Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	18	12	30
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	17	57	74
AfD	0	0	0	12	12

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 140 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 51 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 140 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 17 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7758 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Poppay Ki Wedding 2024-05-18 20:42 2025-05-18 20:42 create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Joseph Sam Williams 2024-05-18 11:59 2024-05-22 11:59 move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky 2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-18 06:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Edcel Greco Lagman 2024-05-18 03:31 2024-07-18 03:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Removal of sourced content, per a complaint at WP:ANI EdJohnston User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run 2024-05-17 21:34 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s 2024-05-17 16:17 2024-05-24 16:17 move Don't move your User talk page except by a Renamer Liz User:MayNard Keith Batiste, Jr 2024-05-17 15:29 2024-05-31 15:29 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Komail Anam 2024-05-17 13:36 2024-11-17 13:36 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute, per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Komail_Anam OwenX 2024 Radboud University Nijmegen pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-17 02:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Speedcore (Punk) 2024-05-16 23:02 2024-05-23 23:02 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

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

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

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

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

There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

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

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

Interaction ban request

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

---

• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Just to be clear, I don't care whether the IBAN is one way or two way, either way I will continue avoiding any interaction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, maybe if you don't generally edit the same pages why the iban is needed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Our policy at WP:IBAN specifically mentions "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". It sounds like you are asking me to specify why further interactions with Sir Joseph distress me. This appears to be inconsistent with the words "no-fault". I respectfully decline to say anything bad -- or indeed anything at all -- about Sir Joseph and trigger more of what I experienced in 2016. All I have to say is this: Sir Joseph has chosen to resume interacting with me I do not want to have any interactions with him.

I voluntarily stopped interacting with Sir Joseph in 2016 and hoped that he would stop interacting with me. That didn't work, so I am requesting that the voluntary interaction ban be made official. If you want to dig up the corpse of a four-year-old conflict, go ahead but I will not participate. Everything you need to know is there in the list of blocks and AE actions from 2016. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on declining to specify. However that does make it harder, at least for me, to weigh the potential positive value to you vs the reluctance of SJ to enter into one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We have not interacted since 2016. Please note that I did not consider his !vote on my RfA an interaction. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on Sir Joseph to convince you that he now has a need to address me directly, talk about me, etc.? Whether or not my IBAN request is granted I will not respond in any way. I just want to be left alone. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Except a standard no-fault two way iBAN doesn't just effect discussions. It impacts which articles each of you could edit. It imposes a burden on each of you. I agree you deserve to be left alone but it's not like an iban is friction-less. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, like Talk:Joe Biden where I edited first and been there since 2016 and edited most recently a few days prior to Guy Macon. So as I said, when a formal IBAN is not needed and will only cause more trouble, why do it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If it will help, I will be happy to make a commitment to bend over backwards to AGF and assume that any technical IBAN violation was a simple mistake if we end up editing the same page. I have already unwatched the Biden article; it was a mistake to get sucked in to anything related to US politics given the editor behavior typical of such articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't think it's needed, as he said we generally don't edit the same pages and I don't reply to him. Other than him posting in my TBAN request (which I think was a big "violation" of the unofficial IBAN), he is upset because I posted on the Signpost interview with him, but not about him. I stay away from him because I don't like him and I don't want anything to do with him. I just don't need more bureaucracy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you participated in my TBAN discussion. Did you forget that? I have kept to the unofficial IBAN for years. My first direct reply to Guy Macon was on the Signpost talkpage. I don't recall interacting with him prior to that. That being said, I have no problem with putting this being us and continuing on with our lives. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I expect Guy will not respond to you here in light of his desire to have an iBAN and I would suggest it helpful for you not to talk to him directly but rather the rest of the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm OK with that. But he's not telling the truth when he says he hasn't interacted with me since our incident in 2016. He participated in an ANI requested to TBAN me six months ago. He also brought me to AN about me archiving threads before three days, he also accused me of being a sockmaster and he hounded me and reverted me. He then yesterday replied to me, and then I replied back to him, the first time I ever replied to him (to the best of my memory) in years. I have no problem with not interacting with him. 1)I just don't need it to be formal. 2)Again, he says he hasn't interacted with me since 2016 and that isn't true.

