Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	0	23	23
TfD	0	0	12	8	20
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	1	9	10
RfD	0	0	0	30	30
AfD	0	0	0	15	15

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 59 sockpuppet investigations
• 36 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 76 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 37 requested closures
• 104 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 29 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 11944 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Yasser Abbas 2025-06-20 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Naufal Ahmad 2025-06-20 20:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Rsjaffe Draft:FanHero 2025-06-20 10:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Timeline of the Iran–Israel war 2025-06-20 06:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ersel Göral 2025-06-19 17:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: between this article and Ersel Goral, an approved, non-promotional draft demonstrating notability is needed Ponyo Ersel Goral 2025-06-19 17:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: between this article and Ersel Göral, an approved, non-promotional draft demonstrating notability is needed Ponyo Template:Spider-Man publications 2025-06-19 14:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Izno Category:Television series created by Keith Chapman 2025-06-19 05:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Materialscientist Category:Animated metafictional television series 2025-06-19 05:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Materialscientist User talk:Fuck 2025-06-19 04:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Materialscientist Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent 2025-06-19 03:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Seemingly created for WP:NHBE purposes Nyttend Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alias the Jester 2025-06-19 02:36 2025-06-26 02:36 edit,move pre-ECP editors using SPI to argue with each other Asilvering Responses to the Iran–Israel War 2025-06-18 10:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Doug Weller Union Theological College 2025-06-18 06:58 2025-07-02 06:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alias the Jester Asilvering Laura Barzon 2025-06-18 04:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: This has been created three times without sufficient care Pppery Talk:Iran–Israel proxy conflict 2025-06-18 02:22 indefinite edit,move oops, meant to do ECP Daniel Case Pahari people (Kashmir) 2025-06-17 23:11 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Izno Russkoye Porechnoye 2025-06-17 22:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Mohammad Kazemi (military officer) 2025-06-17 21:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ahmad-Reza Radan 2025-06-17 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:2024 Iran–Israel conflict 2025-06-17 21:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Humraaz (TV series) 2025-06-17 19:04 2025-07-17 19:04 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Rsjaffe List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel War 2025-06-17 18:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Rsjaffe Khot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2025-06-17 15:32 indefinite move Restoring protection by Ivanvector: Persistent sock puppetry Protection Helper Bot Morè (clan) 2025-06-17 14:00 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Favonian Tamil genocide 2025-06-17 08:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Guerillero Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 2025-06-17 08:14 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction Guerillero List of attacks attributed to the LTTE 2025-06-17 08:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Guerillero

Venezuela topics

Could we have more admin eyes on Venezuela topics per this reddit thread, posted to my talk? It seems to be having a recruiting effect: for example, a Move discussion at 2019 Venezuela uprising has received a lot of non-policy-based input.[1] Still waiting for my government paycheck. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - me too! Not to mention being notified of our mass secret agenda. Maybe I need to enable 2-factor authorisation before they'll tell me? In any case, the reddit thread discussions, that there are several of atm on AN, don't seem especially co-ordinated at recruiting...they have a habit to wander off into attacking us and our Kafkaesque ways. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The biggest threat to neutrality on those articles is the "deprecation" of news sources, which has rapidly progressed from Daily Mail to TeleSUR,[2] and I suspect any other media outlet favoring the Venezuelan government's perspective would also be at risk. Our article about TeleSUR is not flattering and I doubt it is untrue, exactly, but in this day and age who would have more confidence in the BBC or any news outlet owned by some wealthy billionaire (and what other kind is there?)? Unless editors resist the calls to exclude these perspectives when there is no reason to doubt their veracity -- and administrators resist calls to censure editors who do so resist -- the resulting articles will end up reading like propaganda from whichever side has voted all the others off the island. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TBH this whole area could stand to be put under discretionary sanctions for a couple of years due to how controversial it is. Jtrainor (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can we not close "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing"

I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC, WP:3 and WP:DRN, but all of these requests have been reverted. I do not see what type of harm that closing this long standing discussion will have, so I am posting this here, to generate discussion about whether or not this thread should be listed at WP:ANRFC for closure. Two users, one being an administrator, believe that my request at WP:ANFRC was legitimate, therefore, I believe that my request should stay there until someone decides to close the thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bump - Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• It looks to me like the thread (which has gone to archive) was closed on May 3. Do you want us to un-archive it, wrap it in a "no consensus" banner, and re-archive it? Sometimes discussions just end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'd request admins please be careful to distinguish between the separate sub-thread about prohibition of paid editing, and the original, main discussion about the HuffPo article. While declining to close to sub-thread on the policy of "Prohibition of paid editing", User: SoWhy, as an uninvolved admin, looked at the main thread and summarized consensus on AN Requests for Closure: "regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." RfC. Any closure should reflect that finding (perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a fresh look to see if they agree.) The AN discussion's main thread was also used by an editor at ANI to find another RSN discussion of HuffPo was not warranted. "[A]s an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case." ANI. This outcome will be different, requiring a fresh RSN discussion of the whole HuffPo article, if it is implied the main thread has "no consensus." While the allegations in the HuffPo article have been removed from four articles I know of based on the AN discussions, there is now ongoing RfC about the use of this source on Facebook and Axios. It would be misleading and counter-productive to these discussions to imply all the investigations and discussion on main thread resulted in "no consensus." FYI, there was also a finding that "no consensus" would be inappropriate for the sub-thread because the "prohibition on paid editing" !vote violated the process for revising WP: PAID. RfC Thanks BC1278 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector and others: Would it be possible to at least formally close the main thread, about the HuffPo article, as already summarized above by SoWhy (or afresh, by any other uninvolved editor)? I ask because the same allegations from the HuffPo article keep getting used over and over again in Wikipedia articles, despite what SoWhy and Swarm have characterized as the consensus over at AN that they are B.S. No weight is being accorded the AN consensus. Like on Facebook. Going through that exhausting argument multiple times, with new editors at each article, is a waste of resources. BC1278 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensual outing

