conflict with Vanamonde's 22:25 comment] I saw that RFPP request earlier, and I wasn't at all interested in handling it at the time, because I really did consider it the wrong version. At 2042, Montanabw reverts to his preferred version with a rationale of "edit-warring", and then at 2043 requests protection on edit-warring grounds and requests a reversion to status quo ante bellum. (1) When a page has had recent edits from only two individuals, and neither one's been doing blatant vandalism or anything comparable, either nobody's been edit-warring, or both editors are guilty of it. (2) Reverting for the mere reason of "edit-warring" isn't generally a good idea, and it's definitely not if you're one of the parties. (3) Protecting and then reverting to status quo ante bellum, when one party's preferred version is what that party calls status quo ante bellum, is definitely picking sides. (4) Had this request come when the other party's preferred version was active, things would be different ("anything is better than edit-warring, so let's stick with the bad version instead of fighting"), but given the fact that protection was requested immediately after reversion, this sounds solidly like "please protect my version", especially as days were passing between reversions, so there was no significant chance of CerroFerro making any edits before someone saw it at RFPP. (5) Consequently, I consider both parties to have acted improperly, and the only way I'd consider protection appropriate is if CerroFerro's version is displayed until protection ends. [This is not a comment on Ymblanter, who probably didn't notice most of the items I raise.] I'm not sure what to do, but we can't treat this as if CerroFerro's the only one to blame. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I agree that Montanabw's edit summary was sub-par, but I think you've to look at the whole history of the dispute, including the stuff on the talk page. CerroFerro's version was based on a source that wasn't 100% verifiable. When Montanabw reverted on 6th January, she also left a talk page comment (see this discussion). CerroFerro reverted before even replying there, two days later, and when they did reply, they included the snarky aside "Please use standard English on this site. "Gotta say" should be "I have to say"." A second editor also raised objections to CerroFerro's content, to which CerroFerro's reply included "How many sockpuppets are you currently operating, pal?" That second account is a tad suspicious, but not exactly WP:DUCK material. Montanabw reverts again soon after, and leaves a talk page comment. MONGO replies to said comment, with a fairly nuanced suggestion about the new content. Some hours later, Acroterion warns both CerroFerro and Yankeepapa13, reminding the former about the need for consensus. Despite now having objections to their edits from three different editors, and a reminder from an uninvolved admin, CerroFerro reverts again (with the summary "see talk page"), and their subsequent reply misses the point of Acroterion's comment completely. It's at that point that Montanabw reverts again, and Ymblanter protects the article, after which CerroFerro goes a little off the rails, posting warnings or notifications article hijacking to four user talk pages (including that of Yankeepapa13, who hadn't even edited the article during this kerfuffle), and doubles down on his incivility here. Montana could have made one fewer revert, but this is not a symmetrical situation. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- You refer to several edit summaries, so I guess I should note that I don't remember paying attention to edit summaries, except for the ones associated with the diffs I provided. Thank you for the details, because I've missed some of this; somehow I thought that there hadn't been any discussion at talk, aside from stuff these two had written. The fact that Montanabw was reverting primarily on the basis of agreement with Yankeepapa13 completely changes the dynamic and invalidates my statements above. I'm sorry. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- No worries; at first glance, that was my conclusion too. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I indeed looked at the talk page and the edit summaries and decided that the article would benefit for a short period of full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- As an aside, I'm sure it's a difference of culture and situation, but I struggle to think of a real life situation in my life where someone could ask "what the fuck" another person is talking about without offence being given. I realise that for some people this is everyday language, but those people need to consider that for other people it isn't, and err on the side of not stirring up needless trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that societies differ about appropriate language even within a culture. I have never heard someone say "fuck" within my family or friends so it is always kind of a shock to encounter it online. Also, I think it's important to remember that we have editors from all nations, faiths, areas of society and, most importantly, ages. I'm not talking about this particular situation but we have admins & editors who started editing at 12 or 13 and I hope we wouldn't use offensive or disparaging language towards editors that age. I'm not talking about sheltering children from life but Wikipedia is an educational resource, not some message board where anything goes. I hope we have higher standards here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, point taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that societies differ about appropriate language even within a culture. I have never heard someone say "fuck" within my family or friends so it is always kind of a shock to encounter it online. Also, I think it's important to remember that we have editors from all nations, faiths, areas of society and, most importantly, ages. I'm not talking about this particular situation but we have admins & editors who started editing at 12 or 13 and I hope we wouldn't use offensive or disparaging language towards editors that age. I'm not talking about sheltering children from life but Wikipedia is an educational resource, not some message board where anything goes. I hope we have higher standards here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ignoring for the moment the language that was used on either side, there's nothing wrong with protecting the article so that discussion can take place, and Ymblanter didn't hijack anything in doing so. Neither did Montanabw (who is female, by the way) in reverting to the status quo ante, nor did Yankeepapa13 for commenting on the talkpage, but they all got warned by CerroFerro for "hijacking" [23] [24] [25], along with this sparkling complaint about the Cabal and an unscrupulous administrator [26]. This follows this exchange by a now-blocked IP on my talkpage [27] [28] [29] complaining about Yankeepapa13, echoing this by CerroFerro [30] and this [31], MONGO is trying to work things through on the talkpage, and nobody has done anything to deserve the bile displayed by CerroFerro. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I say give a day or three and see if CerroFerreo helps out on the chitty chat page where we can draw up some suitable bargain. Too funny...I saw the notice to my talkpage that my name was here and I expected to once again be the deer standing in the headlights wondering how I was gonna talk my way out of the latest hole I'd dug for myself! Whew...--MONGO (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MONGO: My apologies if I didn't make that clear; I was required to notify you, but I didn't want to go and say "you can ignore this if you want" because that's not really the point, is it? As you can see, no criticism was intended, I only linked your edits above to provide some context. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- No worries and thanks!--MONGO (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MONGO: My apologies if I didn't make that clear; I was required to notify you, but I didn't want to go and say "you can ignore this if you want" because that's not really the point, is it? As you can see, no criticism was intended, I only linked your edits above to provide some context. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I say give a day or three and see if CerroFerreo helps out on the chitty chat page where we can draw up some suitable bargain. Too funny...I saw the notice to my talkpage that my name was here and I expected to once again be the deer standing in the headlights wondering how I was gonna talk my way out of the latest hole I'd dug for myself! Whew...--MONGO (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see my name also appeared on this. Yup, I asked for full protection of the WP:WRONG version, and I am sad that Ymblanter took the heat for an entirely appropriate action. The issue is pretty clearly laid out at the talkpage and the now-blocked editor in question pretty much treated Ymblanter the way that individual has treated everyone else... attack when criticized. I alerted members of the appropriate wikiproject to take a look at the article and as far as I am concerned, there should now be 3 or 4 people with some expertise who can review the content and move forward as needed. Looks like this is one to close, nothing more to be said. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aside form trying not to protect copyvios, defamation, and negative unsourced BLP's, it is not the Admin's job to decide which version is right or wrong. We protect the page to stop disruption and to encourage users to decide the correct version on the talk page. Someone will almost always think we protected the wrong version.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't even know we had a special {{uw-hijacking}} warning template. That's a pretty far-fetched choice for complaining about protection, and without even saying which article it's about, yet. CerroFerro, please don't post random warning templates, as you did here. If you have a complaint, please use humanspeak (your own words) and try to say what the issue is. Some new users have the impression that templates are somehow more "formal", and thereby more powerful, but they're not. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC).
- Or in my case "MONGOspeak"...consists of single syllable words of a very basic nature...meat, bone, club, whack, blah, ugh.--MONGO (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Have just received legal threats by email from 2607:FEA8:3C9F:E82A:3DA7:998A:5982:3622 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have therefore blocked them for two weeks and protected the article in question. If anyone wishes to see the email in question or have concerns with these actions let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- James sent me the email and I acted before I saw this. I've blocked the /64 for a month, which should prevent the IP from hoping and also be limited enough to not have collateral damage. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note there's also a legal threat in their edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- They have now sent a few emails to my university. They have moved to this account User:Mwiner which I have also blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- What's the point of editing anonymously if the Foundation hands out our real life identities on request?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Dlohcierekim not sure what you mean? No private data was used in any of the actions here.
- If you are referring to Mwiner finding out what university I work for, well that is on my talk page.
- If you are referring to Mwinder being the same as the IP well that is simply obvious from the edits the accounts have made.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's a relief. Have a real problem with unreasonable people harassing users off-wiki. Hope this individual is not troubling you too much. On the other hand, can the Foundation undertake to cause a halt to their vexatious behavior?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've declined their unblock request and told them to withdraw the legal threat. Doc James They have also revealed your True Nmae while c/o doxxing them. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- May real name is avaliable on Wikipedia. Yes having someone email ones work to ask ones work to fire you is annoying but not too big of a deal.