I have no problem staying away from him, but I don't like when he says he has stayed away from me since 2016 and people will take that at face value and lay all the blame at me and then use that against me in the future. As was said, we never edit the same articles, so no need for an IBAN and more rules and bureaucracy when just staying away is all that is needed, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Guy is requesting an IBAN; Sir Joseph says I have no problem with not interacting with him. I just don't need it to be formal. They both seem willing to abide by an IBAN, and if making it formal rather than informal will save the community future headaches, I say we give it to 'em. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, You miss the part where I am not requesting this. The part with making this formal means that both of us can be sanctioned if we mistakenly interact with each other or participate in discussions that some may find to be interactions. Sometimes people read ANI/AN etc and just respond without reading very carefully. Perhaps they should, but that's the reality. We haven't interacted in years, and I haven't interacted even more. As I said, I'm OK leaving things the way they are. There is no need to write things in stone. If he wants to make a one way IBAN so he's more careful, let him do so, after all, he has a past of hounding, reverting, calling me a sockmaster, etc, I don't have a history of following him around. I 'oppose any IBAN when one isn't needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, I'd also be fine with a one way IBAN. I sympathize with your point about an IBAN being warded over you. My general concern is that this bickering is a waste of time, and from this discussion it's quite obvious that the status quo is just going to continue to waste time. Whatever solution you two can mutually agree to, I'm willing to rubber stamp and enforce it as a community sanction whether it be one-way, two-way, or some weird Treaty of Tordesillas. I really just want Guy Macon-related disputes to stop being a thorn in the community's side. No one wins; we all just get angry and stop doing actual work. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Wugapodes - Give it to 'em, Keeping it informal just means potentially more drama, Don't agree with this at all but who cares, Support. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose making WP:RESTRICT incrementally longer unless an actual explanation (or at least a simple link I can read without playing junior detective) is forthcoming. Maybe Guy isn't willing to explain the background of the dispute in 2016, but I just spent 5 minutes trying to figure it out, couldn't, and I'm not going to spend more of my time trying to find what he's hinting at. If both supported, I'd say "OK, I guess", but not if one of them opposes. I suspect this is unnecessary anyway, as both seem to have rediscovered their reasons for not interacting (whatever they are). If pebble throwing continues, we can make a tailored 1- or 2-way IBAN, or just block for disruption and/or harassment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, on reflection, Sir Joseph's post complaining of the use of the word "unfortunately" in the Guy Macon Signpost piece was a dick move, and I'm not going to reward that. Support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, as I wrote in my edit, that had nothing to do with Guy Macon, but with the first paragraph. It was supposed to be neutrally worded. I continued from 2016 onward to not interact with him, until he commented in my TBAN request and supported my TBAN, when he was supposed to avoid me, and of course I got admins to get him to stop hounding me earlier on and to warn him when he accused me of being a sockmaster, but none of that means that you need a real IBAN since this is now 2020. As I said up above, I don't want any of us to be sanctioned for inadvertently editing in an area where we jointly edit, such as AN/ANI/VP/AFD,RFC, etc. secondly, even if you don't believe me that I wasn't referring to him when I made that edit, being a dick in one edit is not reason for an IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I feel bad about not being willing to give details from 2006, but, rightly or wrongly, I am convinced that if I say anything to or about Sir Joseph, my words will be brought up again and again on various talk pages for years. If it is the consensus among administrators that the "no-fault" wording of WP:IBAN isn't real and that I have to either give a reason with diffs or the IBAN request will be denied, then go ahead and deny it, because I am not willing to go through that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure what is supposed to happen here. Sir Joseph is supposed to be held to sanctions that he doesn't agree with or want, based on a request from a third party who is not willing to provide any reasons as to why those possible sanctions should be applied? And this isn't weird star-chamber behavior? What am I missing here?--Jorm (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jorm, not just that, Guy Macon says above that if he provides proof, his words will be brought up again and again for years, implying that I've done that in the past. I think someone is paranoid, considering that until he interacted with me trying to get me TBANNED six months ago, I haven't had any interaction with him, nor mentioned him in years, to the best of my memory. Yes, I did oppose him for RFA. If anything, this looks like a one way IBAN territory at this point considering that someone seems to have something out for me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  It honestly feels like an attempt to set you up to fail. I would have voted "oppose" but the thing closed before I could. Should anyone else who feels that the RFA failure was not "unfortunate" also be subject to these restrictions?--Jorm (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jorm, yep, and Barkeep below is now making up history claiming I removed good wishes for Guy Macon. The deck is stacked of course. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  What you are missing is that our policy at WP:IBAN says "a no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". If you disagree with that policy, please go to that page and remove the "no-fault" wording and replace it with language specifying that all contested IBAN requests must contain evidence of fault. Whether you believe me or not, interaction with Sir Joseph distresses me to the point where I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. I do not say this lightly, but that is how I feel about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, I understand that. I'm failing to understand why your stress requires that he be subjected to possible sanctions when you cannot or will not demonstrate why it is needed. You literally just said that this is a "you" problem. Just avoid him. That's voluntary. Keep doing that. Problem solved, and we're not arbitrarily hanging a Sword of Damocles over someone else's head just because you want it so.--Jorm (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)This isn't about opposing him at RfA. It's about incidents like going out of your way to remove good wishes for a longtime editor who experienced cardiac arrest while going through RfA - which is not a joy filled experience in the first place. I would suggest you reflect on what led you to decide to fight that battle rather than attempting to boomerang this. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I suggest you strike that, since I never removed any good wishes at all. And this is why I do not want any IBAN because people will use any formal process to use against me. So you just implied a terrible thing that I supposedly did. Shame on you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Picking a battle with me is a choice you can also make. Personally I wouldn't try to play semantics over whether going out of your way to remove good wishes means that you were doing it actively or merely requesting that Signpost editors/writers do it for you. I don't think it's going to help your cause here but you fight the battles you want. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's right, never question an admin, that's how it works here, right? Asking the Signpost to remove a word to make an intro paragraph neutral about an RFA is not removing good wishes that someone is now doing better after suffering a cardiac arrest and implying it is, is terrible. Am I in the Twilight Zone? Someone makes up facts, brings no diffs requests a IBAN claims no interactions but there are and yet I have to have an IBAN because that's how it is in Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. I didn't say never to question an admin. 2. I was the first person to ask for diffs. Diffs were subsequently brought. 3. You don't have an iBAN yet. In fact I believe I've expressed more skepticism than support for the idea which is why I suggested picking a battle with me was not going to help your cause. 4. You are not, to the best of my knowledge in the Twilight Zone. 5. You are in a time when this writing holds very true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, OK, but again, those diffs don't show anything, and as I and Buffs also pointed out, the claim of no interaction FROM Guy Macon since 2016 is not true. You and I know very well that editing restrictions are often used against certain editors and I don't need it used against me, when there has been no evidence to the need for it. Thanks and good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I've read this thread and cannot help empathize with all Sir Joseph points and positions. For I feel my experiences w/ Guy Macon are much a mirror the same as SJ's. Specifically after a history of contention, Guy proposed in a community board discussion an informal Iban between us, he said the articles we edit are different, that I edit chess-related articles while he edits articles related to computers and chess-playing computers. I stated on the board that I agreed. Nevertheless, he opened an ANI against me over behavior in a content dispute on a chess topic article (Three-Check Chess) which had also gone to WP:DRN. I have been avoiding any contact with Guy Macon for years and hopefully for the rest of time on WP, however I pointed out to him then that he was violating a previously agreed-to informal Iban. He rationalized the breach. I've instructed Guy Macon more than once to not post to my Talk page, but he has summarily dismissed those requests, even after being advised by an Admin that he should honor such requests and Macon agreeing with the Admin. The recent chess dispute ANI Guy Macon opened against me resulted in an Indef block on me, and during my block Guy Macon subsequently posted numerous times to my Talk again in some sort of unsolicited "here's-what-I-can-do-for-you-now-that-you're-indef-blocked" sympathy invitations to which I did not reply at all but simply removed. (He was already told more than once to not post to my Talk. I had no desire to become his "hobby" or "captive", and, I do not trust him or like him at all.) I have never initiated any contact with him and never referenced him since our informally agreed Iban. But I'm human, and after the ANI and more unsolicited harassment at my Talk after the ANI block, I deliberately commented about him indirectly to another user on Jimbo's Talk, which resulted in a 6-month block of me. There is so much one can take of this user, I had reached my limit.
  This Iban request must be evaluated in the perspective and context of Guy Macon history with users whom he has abused. I'm a recipient just as Sir Joseph is. I've tried to avoid Macon as Sir Joseph has. I am opposed to Ibans same as Sir Joseph. (I had an Iban imposed with an editor whom I now get along fine with, but the Iban itself introduced complexities and inconsistencies and unfairness that is good for nobody, and also resulted in subsequent wasted time of several users on noticeboards after those problems were evident.) And like Sir Joseph, I can attest that what Guy Macon says must be taken with a large grain of rocksalt. And like Sir Joseph, I do not like Guy Macon, I have found his behavior bullying, and grudge-infested. I would like him to stay away from me rather than more of the same from him. But I understand the drawbacks of Ibans and agree they are undesirable for all concerned. Last, I do not trust Guy Macon, even the underlying motive or intent of this Iban request. Sincerely submitted, thanks for your consideration, and good luck Joseph! p.s. I would Oppose this request, but more than one Admin who doesn't like me have used my !votes as springboard to oppose my vote along with adding derogatory remarks. So I don't wish to enable them. But nobody can stop that kind of crap either; there is always risk to posting anything on noticeboard on WP without drawing flak & badgering. --IHTS (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floquenbeam's original comment, which I'm not sure why they struck as it's on point. Since we don't have both parties agreeing to this, and we haven't been told the rationale or given evidence of why this is necessary, it's not fair on the disagreeing party to create a rod for their backs. As already noted above, IBANs create limitations on what parties can do that aren't direct discussions between each other so are not completely free-of-charge.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per the bad-tempered commentary above. Guy (help!) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Question - Guy M., if SJ voluntarily promises to not mention you in any shape, manner, or form without having to impose a horrible, logged iBan, would that work for you? iBans do more harm than good because they end-up being used by the opposition against an editor to gain advantage in a dispute regardless of the parties involved in the iBan. They are an inadvertent gift to the opposition and don't do anything more than what a single promise to you will do without the need for it to be labeled/logged as an iBan. There were times when I wanted an iBan against someone but as it turned out, we became WikiFriends so in retrospect, I was glad that it wasn't imposed. Please reconsider...^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am completely fine with any kind of custom restrictions that any admin thinks would work. A simple "don't directly respond to a talk page comment by the other editor and don't talk about the other editor" with no other restrictions would be fine with me. I would have zero problems with Sir Joseph reverting any of my edits, reporting me for edit warring, etc. -- he does not strike me as being the kind of person who would do that sort of thing without a good reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Guy - and I say that with the utmost respect and admiration. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Guy has made it clear that, at the very least, he wants a one-way IBAN formally logged. Why is that a problem, or something people are agonizing over? Why does that require SJ's consent? If Guy wants it, then let's log it. But I'm actually in favor of a two-way ban, because I haven't seen a good argument for opposing this, just general concerns that "I don't trust Guy" and "people often try to weaponize IBANs"; if, in fact, you don't edit the same articles, that doesn't help support the position that logging a ban is problematic. Also, people offering to accept a one-way ban undermine those concerns. And also, per Guy. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, a one-way iban would not have prevented SJ's signpost comments that were the catalyst of this thread. That is, unless you mean a one-way iban against SJ, which is something we absolutely should not impose simply because the other party wants it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, they wouldn't have, and I understand that, which is why I lean more toward formalizing a two-way IBAN between two people who are saying they want to stay away from each other. Grandpallama (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary bureaucracy. I agree the "unfortunately" thing was kind of a dick move (including that single word was more about politeness than neutrality), but this one dust up at the Signpost doesn't justify a formal sanction. "We haven't interacted since 2016" was easy to check and it's not accurate. They've interacted without incident a number of times just in the past year. These two editors don't need a formal sanction to keep them apart and I don't think this thread is the best use of editor time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't wish to appear insensitive to Guy Macon's frustration, but surely he can understand why some of us are unwilling to support an iban when he can't/won't provide the evidence that shows why the ban is necessary. SJ's signpost comment was ill-considered and unhelpful, but that lone incident is not enough to warrant an iban. I've had my own negative experiences with SJ and I'm inclined to believe that Guy has good reason to avoid SJ, but it simply isn't fair to impose an iban that only one party wants when that party won't provide proof that the ban is necessary. If I may be so bold as to speak frankly, I think Guy is overreacting to the Signpost slight. It was an impolite moment that made SJ look bad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not worth stressing over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Honest question: if you disagree with the "no-fault" wording at WP:IBAN and believe that I am required to find fault ("provide proof that the ban is necessary"), shouldn't you be asking that the wording of the policy be changed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  The wording in question merely indicates that no-fault interaction bans are a possible solution in certain cases. I don't disagree with that. But there's nothing in the policy that guarantees you can procure such a ban simply by requesting it and I don't think a no-fault iban happens to be the right solution in this case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The burden of showing need has not been met. I don't see any evidence that SJ has done anything in the recent past that would cause them to require an enforceable iban. To pre-suppose the oft-repeated question that GM will now, immediately below this oppose, ask as they have done multiple times above, the idea behind a "no-fault" iban is not the same thing as a "no-reason" iban. A no-fault iban simply means it isn't finding that either person named in the iban is "more correct" than the other person. Even without a finding of fault, a reason is still necessary to enact one, and GMs reasoning provides us no recent disruption or other inciting incident that would merit an iban. --Jayron32 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Go ahead and reject the request then, because my experience in 2016 and SJ's responses in this thread have convinced me that if I say anything bad about SJ he will throw it in my face for the next few years. I am going to unwatch this page now. Please post a note on my talk page if anything happens that I should know about. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

A message to administrators about UTRS

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

Please note:

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

Please cross-post this message as needed

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

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Is there a phabricator ticket or project associated with this? Is it looking for volunteers to contribute to the software? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: We are on github. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0 ... At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons)" - that's the end of my contributions to UTRS then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm same question, even ACCtools does not have OAuth and OAuth is much more mature now. There's mwoauth for Python and mwoauthclient-php for PHP clients which are pretty stable, doing most of the work behind the scenes. It's probably more ideal to onboard more people into the development process and do it, if the workload is the issue. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: We've been trying to onboard people since it's inception in 2012 - we've only gained SQL and lost 2 others. No one has expressed an interest - or if they have, it missed my desk. I did not know about the PHP client, but I still struggle to understand OAuth and how to properly integrate it with Laravel as the login system is pre-build in there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I'm not that used to PHP but I can take a look into the OAuth integration. Maybe @DannyS712: can help as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Given the comments below, I'd also be willing to pitch in to at least get OAuth working. Depending on what other tasks need done I may be able to lend a hand elsewhere as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK and Wugapodes: If anyone wishes to pitch in, they can via pull requests, just be aware, we don't just use PHP, we use Laravel on top of it, which is the complicating factor. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: It's not small enough to resolve via pull requests, can you set up a development instance or if you already have one, grant us access. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the Wikimedia Cloud team if I can limit access to one instance I create that would allow you to do that. I think the answer is yes, but I'll have to get back to you - because I can't blanket hand out access because CU data exists on the server. In the mean time, if you don't have one already, you'll need to create a WM Dev account and tell me the name. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have asked the team, and there is no way I can limit access to only one instance. Also, if I understand you correctly, you just want to go in and code on an instance, and then have me integrate it back with whatever changes I've made in the meantime. That's a lot of extra time that a PR can solve while still allowing code review to make sure security remains intact. There is no limit to the size of a PR, in fact ACC has one here. The code is able to be ran on a local computer, and it only requires one install. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I will try but I have no experience with VPS (I work with Toolforge) and even if I could get it to work locally, there's no guarantee it will be usable at all in production. The ACC pull request is still open from 2017, so can you really say it's helping, either way, is it possible to get an instance up at Toolforge, or is it some VPS feature that is required, even a barebones instance is fine as long as we can test the flow in production, just saying it because it's known be finicky. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's something we can't put on toolforge. As far as I understand it, rules 2 & 5 would be violated to put it on toolforge. Beyond that, I would have to request individual pieces of software to be added which would not be guaranteed to be added and would take time. When we created UTRS, we were specifically told to stay away from toolforge (what it was at the time) with it. So the two options left would be that myself or @SQL: could push your changes to a test server when we have the time, that or I have to request (if it gets accepted) a separate wikitech:Help:Cloud VPS project and rebuild everything from ground zero. Speaking to personal development, if you google "how to install a lamp stack", it will tell you how to install all the things needed on a virtual machine that can run off your computer in any flavour of linux. Google is great for how tos on setting these up, and they don't need much resources at all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's always been a struggle to get admins to monitor requests at WP:UTRS. I think the OAuth made it easier for admins to pop in and check requests since it was introduced. I'm worried that adding extra layers for access will really drive down interest in participating and we'll lose any ground gained in this regard. This is absolutely not a criticism of all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in maintaining the system, just a concern from someone who has been active there pretty much since its inception.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with those above that ditching OAuth isn't desirable, I've popped in to UTRS occasionally when asked, but now will be more likely not to. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree on all points with Ponyo. Back when there was a separate UTRS login, there were at least several admins I know who were confused by the faff of having different logins for different bits of admin work (including me). I also had concerns about the security of the UTRS login at the time, and I refused to use it - I don't know what the security of UTRS 2.0 login will be like. When it changed to OAuth and just two clicks to get in and no new password, that made it a lot more accessible. Very easy to click through UTRS notifications on user talk pages, for example, and then perhaps review a couple of others when there. It made it so that every admin could see it easily, not just those who went through setting up a special UTRS account - and I remember a number of "No, it's easy now, just click" discussions I've had with other admins. Going back to a separate login again, I will simply not be bothered with the complication of the extra faff and I'll just give up on it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. (And, as per Ponyo above, that's not criticism of the people working on it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• login difficulty = 1/likelihood of my usage. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Update There are four requests in queue and I couldn't stand it, so I longed in. So much easier than beore! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  How did you do that then? The links still take me via OAuth to version 1.8.5 which says "UTRS is down :(" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

• @DeltaQuad: The registration form at [3] is trying to POST a password to an http:// (insecure) URL. ST47 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And there's no Strict-Transport-Security header set, so passwords are actually going over an unencrypted connection. ST47 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @ST47: Everything should be forced https, unless you specify you http for a page, the next page, you will still get redirected. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks like you fixed it, thanks. ST47 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

But how do you create the login in the first place? It's OK, I see ST47 has just linked it above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party" is not a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it is all being straightened. And once you are logged in, you can go to individual appeals from the Category:Requests for unblock page w/o bothering with OAuth. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say my first impression is that it's a horrible user interface, with important elements separated by vast areas of white space wasteland, and with enormous pointless icons. A good UI should take your eyes straight to the parts that matter, and this doesn't do that at all (at least, not for me). Anyway, I'll say no more - I'm walking away from it, but I might take a look in the future to see if it's any better. (Various parts of the UI contain spelling and other errors, if anyone fancies fixing those - they should be obvious). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• OAuth definitely made life a lot easier. –xeno^talk 12:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I understand OAuth made life a ton easier for everyone, I poured over the relevant documentation for days, and still couldn't figure out how to get it to work with our system. Some people have offered to try and help above, and if they can do it, i'll put it back in. I just simply don't have the ability to do it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Wish I could help, but it's way over my head. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do have some experience with OAuth (IPCheck uses a very hacky client to accomplish it - the very same that the original UTRS used). I cannot make a firm commitment of when I would be able to look at integration due to off-wiki circumstances at the moment, but I will try to do so in the near term. SQL^{Query me!} 02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sensitive/private information

• @DeltaQuad: Is the new UTRS open to everyone to register an account and not just admins? UTRS is supposed to be used when unblock requests contain sensitive/private information (like IP addresses or real-world identities) and therefore surely needs to be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that the reason I ask is that I just saw a note on a non-admin's talk page denying their request for an account, but only because they don't have a registered email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've just seen at the login/register page, "For users that are here to comment on, process or assist with appeals, please select the button below. Please note that only user accounts over 500 edits are allowed to participate in this form." FFS, come on, there can private and sensitive information in UTRS requests. At WP:UTRS it says "UTRS access is limited to users who have undergone a community vetting process for higher tool access such as sysops, bureaucrats, and stewards in addition to Wikimedia Foundation Community Advocacy staff" and blocked users using it to request unblock will expect confidentiality - not exposure to anyone who's made 500 edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  That bit was inspired by the existence of ECP, wasn't it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  What's the relevance of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I dunno, it just seemed to me that since ECP has been introduced this 500edits thing has been spreading everywhere on Wikipedia, including places where it doesn't belong either because it's too strict or (in this case) too lenient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. Extended confirmed should, of course, have no relevance here, and the ability to view UTRS requests should be restricted to admins, crats etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not to mention that non-admins can't actually unblock them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  And aren't allowed to decline unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  So UTRS does not give out private information nor does it allow non-admins to review requests. In the old system, and still even now, we see multiple people who appeal basic blocks that do not contain private information at all. There is a system in place where the user can flag their appeal as having private information, and have it either just visible to administrators or oversighters. It is then reviewed to make sure it has private information. If not, it's released for public view so appeals that don't need to be hidden aren't. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this LTA?