- I do not think the foundation can do much at this point. Likely best to simple ignore them going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
How can a IP address email i thought you needed a Wikipedia account to email a user Abote2 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- My email address is easy to find with a little googling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Edits to Pakol
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ahmadjansadat2 (talk · contribs) has added "Afghan Cap" to the mentioned page as an alternate name for it with a source that is from elsewhere in the page meant for other information in the lede. The source does not refer to it as "Afghan cap". It is a blatant misuse of the source, obviously using it for OR. I have reverted these edits 4 times.(1 time it was reverted by LouisAragon (talk · contribs)).) I gave a final warning twice, reverted the edits, explaining why, and the user added the content 2 more times since. Here is [my removal on 1 Jan], [4th addition], [5th addition].- R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- User has added the content again, a sixth time. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked X 36 hours by Oshwah.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
New editor having serious problems
Would an admin my taking a look at Special:diff/Jurita Kalite/878691877 and perhaps try to help this new editor out without throwing the book at her? I think this editor is frustrated about some photo possibly being deleted from Commons and doesn't understand why she cannot get her profile/page published on Wikipedia. Also from reading her posts, it seems safe to assume that English is not really her first language; so, she might be having some difficulty understanding comments left by those who have tried to help her so far. Her last post seems to be an obvious problem per WP:NLT, but I don't think she would understand it if {{uw-legal}} or some other threatening sounding message was posted on her user talk page. I also realize that I should notify her of this post here, but I'm not going to do so at the moment because I don't think she'd understand {{AfD-notice}}, and it just might confuse her even more. She's posting in Russian on her user talk page; so, just wondering if by the off chance there's a Russian speaking admin who might be able to communicate with her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, would you have a chance to look at this? Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a blatant legal threat, and although she has language difficulties, what she's saying is clearly expressed in English. I've therefore indeffed. I also note that she's currently blocked on Commons for a few days for intimidation/harassment. If Ymblanter wants to talk to her about her issues, that's fine, but unless she retracts the threat and behaves appropriately here, she must remain blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- (Without yet having looked at the page, which I will do now). I came across this user on Commons, and she clearly had very little understanding of the local policies and generally the copyright issues. Someone mentioned in the discussion that ten years ago the user was indefinitely blocked on the Russian Wikipedia under a different name (I believe it was User:JuKa or smth) for persistent disruptive editing, also somehow related to copyright issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I left on her talk page a message in Russian. The first point of the message is that she must retract the legal threat, otherwise she remains blocked. I am not very hopeful, but I added her talk page on my wacthlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did we remove any images on which she asserts WP:COPYVIO? Or did I misunderstand the assertion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I left on her talk page a message in Russian. The first point of the message is that she must retract the legal threat, otherwise she remains blocked. I am not very hopeful, but I added her talk page on my wacthlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a lengthy discussion on Commons at commons:User talk: Jurita Kalite. Most of it is in Russian, but Google translate will give you the flavour of the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) Two images were deleted on Commons. I did not check, but apparently the metadata of the images mentions copyright by Sergey Stepovoy (no ide who this is). She first said she does not know what metadata is, and now she says that this Sergey Stepovoy has stolen her pictures (which she herself uploaded).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to every one who responded, particularly to Ymblanter for trying to communicate with this editor in Russian. I just assumed she was a total newbie having issues on Commons and Wikipedia; I didn't think this might have been more of a long-term issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
indus.ai
Hi, can someone please create a wiki page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/indus.ai so we can list our company and what we do on Wikipedia?
Thanks, Babak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babsal (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- This probably isn't a matter for admins, I suggest asking the teahouse. However, your use of "our company" concerns me. Is your account operated by multiple people? Wikipedia accounts are only allowed to be operated by one person. You may also wish to read WP:PAID and WP:COI. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I request that an uninvolved adminstrator take a look at the personal attacks against me on this editor's talk page, and take appropriate action. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have revoked the talk page access and removed harassment from their talk page. I was considering reblocking them indef (they are currently blocked for three months, which roughly equals the time they have been editing), but decided to give them the last piece of rope. In my statement, I made it clear that the next block, for whatever reason, will be of an indefinite duration. If anybody observes problematic behavior of this user in three months from now, please let me know, I will block them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Wiki3310
I WP:DUCK blocked Wiki3310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to re-creation of Natty Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a G5 deleted spam article by an earlier ban-evading sock, part of the FFHypeTeam sockfarm. The new article is only slightly different from the deleted version. The master is stale so can't be CU verified but the article focus - creation of articles previously created by socks - plus non-newbie familiarity from day 1 strongly suggests this is yet another one. Pinging @SamHolt6: who is familiar with this LTA. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Guy, would you mind moving or duplicating your comments here? Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - the "new" version and the previously deleted version are not quite identical, but they are so similar in wording that they would have to be the work of the same person, as they couldn't have viewed the deleted version otherwise. So, good block. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Bannination
 |
|
Put in place an initially voluntary structure to manage discussions on bans and editing restrictions, as follows:
- A templated header (using mandatory SUBST and date substitution like deletion templates) which sets an expectation that an ANI debate on a named sanction will run for at least 7 days, with, as always, the possibility of an early close per WP:SNOW, but a strong expectation that this would normally only happen when the proposal is rejected. The offset to this would be...