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

See the logs for Special:AbuseFilter/1050 and Special:AbuseFilter/2 where some admins have been working to address this. Yesterday, Enterprisey was blocking IPs that triggered the filter before the LTA could adapt. I'll use the new misses to try and fix the edit filter. Thanks for bringing this up here as more eyes on the problem would be incredibly helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated them, hits on 1050 should be immediately blocked. 2 is used for testing, so it may pick up problems the first one doesn't catch. If other admins see similar postings somewhere, let me know so I can update the filter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No User:Wugapodes, thank you! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ST47, Tks4Fish, you may be interested in this. ST47, you dropped a one-week block on one of the IPs; is there any point in extending the ones I placed? BTW I revdelete this shit as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: assuming you pinged me here so I can globally block the IPs, both are done :). 188.240.208.105's /24 for 3 years as an open proxy, and 114.134.189.16 for 1 month as a possible one. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tks4Fish, actually, I pinged you really just to keep you informed, but yes, that will work! Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Special:Diff/953991014 :/ Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The silver lining is that the filter is preventing human readable rants. Suffusion of Yellow made a wonderful edit that fixes the false positive problem caused by the growing filter, so that was a huge help. I've updated 1050 to account for the issues in the recent diff. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is reason to suspect cross-wiki abuse - (presumably) the same vandal has also been affecting en.wikt. It is probably safe to assume that any IP they are using after their main range got blocked is a proxy. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what I am smelling too. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure who this is, but with this and other recent vandalism, it unfortunately seems that wikipedia is finally facing the dreaded "tea spillers". Mostly teenagers, they've been ravaging social media for the past few years, obsessing over social media based controversies. They mainly congregate around beauty youtubers, and find power in constantly spamming gossip everywhere. Look at the history of James Charles (Internet personality) for examples. Be careful in blocking them, they may cancel you on twitter..... (#Drmiesisoverparty) Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• According to my daughter, that's not trending yet, but she looked up "Drmies" and said "it's not good". #blockedbydrmies apparently is a thing. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Anyone notice any activity on this today? I didn't see anything in the logs or at RFPP like I usually would, and we're past the time they're usually active. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• If someone can set up an LTA page for this user, that would be appreciated. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Everyone discussing this IP hopper, it is not an LTA. I can positively identify the IP hopping as block evasion by User:CGFSH, who got indeffed for posting similar kinds of BLP violations on the Connie Glynn page and for socking JavaHurricane 10:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I meant User:CGSFH, sorry. JavaHurricane 10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• FYI active again today – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wugapodes, [6]. JavaHurricane, what do you mean "not an LTA"? Is it not "L" enough? Ponyo, you blocked that a-hole account; what else can we do? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I had already set up something in filter 2 to catch this, and testing it on those edits shows that it hits, but nothing showed up in the logs? @Enterprisey: Any thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Stranger still, the text on the filter says it matched these edits, but they aren't in the log... — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wugapodes: Revdeleted (and oversighted) edits are always hidden in the EF logs. The logs for disallowed edits can also be oversighted separately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, I meant that this is a relatively new vandal rather than a long-term vandal. JavaHurricane 03:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin (Brown novel)

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

More context here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just semi-protect the affected articles. It's not spreading outside of a few articles about Dan Brown novels, right? Also, I don't understand why you're using revdel on everything. This is just some random IP who's posting rants, not an LTA vandal who's spreading misinformation about criminal charges in an attempt to destroy someone's reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, it looks like Ohnoitsjamie protected all the other articles. I wasn't the one who revdeled everything; only the latest IP on the Origin (Brown novel) article. That was done by other admins, so I followed suit. I guess we can disregard this, but I thought an edit filter would help with the number of IPs being used, the articles affected, and user's unique editing pattern doing it. I guess this isn't the correct line of thought. No worries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The person behind the IP was essentially using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, linking from his various external sites to his rants here; the revdels are an attempt to put an end to that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg

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

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

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

• File:Coord8.GIF
• File:Coord6.GIF
• File:Coord5.GIF
• File:Coord3.GIF
• File:Coord2.GIF
• File:Coord1b.png

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

For this group, all the .GIFs were uploaded by user:Loxley~enwiki (with no further information). That user has been inactive for many years. The .png was uploaded by user:Keenan Pepper, who remains active now. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're asking about the licence for the .GIFs - we don't know. Back then it wasn't mandatory to put licence information on uploads. I don't think it's safe to assume these GIFs are really licenced with a Wikipedia-compatible free licence. The .png was tagged with GFDL - if you're concerned about it, Keenan Pepper is still around to ask. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: Thank you. Okay so the GIF-files are not really good. But the 2 x png should be fine. Can you undelete the png so I can move it to Commons? I prefer to have the direct source. --MGA73 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

CSD-request of CSS-pages

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

• User:Hebsen/sandbox/styles.css
• Template:Hebsen/sandbox/styles.css
• Template:Infobox country/styles.css

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

(non-admin curiosity) @Hebsen: why can't you nominate them with twinkle, as usual? ——SN54129 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. SN, you need to be an IA to edit interface pages, now. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. No, the reason is that you nominate pages for speedy deletion by giving them a template. But for CSS-pages, all content is treated as code, so they don't recognize templates. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Check! Cheers Hebsen, makes sense. And thank you {{u|Killiondude} for assuming I have lived under a rock  ;) ——SN54129 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I could've sworn that non-IA users couldn't edit .css or .js not in their userspace, but see now that it is just a limiter in userspace and MediaWiki namespace. Whoops. Killiondude (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Killiondude: (apologies for ballsing your name up there^^^) yeah, the odd thing is that (as a test) I G7d my own css page, and although it treats the template as code, it still puts it into cat:csd. And the css page was deleted by a non-IA admin. Does that make sense? ——SN54129 08:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that checks out. IIRC: templates do work on JS/CSS pages, but they don't render. So a CSD tag on a JS or CSS page will place it in the correct category and other behind-the-scenes stuff, but will still appear on the rendered page as {{csd-whatever}}. Regular admins can still delete user JS/CSS (for vandalism reasons), but only intadmins can undelete or modify them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Writ Keeper, vey interesting indeed. Thanks for the detail; @Hebsen:, fyi too.

WK, while you're there, now my deleted css page has been deleted, nothnig seems to have changed? (I assume it has, somehow, but nothing has suddenly "broken", if you knaow what I mean.) ——SN54129 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Well, it looks like the CSS rules you have in there are pretty subtle, so you might not have noticed the difference yet. It looks like it only really affected two things: the "you have new messages" box (changing it from blue text on orange to orange text on green) and the maintenance tags on citations (unhiding them). I can restore the page, if you like. While poking through your pages, I also noticed that you have some raw CSS code in your vector.js page relating to the text color of redirects; that's at best not going to do anything, and could mess up other scripts, too. Do you want me to move those into your CSS page, where they can become active? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: very kind of you; yes, if you would. As a dumbass, I know I've occasionally installed scripts and then wondered why they don't do anything. If I've been putting them in the wrong place, that would explain much. ——SN54129 12:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done, let me know if anything needs adjusting! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

RIP Ronhjones

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

I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or getting permission. Graham87 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no words... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Oh my goodness, how sad. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What a terrible way to die. I hope they succumbed to smoke inhalation first. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

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

---

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

Blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:1RR

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

---

@MrX: has performed several reverts ([7] [8] [9]) on the Joe Biden article within 24 hours and claims that he hasn't violated WP:1RR, stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert. As far as I understand, this interpretation of the rule is completely wrong, and while several edits performing a revert do indeed count as one revert, obviously several edits reverting unrelated pieces of content added by independent users count as several reverts. If his interpretation is correct, would that mean that WP:3RR means I can perform the same revert three times? That sounds quite ridiculous to me. Could someone please clarify the situation here and, if needed, provide MrX with some guidelines on this matter? BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

BeZet, you forgot to provide a link to where you claim MrX was "stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert". Please provide that evidence. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Here. BeŻet (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) April 30 to May 2 is more than 24 hours. Also, the first and second revert you listed were performed back-to-back, so they are counted as one revert. I don't see the issue here. Nihlus 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

That doesn't matter. He could have done them in one single edit or multiple consecutive edits and would have produced the same result, which is why they are considered one revert. Nihlus 20:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So it does matter then. If he reverted two different things 5 hours apart, surely that would be a violation of the rule? BeŻet (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. Please read WP:EW: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Nihlus 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Good Article ban proposal

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

---

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

Small note, I fixed your wikilink above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that is not allowed, the banning policy says community sanctions discussions have to take place at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am seriously nervous about this. I should note that AfC has occasionally done reviews of AfC reviewers, and I don't know whether that would be counted as similar or different (as we also control giving our de facto userright etc). The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree. I think that this is the place to carry out such a ban. And who would enforce a ban made there anyway? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I too agree - this is the correct venue for a community TBan (which is what this would amount to) to be discussed. I have offered my tuppenceworth at the discussion there. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• What's the difference between the discussion being linked here and taking place elsewhere and vice versa? It just makes a difficult decision unnecessarily harder and more burdensome on the editors involved, and is absolutely not based in the quoted policy which does not mandate that community sanctions must occur only at AN/ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bilorv, the relevant bit of WP:CBAN, as I read it, is Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I guess it doesn't go on to say that they can't happen anywhere else, but nor does it say that they can - this venue is clearly specified as the preferred venue, with AN/I being the only other option given. It's less of a problem now that it has been linked - but why not simply move the whole discussion here? I do appreciate the difficulty involved in making a decision like that, it can't be comfortable for anyone, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors can be banned from taking part in community processes without wider scrutiny. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• "May be discussed" is not the same as "Must be discussed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, indeed - I acknowledged that, and I agree that it would be worded better, but when I read 'May be discussed at X (preferred) or Y', I see that as a choice, and infer that Z isn't an option. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not read it that way. I see no exclusion, only a suggestion of possible venues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do read it that way. Two options, one of which is preferred. P-K3 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree, Girth Summit, Beyond My Ken, and Bilorv: I've proposed updating the wording to clarify this. See WT:BAN#Proposed wording change to WP:CBAN. Your input there would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per GS, how about just moving the discussion here, where there will be many more administrative eyes on it, and generally of editors independent of the GA project (which is not implyng that members of the GA project cannot "police" themselves, mere that, on principle, distance is good). In any case, although the letter of the policy indicates that other venues are availble, in reality an appeal based on "It didn't take place at AN/ANI" will almost certainly suceed, if only because the reviewing admin considers WT:GA too narrow a venue. ——SN54129 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure keeping it independent of GA is a good idea. Watchers of WT:GAN are generally pretty knowledgeable of the process and should be in a better position to judge if an editors reviews or nominations are up to the required standard (one which is pretty lenient) compared to editors at any other venue. A bigger concern to me would be ban discussions taking place here with no input from the GA project. To be perfectly honest most of our best reviewers are not admins. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• My experience with GA is limited (I've submitted 2 candidates, and happily both were accepted), so I'm not an expert there. I also have no knowledge of the particular editor in question here, so all this is in the abstract. There's two issues here:
  1. Can editors be banned from participation in GA due to WP:CIR? Surely the answer has to be yes. There's a variety of administrative tasks (new page patrol, AfC reviews, various forms of clerking, OTRS, NAC, DRV, DYK, etc) which don't necessarily require admin rights, but do require specialized knowledge and skill to perform correctly. Surely GA (particularly reviewing) is one of those. In almost all ways, we bend over backwards to be inclusive, but we do have standards and as you move up the hierarchy, those standards get stricter, and there needs to be some way to enforce them.
  2. Where is the right forum to discuss it? I think the current approach was correct. Start with one-on-one communication, and try to provide useful guidance for how the editor can improve their work. If that fails, a project-wide forum such as WT:GAN makes sense. But, ultimately, WP:AN is where sanctions get imposed. Basically, you're come here and say, "Look, these are all the lesser steps we tried, they didn't fix the problem, so now we're asking the community to impose a TBAN".

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: that's an excellent assessment of our "chain of command", and should probably be pag-inated. ——SN54129 13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thoughts:
  1. WP:SOFIXIT If you really think that discussion should be here, move it, and leave a 'this discussion has been moved' template. Now anyone can do that, but addressing specifically administrators commenting here who think it should move, here, you are in administration, which in part is administering process.
  2. Keep in mind WP:NOTBURO, and what are the trade-off's, everyone here now knows about that discussion and can comment there if they want. If it's closed against the editor, there will be a record of a bunch of editors telling an editor not to do something, and if the editor continues doing what a consensus says they should not, pretty much prima facie disruption by the editor.
  3. To me, that looks like a rather sad or embarrassing situation, perhaps ask the subject if they want it moved here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved topic ban discussion

The following content was copiedtranscluded copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry to steal your post, Wugapodes, but I think transclusion is cleaner here. Please undo my change if you think it is not benificial. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As the whole idea was to transfer the discussion here and continue it, transcluding and closing it is exactly what we don't need. Primefac, Wugapodes, can this discussion and the !votes please be continued here? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: as no one seems to be around, I have restored the Wugapodes move so that the discussion can continue. I hope that I have done so correctly. The first section was the initial discussion that led up to the proposal to ban. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Consultation with Happypillsjr

Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.

In this open setting, I would like to invite @Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall a similar discussion only a few weeks ago regarding another review which you got involved with. From a glance, I must say that the quality of reviews may in part be attributed to what I see as a less-than-ideal grasp of acceptable English grammar. I think Happypillsjr has good intentions and I don't dispute that he believes to be contributing in good faith, but I can identify with the concern that he is perhaps not suited to be reviewing and passing judgement upon articles, particularly when assessing prose quality. On the review I mentioned above, the line "looks perfect, no confusion and bad grammars" is questionable and not just shorthand. I am always very mindful about being critical of those who, like many here, want to help out and contribute in the right way, but equally I fully take the point that in processes like GA, FA, PR etc, those passing judgement need to possess some degree of competency to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I think Happypillsjr should leave the GA process until they can demonstrate the ability to build GA-level articles. It makes me sad to see enthusiastic editors have their well-meaning hopes to contribute frustrated, but here I see no other option. Happypillsjr has been editing occasionally since mid-2014, very regularly since mid-2018, and has accrued several thousand edits, so newness isn't the problem per se. Early in their time here, they were asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA, and were briefly blocked for non-compliance. In August 2018, BlueMoonset has to again ask. June 2019, BlueMoonset again asks them to stop. December 2019, epicgenius asks the same. Same month, Kingsif kindly offers mentoring after more of the same. I see no sign things are improving with time. Just this month Happypillsjr nominated yet another article for GA after doing some cleanup (which included adding material directly copy-pasted from a source), and again it was quick-failed. I'm not aware of any example of a nomination or review led by Happypillsjr ending well (though some example may be out there). At this point, I think further intermediate steps are a waste of everyone's time. I truly appreciate Happypillsjr's enthusiasm, but they cannot seem to contribute constructively to the GA process, and so they should not. Perhaps they can re-build trust by contributing constructively elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I must note there is a nomination that Happy is currently reviewing, which they previously nominated (that nomination was removed by Kew Gardens 613 because the article was far from the GA criteria). I think that, besides that nomination needing to be restarted, we need to consider whether Happy should be temporarily restricted from GAN reviews, since mentorship has had only a limited effect. I am hopeful that they could improve with time, but right now, it does not look like they should be reviewing good article nominations at this time. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with those above. Happypillsjr should be restricted from creating GA nominations or participating in GAN reviews, and encouraged instead to just focus on improving article content, making sure that they do not ever copy text directly from a reference. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, Kingsif, and Coolmarc: I am just aware of having a consultation of me of considering temporary restricted from GAN reviews and nominations. I know my presence from nominating and review articles is troubling to you guys. I know you guys heard about my history of nominating articles. I wanted to apologize about that. I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. So that again, I wanted to apologize.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the apology, I am disappointed in Happypillsjr's response. Not simply because they did not answer Kingsif's initial questions, but mostly because there was no offer to stop nominating and reviewing GA articles. As noted above, they've been asked politely many times to please not nominate or review at GA because their skills at assessing articles are clearly inadequate, yet they've ignored every request. Each time a problematic nomination or review has been made, other editors have to drop what they're doing to fix things. They have had five years to learn and understand the process, and still haven't. They were unable or unwilling to make use of the mentoring they were given several months ago.