- An optional "temporary injunction" which enacts the requested sanction immediately without prejudice during the debate - thus an IBAN, TBAN or block would be put in place until the debate is concluded, then either lifted without implication of wrongdoing or made permanent depending on the outcome. This would be requested by the filing party and then reviewed by an uninvolved admin, as with arbitration sanctions
So, run ANI block/ban discussions much more on the lines of AE, but with ANI's bigger audience. 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
!Votes
- Support as proposer, obvs. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose rarely do we need to discuss an edit restriction for 7 days before a consensus is reached. Natureium (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not fond of this for a ban discussion; we shouldn't impose any community sanctions without consensus, and that includes things like preliminary injunctions. People object to current process on kangaroo-court grounds, as you note, but why would they not object to something where one aggrieved user and one admin can immediately impose sanctions without discussion? But the biggest difficulty, in my mind, is your wording run ANI block/ban discussions like this. Why must all block discussions have to wait so long? Many blocks don't need discussion, e.g. "I'm edit-warring with a vandal: I keep reporting them at WP:AIV and they keep removing the report" or "This user just threatened to sue me". And even if a discussion is needed, sometimes it's really obvious that a block is needed before even a day passes. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This gets us nowhere! AndInFirstPlace 01:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)
- @AndInFirstPlace: With all due respect, you have not been here long enough to know what effects it will or will not have. Your own affairs are in a terrible mess, with two badly mistaken AN/I filed by you, and EWN report closed with no action, and an AN/I and an AE about you. You are coming off a block for disruptive editing. You've been here for five days. I suggest that you concentrate yourself on learning more about how Wikipedia works (i.e. a few days ago, you thought that administrators were assigned to each article, and filed an RFA with no chance of passing) before you start participating in discussions such as this one. In any event, NOTE TO CLOSER, this editor's opinion should be discounted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - one size does not fit all. ansh666 02:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - see comments below, but essentially per Ansh666. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, we really should not have to codify everything. Fish+Karate 10:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - as above, we don't need this level of bureaucracy. GiantSnowman 10:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - These decisions would be better made on an individual case-by-case basis.--NØ 12:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - CBAN discussions already have a mandatory length of 24 hours. That's enough BURO. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - as Ansh states one size does not fit all. The amount of damage that can be done in 7 days by bad faith editors does not bear thinking about. MarnetteD|Talk 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd support extending it from the current 24 hours but a week is too long. Most discussions will likely be dead some time before that. Hut 8.5 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
I know, more bureaucracy. A lot of bannination and other restriction decisions seem to be made in undue haste, usually for the very good reason that there is thought to be a pressing problem to fix. Even I, as a card-carrying nasty suspicious bastard, think we are in danger of being a kangaroo court some of the time, and it would be nice to be able to separate the immediate Wiki-on-fire aspect of an ANI discussion from the more measured question of what to do in the long term about a specific editor. There's a lot of noise out there about us being hasty, and while in most cases it appears to be for perfectly sound protect-the-wiki reasons, it is a fair criticism. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this Rfc take place on the talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I've changed numbering to bullets; numbers don't make much sense when support and oppose are in the same section. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Obvious bans are obvious. I am referring to cases that run for maybe 24h with a dozen !votes. That seems a thin basis for a permanent sanction to me. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you go to WP:ANI and request that I be indeffed for not-instantly-obvious reasons (i.e. discussion is useful), and after a couple of days of discussions, it becomes obvious that I'm seriously detrimental to the project and am unlikely ever to stop harming the project if nobody stops me, why should five more days pass? I understand your concerns regarding bans, but if an uninvolved admin reviews the evidence you present and reads the arguments given by those who vote, and your proposal to "block Nyttend indefinitely" is clearly the best choice, the wait-seven-days rule on the block request is preventing the reviewing admin from improving or maintaining Wikipedia and should be ignored, even if it's not a case of WP:SNOW. This is hardly a rare situation at ANI. We shouldn't be setting up a rule if IAR-warranted cases are likely to arise reasonably often: any rule that should often be ignored in non-emergency situations is flawed, and I think we're better off without it. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- What if you went at it from a different angle, and made a {hold} that an admin (or maybe any editor) could put on a section that would indicate a desire to let the thread stay open for 24–72hrs before any action is taken? In a complicated non-emergency situation, this would allow time for discussion before !vote, for the target to respond, for people who haven't participated to participate, and for those who have !voted to sleep on it and reconsider. It would also be a signal that there is no need to rush and !vote, and that the matter is complicated or should receive broad input. But rather than requiring it for every post, make it an optional thing that can be used only for those threads that would benefit from it. Like, a {complicated} or {norush} tag. Levivich? ! 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think for blocks this is a bad idea; most blocks at AN/ANI are not done on the basis of consensus but on the basis of obviousness (I don't have any data to back this up but it's my general feeling). I'd have somewhat more sympathy for the proposal if it was restricted to ban discussions only, but I see a number of problems with that:
- For some discussions, seven days is too long (see eg this discussion where the ban proposal did run for seven days, but was plainly ripe for closing several days earlier);
- Some discussions create significant disruption and need to be shut down long before seven days pass, and SNOW is still a fairly high bar to clear to do this;
- Some discussions need to run past seven days and this proposal will create an expectation that such discussions should be closed after seven days.
- In the end, these discussions end on the basis of consensus and if someone thinks time hasn't been given to allow consensus to develop, they are welcome to request review of the close. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- !Votes before evidence is more of an issue - the bigger issue is that an accusation, with some suitable diffs, is raised. Particularly when it's someone the community doesn't particularly like, we can end up with a dozen !votes before a response can actually be made. It's unlikely that all, even most, reconsider their !votes in light of any new evidence presented. This is like a jury voting after hearing just the prosecution's side. Obviously we can't await for a long time, let alone permanently, but the current system gives a significant advantage towards the accusing side. I can see the benefit of a 24hr discussion, no !votes, pause in all but the most obvious cases (clock to set to 0 immediately upon a response by the accused party). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that is part of the problem I want to address. There is a tendency to go for early action to protect the project when actually sitting back and thinking about it may be a better idea. The issue I am trying to get to here is that there is no consensus way of stopping someone form doing something while the administrati consider whether that person should be doing that thing. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
- The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019)
Contentious Deletion Discussions of EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell and User:Mohamed Ouda
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have a messy situation involving a company of questionable notability, plausible claims of paid editing, two parallel deletion discussions, and an indefinite block on the English Wikipedia of an editor who appears to be an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. Additional administrator attention and possibly the attention of stewards are in order. The two pages about the company are EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell, and there are deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. The first version of the page, now in draft space, was created in article space by User:Neerajmadhuria72014 and has been draftified three times by User:GSS, moved back to article space by User:Neerajmadhuria72014, and nominated for deletion in draft space. This was one of three drafts by Neera that I nominated for deletion; they have admitted to a conflict of interest on LD Sharma. The second version of the page, now in article space, was created in article space by User:Mohamed Ouda, who is shown as an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. It was then, after discussion, nominated for deletion. The user talk page User talk: Mohamed Ouda shows contentious editing and the repeated creation of deleted pages, especially Kelly Hyman (lawyer). Mohamed Ouda has now been blocked by User:Yunshui. The block is shown as being for sockpupppetry, which is a very strange and serious allegation against an administrator on another Wikipedia. In my own opinion, they are quacking like a paid editor on the English Wikipedia, but not like a sockpuppet.
Administrative and probably steward attention is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Second the motion. It is very likely WP:UPE and WP:MEAT. It is undoubtedly a huge mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- This paid editing stuff is a complete mess. I advised Neerajmadhuria72014 to use draftspace, and also asked him to disclose paid editing but each time he came up with a different story. When asked about EverlyWell, he first claimed on my talk page that
I am from Health Industry and see I have revealed my identity. I am pharmacist and dietitian and EverlyWell is notable in health Industry after being listed by Forbes
and then on his talk page he claimedI posted the article because of message of a one of their employer on my FB page
. The same story happened with Draft:Kartikeya Sharma , he first claimedI know him because of his connection with ITV network, that I only knew because of working over wikipedia
and thenI know him because he has come to our college for a shoot, I was coordinating with them with my teachers.
He was desperately moving Draft:EverlyWell to mainspace like he was under pressure to do so and when I get it to move protected Mohamed Ouda came up from nowhere and posted it in mainspace and failed to disclose paid editing. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)- I'd argue that if the AfD closes delete (which it's likely to do) the page should be salted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, can you please write what happened in simple way (probably points) to see how I can help? --Alaa :)..! 18:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 and Yunshui: can you please put CU data on CUwiki, then I can see what happened actually? --Alaa :)..! 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mohamed Ouda has been editing on the English Wikipedia since 2008. As I understand the policies and guidelines about sockpuppetry, they are not a sockpuppet unless there is another older account that has the same human behind it. They may be a sockpuppeteer; I don't know that they are, and to say that, without evidence, would be a personal attack. They clearly have been engaged in disruptive editing by gaming the system with regard to article names. The most likely explanation is undisclosed paid editing, but, as I said on their talk page, if they have not been getting paid, they are being disruptive for no personal gain, which is not much better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- In short, User:Mohamed Ouda should have been blocked, and has been blocked, but the reason for the block certainly appears to be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 and Yunshui: can you please put CU data on CUwiki, then I can see what happened actually? --Alaa :)..! 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Apologies for the slightly long posting, but this needs to be seen. On 7 August 2018, User:Mohamed Ouda created Tres Birds Workshop, an article which still existed until today and was tagged as having been created by a paid editor. This article was also previously created in draft (Draft:Tres Birds Workshop) by another user - User:DemodexFolicolorium, since CU blocked as a sock of banned editor User:Ubuntuforum. The draft article was deleted on 18 July 2018 as being purely promotional. However, the version created by Mohamed Ouda, whilst much shorter, duplicates parts of that deleted version exactly. Since Mohamed Ouda is not an administrator here and cannot see deleted content, there is an obvious off-wiki link in this example as well. Note: I have deleted Tres Birds Workshop as the creation of a banned editor, since Mohamed Ouda copied the text from the sock.
- Ouda also created Kelly Hyman (lawyer) on 29 August 2018. The article (as Kelly Hyman (attorney)) had previously been deleted by AfD. However - guess who originally created the draft for the latter article? Yep. you got it - User:DemodexFolicolorium.