Happypillsjr's problematic edits related to the GAN process began with their first nomination, made on April 12, 2015, the day after the expiration of a three-day block for disruption. They then opened a review of that very nomination, which had to be deleted, and when the nomination was reviewed two weeks later, never responded to the review, which was ultimately failed. In the five years since, they have yet to make a nomination or take on a review that was not ultimately problematic. I think we need to take formal action on the informal consensus that I see in the above comments: they need to take an enforced hiatus from GAN, hence the following proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN

As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.

The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This community cannot be forever cleaning up after an editor who should know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose has anyone suggested they could work with Happypillsjr on either one of their nominations or a review they might be conducting as a mentor? That would seem to be an obvious first step before trying to ban someone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I'm going to stay neutral on this discussion, but I think Kingsif already tried that. Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, that's great from Kingsif. Perhaps a more direct "Let's stop all your GA activity right now. Pick one single GAN and an experienced reviewer will review your review. Do not attempt to review any other GAN or submit your own in the mean time. Otherwise BlueMoonset will seek your indefinite ban from the GA process." would work? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I tentatively support the idea, i'd similarly feel a little uncomfortable making a formal declaration supporting an actual community-backed ban on a user acting in good faith, even though it's clear this user should step away from GAN. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: unfortunately, this has been continuing for years and Happypillsjr doesn't have the expertise needed to participate at GAN, which is a very demanding and highly skilled area. They have threatened to retire if banned, which is unfortunate, because they can absolutely learn to make useful contributions to articles. I encourage them to focus on improving articles without thinking about GA status for them, after reading more about copyright violations, so as not to make any more mistakes on that front. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support With notes: 1. a support for the ban is based on Happy's unfortunate history of ignoring requests to stop even when they've made it clear they understood the request. If this discussion goes stale, I would bet on another review/nom in two weeks. 2. the burden it places on other editors, not just myself, with the implicit obligation to double-check Happy's work is unfair; it is also unfair on nominators. 3. the rate of abandonment for both reviews and noms put up by Happy could be considered disruptive in itself - though I feel this comes from not fully understanding the project, which more experience (perhaps at their native language GA project) could help with. 4. that, should Happy return in a little while with more experience, I personally would be OK with them having some involvement (perhaps just watching and asking questions) when I review GANs, to help Happy get experience within this project for a ban appeal in 12 months. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Apears to be well-meaning but WP:Competence is required. Also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
• Support Although the editor may have good faith, they are unfortunately causing too many issues and wasting everybody's time here. Their comments are bizarre. One of the biggest GA criteria is being able to assess prose and this editor is not in the position to do this when they can't articulate themself properly. Cool Marc ✉ 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose (n.b. partially duplicated from my AN comment) - I am seriously nervous about this decision being made here. The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Depending on how urgent the project considers it, the "should GAN be allowed to handle the matter" discussion could be had first, or just restart the case etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural oppose struck due to move Nosebagbear (talk)
• Procedural oppose as this simply is not the correct forum. AN or ANI are the place, and it's easy enough to raise the issue there with a link here telling people here it's happening. GA is project wide as is said above. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per Nosebagbear and Doug Weller and Josh Milburn. For this to be binding, it would have to be logged as a community imposed TBan, which be discussed at AN per WP:CBAN. That it has happened differently in the past isn't a reason for us to disregard policy now. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per those above: this isn't the forum. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I encountered Happypillsjr about a year ago in another venue, and their use of English was so repeatedly poor that I assumed English was not their first language. Happypillsjr insisted then that it is their first language, which troubled me even more, because such poor use of a first language is less likely to improve. Their post above timestamped 19:00, 30 April contains these two sentences: I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. That seems to me to be clear evidence that it hasn't improved.
  I don't see how an editor with such poor skills in using the English language can make any constructive contribution at all to an English-language encyclopedia ... and they certainly have no place assessing quality. Their good intent is very clear, but good intent is not enough. Since requests for self-restraint have been unsuccessful, a topic ban is needed as the minimum step ... but a siteban would also be justified, because I fear that a ban from GAs will simply displace the disruption to another art of the 'pedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• TBAN with exemption, I considered a more limited response, but both my own checking and the consensus of the field experienced editors makes me inclined to agree that a straight TBAN is needed. However. Assuming the editor doesn't retire, an option for an experienced reviewer to do a review with them (if both parties are willing) at some stage feels like a positive. The experienced reviewer would need to sign off on the result, but it would be a helpful step for any future appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support partial TBAN, if carefully phrased. I wouldn't support a complete ban from the entire process; I'd suggest a ban from nominating articles to GAN, and from initiating a review, and from participating in a review where they haven't been invited to take part by the nominator or reviewer. If there is a third party who would be willing to work with them, that person could make a nomination, or initiate a review, and them work with them through the review process. Would that work? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I concur with BlueMoonset that most of the nominations mentioned were well below standards. Too much time is wasted from this. This user's contributions aren't bad on a whole, but he shouldn't be nominating any more good articles without doing far more work on them. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support limited TBAN, something like Girth Summit's phrasing - basically, let them work in the GA process if someone will supervise them. If the supervision works out, then they might someday show that they've learned and the TBAN can be lifted. If supervision doesn't improve things, then I expect they'll run out of people who will supervise and it effectively becomes a total TBAN in the GA space. creffett (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Creffett: Happypillsjr has acknowledged[10] dyslexia and problems with comprehension. Those problems cannot be resolved by supervision, so it seems to me that supervision will almost certainly to be just prolonging the agony for Happypillsjr, for the supervisor, and for the community. It seems to me to be much much kinder to everyone involved to simply say now that this isn't going to work out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, I am not willing to write someone off for those reasons. We can't mentor someone to not be dyslexic or not have comprehension problems, but we can still work with them on decision-making and learning when to ask for help. creffett (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Creffett: I am not suggesting writing someone off. I propose redirecting them to areas better suited to their abilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support with preference towards Girth Summit's proposal except unlike them I'd also support a full topic ban as third choice. Nosebagbear's suggestion which is fairly similar to Girth Summit's anyway, is my second choice. Like Nosebagbear, I'd emphasise that this is entirely voluntary. No editor should feel compelled to help out Happypillsjr and Happypillsjr should recognise this also means they are not allowed to go around continually bugging editors about a review. It may be that there is already no one willing to let Happypillsjr review and this will be a functional complete topic ban. I acknowledge even with someone else assisting, their participation may still be annoying to others in the review, and since I don't do GA reviews myself, I'm prescribing something that will affect others and not me. Still I feel it's worth giving that faint hope since I trust those who may offer to help won't keep at it if it's not working. As for BrownHairedGirl's point, IMO it's better to let any prospective supervisor decide for themselves if it's worth their time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comment: Is this the place for this discussion? Wikipedia:Banning policy says that conversations about community bans should take place at WP:AN (preferably) or WP:ANI. I don't think it says that they can't take place elsewhere, but I think it would be advisable for this to be explored there rather than here. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, community bans can't just be implemented at some backwater. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• GAN has previously done its own banning with editors who were causing significant problems here, which is why I didn't see a problem with doing so here. Oakley77 was banned from reviewing and nominating in 2012, and was subsequently blocked for violating their ban. (Was Matisse ever banned at GAN, or is that a Wikipedia-wide block?) Nor is GAN alone: Billy Hathorn was banned from DYK in 2011 (in advance of his indefinite en-Wikipedia block later that year), and when the block was lifted and (the same day) they nominated a large number of DYKs, the DYK ban was deemed to be still in force, and the nominations were removed. The ban remained in force through their final en-Wikipedia ban in 2015. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would think that as long as the ban doesn't affect other areas of Wikipedia and there is a decent consensus then there is no real problem. We are after all just a glorified wikiproject and this is our main talk page and where most editors familiar with the issues hang out. I would like to think the affected party should have a right to appeal at AN or ANI though if they so wish, although I see it unlikely that the community would overturn a ban from a wikiproject if most of the other members of the wikiproject support it. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• My understanding is that community bans are supposed to be implemented by the community as a whole, not just the community of a particular corner of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the noticeboards becoming the focal point of the community as a whole for matters like this. (I don't like it; the noticeboards are not pleasant places. But that's not the point.) This all feels a bit grotty to me. At the very least, make sure an uninvolved administrator is the one to close the discussion. But I've said my piece: I'll take no further part in this. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I understand and you may be right. My fear is that theoretically someone could be banned at ANI from this wikiproject without members of this wikiproject even knowing about it and I don't think that is right either. As BlueMoonsets research shows this doesn't happen that often. What about if we put a neutral notice at WP:ANI informing editors there of this discussion. That way it keeps it in house, but allows wider community input. I imagine it would stimiulate some discussion on how to handle these in the future which could be useful (although it is ANI so who knows). AIRcorn (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that is a good idea - and if a discussion here genuinely is a no-go, then I'm sure someone from the noticeboard would let us know. I can't speak from much experience, but, years ago, I got the impression that AN wasn't as bad as ANI. You (or someone else) could post there again to seek an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Likewise. There is absolutely no harm at all in making the attempt to community ban this user available to a wider audience. After all, they may have some other suggestions to resolve the situation. Keeping it "in house" is subversive and inappropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay I have left a note at AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Good Article ban proposal. "In house" might have come across a bit strong. I more meant that it is still hosted here. Either way we will get some clarification on this hopefully soon. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: *@BlueMoonset: If you seriously want to banned me from GAN then, I will be retired from Wikipedia.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Happypillsjr, I think the point is that your reviews aren't good enough and are creating more work for others. I suggest you take a step back from all GAN reviews, and maybe do what Kingsif suggested in December, which is to be mentored through a review so you know what you're doing? No-one is asking you to retire, some of us are just trying to help you improve your reviews. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I really don't want to retired. I thought I was confident for editing articles hard but I was like editing random articles for nomations. Maybe I deserve that.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that English appears not to be your first language and that's causing problems with your review comments and your comprehension of the advice you've been receiving from a number of good faith editors for several months. Don't retire, just ask for (or even accept offered) help. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Happypillsjr: Another way of making this work could be to take part in the GA process at the relevant Wikipedia for your first language. You could gain experience and a better understanding of the criteria on that wikipedia instead of the English one. I'm afraid to say that, given some of your review comments have asked people to make perfectly fine sentences incomprehensible, you might not be up to reviewing the prose of English articles until language skills improve. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't think the issue is a language barrier per-se, if you look at his userpage (native speaker of "American English") and one has to consider that there may another reason why the language issues present in this way (there may be many reasons besides the one I am thinking). I think this discussion has diverged into something I am not comfortable with, as it seemed clear there was consensus for Happypills to step back from this and he seemed to understand and accept there was consensus. I feel sorry for him here - I don't think we need this additional humiliation but I hope he accepts the position the community have taken here, albeit in a less than ideal manner. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Bungle: I agree you, language is not an issue but dyslexia is may not the only reason. Sometimes I have problems with comprehension.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Happypillsjr: I am sorry you have been subjected to this process - it isn't how the GA community tend to act. I do sense there is frustration surrounding your participation though and I can accept the reasons why; I can even accept that you should focus your efforts away from the GAN process and hope that you will take on board the constructive suggestions being offered. I am mindful many people have various difficulties in learning, understanding, comprehension etc that is entirely of no fault of their own and considered this may be a factor in your case. That isn't for us to speculate or discuss though, if that's your business. I do hope that despite this, you accept and understand that well-intended contributions to wikipedia are welcomed, yet at the same time you must take heed of (i.e. accept) community feedback and respond accordingly (in this case, unfortunately, you must step away from GAN). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps, and I suggest this as a genuine way to help, simple English Wikipedia and their more simplistic GA process could be useful experience? Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• In response to the drive-by admins asserting a procedural opposition, active WikiProjects like this one have every right to manage the functioning of said WikiProject, including banning activity from some editors. WP:GA isn't imposing a siteban or anything beyond their remit. Political maneuvers insisting that the issue has to be handled at WP:AN shows disrespect to the editors here improving the encyclopedia because your clique thinks it has the monopoly on community consensus. Your opposition is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am not some drive by sysop though I am a sysop. I'd said nothing when I saw this yesterday but I also think this is the wrong forum. GA isn't a Wikiproject, it's a community process. Topic banning from a community process should be done by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Like Barkeep, I am a sysop but not a driveby sysop, and I think this is the wrong forum. "[Managing] the functioning" of WikiProjects - not that this is a WikiProject - is one thing. Banning is another. To use a real-world analogy: private clubs can certainly manage their own affairs, but there are some things they can't do without getting others (e.g., courts, lawyer, accrediting bodies, accountants, insurers...) involved. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I apologize for my "drive-by" comment, which was unfounded. Still, is Category:WikiProject Good articles a misnomer? WP:PROJ seems to intone that DYK, GA, and FA are all WikiProjects. The only thing I see about "community process" is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would feel differently if the proposal was about topic banning from say this page. That feels akin to a Wikiproject managing itself. But there is a reason Wikipedia:Good articles is the home of GA not WP:WikiProject Good Articles. There is a Good Article Wikiproject but that's not where Happy faces a ban from. It's from The Good Article process and that is a community process - it's why unlike WikiProjects GA appears on the article itself not just on the talk page.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'd actually go further and argue that even Wikiproject topic bans shouldn't be discussed on their talk pages. While Wikiprojects are allowed a fair degree of self governance, once you start talking about topic banning someone it should go to the community. Other editors are free to ignore any posts of someone to the Wikiproject if they wish. But once they start talking about a topic ban which can be enforced via blocks or reverting the editor IMO it should be handled like any topic ban. That said, even if others disagree on this aspect, I think it's hard to argue against Barkeep49's point. If I visit Talk:Joe Biden I see Talk:Joe Biden#Community reassessment, a transcluded assessment. Any member of the (en.Wikipedia) community should be entitled to take part unless sanctions prevent it. It shouldn't come via the Good Article Wikiproject imposing it without involving the wider community. Likewise if I or an anon visits Polyethnicity, we see the green good article plus symbol. Clicking on it takes us to Wikipedia:Good articles. The good article status is being promoted on the article itself. It's clearly something the wider community has an interest in and so again anyone should be allowed to participate unless the earlier requirements were met to prevent them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Request: Since a number of people feel there are procedural issues that prevent the WT:GAN page from being the proper venue for this proposal, even with a link back here from AN, pinging those admins (Nosebagbear, Doug Weller, and Girth Summit) in the hopes that one of them will move this proposal and discussion to AN (or whatever venue is best), perhaps with a pointer back here to the outer section (Consultation with Happypillsjr) to give context. Or perhaps one of the admins in the most recent thread (Barkeep49 and Josh Milburn) can take care of it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Now that the move to AN has taken place (after a few missteps), the discussion can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Creation request

Please create R/shitniggerssay and /r/shitniggerssay with

#REDIRECT[[Controversial Reddit communities#FatPeopleHate]]

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

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

Why? Does everything mentioned need a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, since this redirect is clearly unintended collateral of the title blacklist entry. If you think this redirect, and the redirects for the other 3 communities mentioned in that section, shouldn't exist, feel free to RfD them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: how to you see this as "unintended collateral" - the blacklist entry is fairly specific to include titles with this phrase in them at all, it was not a scunthorpe problem. This is basically an edit request, and it was clearly being at least questioned for further discussion; why did you feel using your template editor access was appropriate here? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Because one doesn't ususally need special privleges to create redirects, and the appropriateness of these redirects has nothing to do with the fact that they contain the N word in them. Either none of r/hamplanethatred, r/neofag, r/transfags, and r/shitniggerssay should exist, or all of them should, and the correct venue for that discussion is WP:RfD (as I said earlier), but the situation in which this request is not fulfilled, and all of the controversial subreddits banned on 10 June 2015 have redirects except for the one whose name happens to be on the title blacklist, makes no sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

One does require special privileges to create pages that violate the title blacklist, specifically because they may be controversial - that the page is a redirect doesn't make it special. I'm not arguing if these pages are actually appropriate or not, just why you didn't allow for the discussion to continue before acting. The TPE usage standards are fairly clear and it is quite a stretch to extend that access to this use case in my opinion. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you actually look at the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, you can see that this term was added in 2012 due to current, ongoing abuse, not due to controversial creations of pages whose titles legitimately include the n-word. 1234qwer1234's request was clearly made in good faith, so is in that sense not within the scope of the title blacklist entry. I disagree that my action constitutes blocking the discussion, merely redirecting it to the correct venue for challenging the existence of redirects (if anyone wishes to do so). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't address how you think your action was in the scope of template editing - the use case for TE's is "templates, modules, and editnotices" - and no xFD is not the correct venue to request a page creation. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, out of curiosity, are you a) intending on continuing this line of discussion as a formal review of Pppery's actions as they relate to the Template Editor permission, and/or b) intending a discussion about what constitutes a potentially contentious creation where the title blacklist is involved? I ask mainly to see if the above discussion should be put into its own sub-section or the whole thing can be closed off. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: my main concern is the Was this inappropriate use of the template editor tools by Pppery? issue. Feel free to section however it will best drive discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse action. This is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Template editor#Use, with emphasis added: "Editors are permitted to exercise this permission to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and editnotices." I don't see how one can claim that Pppery answering this reasonable edit request is abuse of template editor privileges: it's a reasonable request obviously in good faith, it improves the encyclopedia, there's no apparent consensus against creating descriptive redirects to this target and it's a thing we do very often (see WP:RNEUTRAL, WP:RFD#KEEP point #3, or WP:NOTCENSORED). The request was simply correcting an inconsistency in our coverage, and Pppery had the ability to respond; had I seen it first I would have done so. If an editor objects to the existence of redirects from these banned subreddits to the article subsection where they are described in encyclopedic detail, then that editor should list them for discussion at redirects for discussion, which is the correct venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: I don't want to get in to a silly argument about comma placement, but my reading of the spirit of the TPE guidelines is that the emphasis there should be on the to templates, modules, and editnotices part. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Are we endorsing and not endorsing this? Seems like a backward idea to create something that's on the blacklist and tell people to vote for it to be deleted if they don't like it. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia mostly works by allowing people to create things and letting people nominate them for deletion. For the record, if it adds any clarity, as an admin I would probably have accepted this request and created the redirects (and pointed complainers to RfD). Though I agree that Xaosflux probably has a point about TE permissions. Maybe this should be brought up at the TE page (it certainly isn't currently sanctionable for one instance). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Zzuuzz: I'm not looking to revoke ppp's TPE access here as a "sanction" - as an admin I wouldn't have created the pages as the request was at the time, since it was bring questioned - until there was a chance for the discussion to come to an end. Now that the pages are created, RfD is a good place to deal with them for anyone who doesn't want them there. When we select TPE's at WP:PERM we don't currently look to strongly review their non-technical consensus determining and content-related contributions to see if things like using the override titleblacklist permission on non-template related pages is something they would be good at, the same as we don't expect them the use tboverride to create borderline usernames; that access is primarily to extend the ability to manage edit notices to the toolkit. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I accept the request was being questioned, but with all respect to Johnuniq this is not a policy-based objection. It's also an objection which doesn't really hold up, as was later shown. As an admin I would have the leeway to exercise this discretion at some point, and I probably would have assuming no massive consensus developed otherwise. I hope this puts to rest the question I was responding to. At the same time a template editor probably does not have this discretion, either with or without an admin objecting. I don't think anyone here would want any sanction, but this noticeboard's slogan, "what admin action is being requested here" springs to mind. What I mean is that I find the policy a little weak in this area, and the policy's own page might be a suitable venue to clarify it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Page not found

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

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

@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for letting me know. Also if you could suggest me what to do next, whether I should go for deletion review or create a new article? USaamo (t@lk) 11:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@USaamo:. I think the best thing to do is restore the article to a Draft page for you to work on, assuming you have some reliable sources (which weren't present at the time of deletion). When you've finished updating it, I'd be happy to have a look at it before it's moved back to main space (and maybe Bearian would take a look too?) The important thing is to be sure you have the sources that demonstrate the school satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. So if you want me to check whatever sources you have and give you my opinion, I'd be happy to do so. Anyway, for starters, I've restored the article contents at Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

DAP388 userpage move request

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

@DAP389:  Confirmed I've moved them to your new account and left a redirect behind for convenience. ST47 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone delete

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

---

User:Awesome Aasim/test.json - I tried tagging it for speedy deletion per u1 but it is not transcluding for some reason. Aasim 00:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. PS do you remember me? :D Aasim 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Someone move

Per this discussion, can someone move 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States please? (Along with other move protected pages that need moving)? funplussmart (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Funplussmart,  Done FYI you can request moves to be done at WP:RMTR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:Bot requests#"2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" title changing. --Izno (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to lift Topic ban

Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. The main problem was relisting the discussions with no keep votes. Now I am familiar with the policy. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• A couple of questions @SS49:, I'd say you were TBanned for two main reasons (noquorum and relisting bias are extremely common for nacs) - can you identify and then expand upon the second issue? Secondly, do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way), and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose removing TBAN on relisting or closing discussions but sure to removing it for sorting. I would say there's been general consensus at WT:NAC that NAC at AfD is unnecessary except in a few cases including in a discussion spurred by this ANI thread. There is no need to expand our pool of potential closers to someone who has had issues doing this in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear:, My understanding on this area: If all points have been debated with no chance of consensus, the discussion should not be relisted. If new information shows up late in the discussion, relisting is suitable. It is important to participate in the discussion than relisting or closing. If the ban is removed, I will sort the discussions and will relist and close discussions if there is a clear reason to do so. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The other concern I wanted noted was your lack (or hostile) communication to those who tried to raise the issue. Most nacs (including myself in the past) get the issue raised at least occasionally, but so long as they're engaged with it isn't an issue.
• Like Barkeep I support sorting being reallowed, but I am currently neutral on the other aspects, I'll need to think further. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• SS49 I'm all for second chances, but I have a problem with supporting this. Your interests and motivations are none of my business, and I'm certainly not trying to imply anything improper, but I can't understand why someone would be so keen to clerk discussions that they so rarely take part in. I just looked at your contributions to AfD, hoping to find that you were engaging actively with the process, and evidence that you had a good understanding of policy, outcomes etc. What I see is that you have only participated in a dozen or so discussions since your TBan, and all your !votes/nominations are accompanied by a very short 'Non notable X' rationale. The only grounds for lifting the ban would be 'time served' which, when not accompanied by evidence of development of greater understanding, doesn't cut it for me. Can I make a suggestion though? We don't really need more hands on deck to help with closures, but we always need more people willing to review articles, evaluate sourcing, and actively take part in the discussions. Why not do that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, My username in topic ban list really discourages me. I want my username removed from that list. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SS49, I guess I can understand that. Have you actually read through the list though? Yes, some of it is a bit of a rogue's gallery, but you'll also find some very experienced and widely respected editors on there too - you're not in such bad company, it shouldn't feel like a mark of shame. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, Thanks for understanding. Much respect. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Barkeep49. I don't see any community benefit in having another potential closer, and I don't see evidence of SS49 having learnt since the ban was imposed. The communication failures noted by Nosebagbear are a strong red flag for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. The brief statement does not convince me that SS49 understands the problems with their editing. If they urgently want to close AfDs they should run for administrator. Sandstein 13:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wanting your username cleared of a badge of shame listing at WP:EDRC since March of 2019 is good motivation to change your behavior. However, by expressing you want to return to the same arena doing the same or similar things is cringe-worthy to me. If wanting to clear your name is a priority for you, never return to your old haunt ever. Then request the tban is irrelevant because you have moved on. With what you have stated here, I would have to oppose because it seems to be serving its intended purpose of keeping you out of trouble and conserving other editors' efforts. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, I would really want to see a good amount of actual, constructive participation in AfD debates if you want to demonstrate you're now competent to clerk and relist them. AfD needs editors looking at articles and sources closely rather more than it needs more non-admin clerking. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Voluntary rights removal

Since I have been inactive for a long time at pending changes, and I do not see that improving in the near future, I would like to request my PCR right to be removed --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Take good care of yourself, Kostas20142. SERIAL^# 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash

Relevant accounts:

• GargAvinash (talk · contribs · count)
• Kumargargavinash (talk · contribs · count)
• ADPS (talk · contribs · count)

Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students, GargAvinash, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, Kumargargavinash and ADPS. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by ToBeFree and Yamla (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Would it be an overreaction to apply WP:G5 and WP:BE where applicable, indefinitely block the sock account and insist on a proper unblock appeal in no less than six months? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  As a very minimum measure I insist on, I have removed the trust-based autopatrolled flag from the account. Ping Swarm who had been tricked into adding it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Factman67

User:Factman67 (talk) is an account primarily used for disruption/vandalism and refuses to engage in any sort of civil discourse. I'll leave what (if any) actions should be taken to address this to the reviewing administrators, but I wanted to at least get his editing tendencies on record.

Vandalism and disruptive editing examples

• [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (these last two examples clearly go against the consensus on the article's talk page)

Name calling, violations of CIVIL, etc. examples

• [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

... Actually, upon reviewing his editing history, 100% of his edits (literally) at the time of my post have been unconstructive, vandalism, and/or derogatory. I don't see any value in allowing him to continue, but again that's not for me to decide. Administrators, please review this user. I'll alert him to this noticeboard post per guidelines. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)