- And then we have Stevie Thomas (restauranteur). This one's even more interesting. Originally created in draft by a 4-edit editor in March 2018, this was expanded three-fold by DemodexFolicolorium before being moved into mainspace by Mohamed Ouda link - despite the draft having been rejected as promotional. It was moved straight back again the next day by User:Anachronist with a message chiding Ouda for moving it. This is where it gets more interesting. The draft was then edited by User:Brio and User:Experio2018 (both since checkuser-blocked as abusive sockpuppets) before being deleted as being created by a banned user. But there's more ...
- Have a guess what else is in User:Experio2018's deleted edits? Well what a surprise - Kelly Hyman (attorney). And User:Brio is even more interesting. The last article they edited before being blocked as a sock was Paul G. Hyman Jr. - Kelly's husband! And in their deleted contribs - there's Kelly again.
- As an aside, Ouda has also created other articles on random subjects that have since been deleted - for example Joel Goldstein (American business consultant), Norman Grace (South African film maker), for which I can't find any link to other editors.
- So to sum up, Ouda has form for pushing articles into mainspace that have been created by a sockpuppet of a banned editor (I don't know who Brio and Experio2018 were socks of - pinging @BU Rob13: who blocked them), and fairly obvious paid editors. I would not be unblocking them any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Ouda has certainly created articles for payment in the past - I was just reminded of Right to Succeed which was created in response to a freelancer.com advert, more than seven years ago. (Well, I am 98.5% certain that it was created in response to that advert even though it doesn't mention the nonprofit's name, since the timing coincided exactly.) I have just nominated it for AfD, since I am unable to find any secondary sources about it. WP:PAID did not exist back then, but there is no doubt in my mind that this editor has been a paid editor without ever admitting to it. --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's just implausible that Ouda is/was not in UPE.
- Ouda has contributed a lot of spammy rubbish over Christos Cotsakos (it can be safely G5-ed) and removed valid tags despite being reverted by Bonadea and Drmies. That article's other major contributor has been Righini68 who was copy-pasting press-releases.
- Righini is another interesting character, who had got a history of classic-UPE-creations but somehow evaded being blocked. He had once tried a lot to create Meyer Malka, which got deleted, before the current version of the article was created by a sock of an UPE-ring.∯WBGconverse 10:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Ouda has certainly created articles for payment in the past - I was just reminded of Right to Succeed which was created in response to a freelancer.com advert, more than seven years ago. (Well, I am 98.5% certain that it was created in response to that advert even though it doesn't mention the nonprofit's name, since the timing coincided exactly.) I have just nominated it for AfD, since I am unable to find any secondary sources about it. WP:PAID did not exist back then, but there is no doubt in my mind that this editor has been a paid editor without ever admitting to it. --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- The rabbit hole just gets deeper. Ouda is not only a sysop at arwiki, they are a bureaucrat. Fortunately, arwiki has several crats, but I expect Steward attention will be required due to global policy on paid editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've brought this to the stewards' attention, m:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Mohamed_Ouda_and_paid_editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Bellezzasolo, Bonadea, and Black Kite:, he has been also featured over the Wikimedia Blog. ∯WBGconverse 04:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've brought this to the stewards' attention, m:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Mohamed_Ouda_and_paid_editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Some comments here as I have declined the unblock request but I think a lot of context is missing and that we’re moving too quickly at a noticeboard: I’ve talked to Alaa privately about this situation and he believes Mohamed Ouda’s story right now, having talked to him offline about this. For those who are unaware, Alaa is one of the single most dedicated users to fighting cross-wiki paid editing and socking. He and I have worked very closely together on several other cases, including Ciphers, when an ar.wiki CU was caught socking on en, so I am doubtful he is just covering for a friend.To the matter at hand: Mohamed Ouda‘s explanation is that in these situations he was acting on behalf of friends on social media. As I said in my unblock decline, this is a violation of WP:PROXYING, as per Black Kite’s evidence the “friends” appear to be blocked socks. That being said, knowing the culture of the Arabic Wikipedia, this explanation might actually be true. The community there is very tight-knit and off-wiki social media contact using real life social media profiles is much more the norm on ar.wiki than it is on en.wiki. This makes the explanation we would normally laugh at here plausible.That being said, Mohamed Ouda has a lot to explain: the direct copying of prose and overlap with socks is pretty damning and I would have made this block myself. At the same time, I do think he should be given a chance to explain and that we shouldn’t be setting up a site ban of a trusted user on another project that who’s current explanation, while against policy and not enough for an unblock, is very plausible given the culture of his home project. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, have you seen this and the subsequent creation of Right to Succeed? What was he doing over there or was it one of his "friend(s)" ? And, which of the multiple socks, (he has overlapped with), are any active at ar.wiki? From the sample of "friend(s)" over here, it seems that ar.wiki might be highly infested with editors acting in nefarious purposes. Is that true?
- If we are believing in Ouda's explanations, we might as well shut down COIN...... ∯WBGconverse 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I was unaware of that (also for those wondering, that specific link has been public for 8 years.) I agree that it doesn't look good, and that he's likely continued editing for pay on en.wiki. In general, I believe in letting people who have been around for a while have a chance to explain themselves, but I'd agree that there is a lot to explain here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As per his profile on freelancer.com the most recent job he completed is only four days old and I strongly believe it was for EverlyWell which he created on 16 January. He was an active paid editor since 2008 and completed 17 paid wiki jobs including Right to Succeed and Black Media Month which was later created by Black maaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under Black Online News Network but he (Ouda) never bothered to disclose even when he was asked, but he removed the warning. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I was unaware of that (also for those wondering, that specific link has been public for 8 years.) I agree that it doesn't look good, and that he's likely continued editing for pay on en.wiki. In general, I believe in letting people who have been around for a while have a chance to explain themselves, but I'd agree that there is a lot to explain here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ouda was also reported at COIN in 2010 for spamming please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#BONN. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposed Site-Ban
Mohamed Ouda has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I think that the reason for the block is wrong but the block is right. My opinion is that the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, and that no one should be blocked for meatpuppetry. However, the rules against undisclosed paid editing and against general disruptive editing are clear enough. This editor has engaged in various types of disruptive editing, including move-warring and name-gaming. (We know what name-gaming is, the changing of the title of an article to avoid salt.) Just to ensure that he doesn't play nice with one admin and persuade them to give him rope, I propose that the indefinite block be confirmed as a site ban in the English Wikipedia. (As the stewards have noted, each language Wikipedia has its own community, and this action will have no effect on his status in the Arabic Wikipedia or Commons.)
- Status of XFDs- The MFD discussion was started on 9 January 2019 and so is eligible for closure, but has not yet been closed. I suggest that it be tied into the AFD, which should govern. The AFD discussion was started on 16 January 2019 and scheduled to run until 23 January 2019. I suggest that the MFD be rolled into it. The AFD is running toward deletion, but I don't suggest checking the weather forecast in North America (or Europe), even though snow is forecast in many places in the next three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I've PC protected this due to some unfortunate recent events. I would appreciate it if others could keep an eye out for further problems/disruption/socking. If the PC is too vexatious, please feel free to remove it. Please see the following for background:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#false_claim
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AndInFirstPlace
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000#Jonathunder
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkullKnight1189284
Cheers, and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- God, they're another year down the pike :-). Thanks, Dlohcierekim. Miniapolis 22:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Interfacts block and topic ban appeal
- Interfacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have issued a:
- topic ban for promotional editing (e.g. [32][33])
- and an indefinite block, first year under special provisions, for failing to declare a conflict of interest and violating WP:COI by directly editing mainspace. This is likely financial - even though he says he isn't paid, he may own some of the cryptocurrency concerned.
The user has since lodged an appeal:
Im being blocked in retaliation for challenging (on talk pages!) wikipedia's unfairness and bias. This is grossly unfair. I am not a paid promoter for anything and a review of my brief history since 2016 shows that my topics are not cryptocurrency focused or even commercial. Ive created and edited articles about deceased people. I am the author of solidus bond and was asked to create backlinks to strengthen the article. I did so in good faith less than 24 hours ago... and within hours I was hounded, had all my work undone and then when I complained on talk pages, my account was blocked! Who are you people? You are discrediting wikipedia. I never got paid a dime and now you try to censor me. This is outrageous. I am a journalist and will speak publicly about this. Interfacts (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
As these sanctions were made under WP:GS/Crypto provisions, they must be reviewed here. MER-C 21:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- The editor doesn't understand what they're blocked for. That indicates that they would go on to promote the Solidus Bond and/or its creator throughout Wikipedia. And no, those are not "good-faith backlinks". They shouldn't be unblocked at this time. Huon (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good TB and block. Miniapolis 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Interfacts: Please be sure to mention that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertsing cryptocurrencies. Please confine that activity to your journalistic endeavors. Those edits mentioned above look promotional to me. Please stay tuned to this thread as the discussion unfolds.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good TBAN and block. This is blatant promotion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does anyone else feel the 'I am a journalist and will speak publicly about this' bit is fairly inappropriate? To be fair, I'm not saying it's wrong for people to write or speak publicly about their experiences, especially when their comments are fair and aren't targeting particular editors. But writing about it like that seems to me like that come across as trying to create a chilling effect. (To be fair, it's fairly lame as these things go.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I get that feeling too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- While this user does seem to have a keen interest in crypto and a broadly promotional tone, I think an indef tban and indef block is pretty harsh at this stage. What does the block accomplish that the ban doesn't? I would unblock and allow an appeal to AN after six months; this at least gives the editor the chance to be productive in other areas. If they never come back then no harm is done; if they're productive in other areas, we win. If they can't let it go, well, blocks are cheap and easy. I don't think this was admin abuse or way outside the bounds of what is reasonable, but it isn't what I would have done. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Failing to declare a conflict of interest in this topic area destroys any confidence in the trustworthiness of the editor. Securities and other fraud, including pump and dump schemes, is very common in the cryptocurrency space outside of Wikipedia (see e.g. [34][35][36][37]). Creating a promotional article about your cryptocurrency/crypto bond (in this case) when you own some in order to profit from any resulting price increase is unquestionably not what Wikipedia is for. Paid, undisclosed promotion of financial securities is illegal. MER-C 13:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, yes. Even "honest" cryptocurrency dealings are fraught with danger, but there has also been massively escalating fraudulent activity over the past 12 months as the bubble has been bursting. Now, I'm certainly not accusing anyone of fraud in the current case, but we should require total honesty and openness about conflicts of interest surrounding this subject, and totally neutral writing with no hint of promotion. Anyone not complying with that should be shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Failing to declare a conflict of interest in this topic area destroys any confidence in the trustworthiness of the editor. Securities and other fraud, including pump and dump schemes, is very common in the cryptocurrency space outside of Wikipedia (see e.g. [34][35][36][37]). Creating a promotional article about your cryptocurrency/crypto bond (in this case) when you own some in order to profit from any resulting price increase is unquestionably not what Wikipedia is for. Paid, undisclosed promotion of financial securities is illegal. MER-C 13:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with block and ban. Any unblock should be conditional on broad crypto currency TBAN. Any creations should be via AFC.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) @Interfacts: should have to acknowledge that calling comments "fake news" as seen at the ongoing Solidus Bond AfD and multiple times at WP:Articles for deletion/SwiftCoin is unhelpful. Џ 09:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Bidhan Singh vandalizer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WHY won't administrators 'range block' or whatever is done, the mobile editor who keeps disrupting India-related articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Has anyone ever asked? According to the SPI, there are at least 4,951,760,157,141,521,099,596,496,896 IP addresses to range block, with, obviously, potential collateral to good faith editors. Actually, looking at your recent contributions I suspect it's going to be many multiples of that number. That's probably going to be a reason. If you want to point to a collection of facts about the ranges used, articles edited, and edits made, there's a chance it may help in cobbling together some suggestions. Realistically that may potentially involve edit filters or semi-protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm asking, now. Administrators do something. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think an edit filter specifically to check for addition the string Bidhan singh and/or addition of arbitrary newlines by IP editors in India related articles would go a long way to curb this sort of mindless vandalism. Semi-protecting an indeterminate amount of pages for short periods isn't a solution for somebody who is single mindedly focused on vandalising Wikipedia. << FR (mobileUndo) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm asking, now. Administrators do something. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Inviting @LiberatorG:, @Shellwood:, @General Ization:, @Cptmrmcmillan: and @Fylindfotberserk:, who've also recently reverted disruptive edits by the 'mobile editor(s)-in-question'. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- GoodDay, you're an experienced editor, you should know better than to take this issue simultaneously to ANI and AN. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC).
Move Page
Hi. I am trying to move Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard/Ask an Admin to User:Thegooduser/Ask an Admin to salvage the page before it gets deleted. But it won't let me. How Can I move it? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thegooduser, there's nothing stopping you from moving the page that I can see. What sort of error/notice are you encountering? Primefac (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error." Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thegooduser, my guess is that you didn't remove the "Wikipedia" prefix when selecting the "User" namespace. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Beyond My Ken, and Primefac! (If you are wondering why I did not ping Primefac, it's because his signature says not to) Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
- Thegooduser, my guess is that you didn't remove the "Wikipedia" prefix when selecting the "User" namespace. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Admin close needed...
... at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_JohnThorne_topic_ban a few sections above. Thanks! –FlyingAce✈hello 14:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- On it. Fish+Karate 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Fish+Karate 15:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I know WP:ANRFC is transcluded at the top of the page, and there's no harm in adding a request like this here, but I wonder if it might be worth putting a notice about "requests to close" (since we get about one per week for various subjects). Primefac (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Fish+Karate 15:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Nominating an article for deletion during a merger discussion
Hi all. What is your opinion on whether it is inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion while there is an active merger discussion with multiple comments already on record? What would you do about such a situation? Jehochman Talk 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's fine. Resolve both. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's fine. AfD (CSD wouldn't be fine) isn't quickly moving and so long as the merge discussion is mentioned there, then it can incorporate it.
- OTOH, any changes to the article(s) in Mainspace should wait until a discussion about them (Talk: or Afd) have concluded. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy. The AfD can work collaboratively with the merge. Not knowing the situation, is it feasible for the merged page to become a dab or redirect? If the issue involves editors who don't want their hard work deleted, is a "copy paste/credit the author" an option that might help settle it? Lots of variables. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Whle I agree with the above, I do think one has to consider if the AFD is POINTy too. For example if the merge has 20 -to-0 supports, to a point that SNOW is reasonable, and some user goes to AFD the topic and is clearly bitter about something, that's where I'd snow close the AFD. But that's only where SNOW would apply. If there's clear disagreement,then let both run as noted. --Masem (t) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that there wouldn't be an argument for a redirect if a merge discussion is open; but if the nominator doesn't feel that redirect is appropriate I see no reason why an AfD wouldn't be acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you to all for your thoughts. We discussed one such situation and agreed to ask for the merge discussion to close, merge and preserve the edit histories, and then rigorously prune out all the garbage. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)