Is it appropriate and not a violation of our harassment policy to out another editor with the consent of the outed editor? Although I didn't see anything about this in WP:OUTING, WP:COI#Avoid outing has the following language (bolding for emphasis): When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.

In this particular case, I've accused another editor of having a COI and violating WP:PAID, based primarily on off-wiki evidence of the editor's identity. The accused editor has demanded that I present the evidence. The specific question is, may I post the evidence of their identity if the accused editor gives me express permission to do so?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this. I can post this at WP:COIN, WT:COIN, WT:COI, or wherever if that would be more appropriate. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mail it to any sysop. Yunshui and TonyBallioni are two names, that spring to my mind. ∯WBG^converse 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to post the evidence at WP:COIN so that the community can weigh in (and the accused editor can defend themselves). Of course, I wouldn't do that if it would violate WP:OUTING. Hence the question. Though I do appreciate the referrals. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not outing if the subject is okay with disclosing their identity. But this kind of situation is why [email protected] was set up. If you email the details there admins authorised to handle private information can handle it. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they are giving you permission to "out" them, why don't they just out themselves so there's no question about whether it's proper? Natureium (talk)

Joe Roe and Natureium, it is not yet clear whether they are giving explicit permission. I think R2 is, correctly, treading carefully: if someone says "show me the evidence", it is not certain that this means "publicly post information linking my account and real world identity". --JBL (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides the paid-en-wp email, seems to me that the best course is to post the evidence minus necessary details, i.e. explain exactly what you have without giving any personal information. "Hello, User:Soandso, I found someone called "Soandso" at such-and-such.com, and that account was explicitly linked to someone with such-and-such a name who lived at a certain address and had such-and-such email address. That person has written several paragraphs about this same topic on that website, and your writing here sounds identical in style and vocabulary to what Soandso wrote on the other website." As long as you don't say what website you're talking about, literally all you're saying is that the username exists somewhere else, and the user here can always reject a connection. Either the user will tell you to post the details, in which case you definitely have permission, or the user will be satisfied without saying to post them, so you won't need to do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I remember a vaguely similar situation with John D. Haynes House. Someone claiming to be the owner repeatedly removed location information saying "Don't post the address of my home", even though the local government's GIS website provided the owner's address and said that it was something like 700 miles away. So we had someone claiming that his personal information had been posted (but not because it was his personal information, but because the location was relevant to the house article, and he was the only one claiming that it was his information), and the only way to disprove him was to provide the owner's actual personal information. In the end, we basically ignored his complaints, since the address was sourced to reliable government documentation, and any building's location is obviously significant enough to include in an article about that building. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Honest words, outing anyone for anything is not worth the trouble. Genuinely. Even if the editor has a COI, it is an area that is so muddled that you'll never know what you're ending up with. Share private information via private channels only, there is no value in arguing a consensual disclosure, at the end of it, you might have to face the schtick for it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Just confirm with the person that they really consented when they said "present the evidence". Ask them something like: "do you really mean post my currently offline research, that contains what I believe is your real name, affiliation, etc."? If they say no then don't post it. Since it's private info, send it to a checkuser, not a regular admin. If suspected COI editor asks you to send the info to them privately, refuse to do so-- there's no use helping them cover their tracks; and anyway, if the info is wrong it could compromise the named person's privacy. Once the CU's have the info, leave further disclosure up to them. Also don't post identifying info (even if the editor consents) unless you're pretty sure that it's correct. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Outing someone, even if they give you permission to do so, isn't a good idea and could put you into a very bad position of having to defend your actions from being met with appropriate sanctions in response. You should instead have the user out themselves on Wikipedia so that there's no chance for ambiguity or debate in that aspect, or whether or not what they said really was consent and approval for you to publish the editor's personal identifiable information onto Wikipedia. Plus, you don't really know for sure if the person truly is who they say they are. No one does. I would not mess or dance around in that area at all. The policy on outing is taken very seriously, and those who violate it can face very severe sanctions (such as an indefinite block) - even for a first offense. Don't risk it. Take the advice that others have given to you here and take it to the appropriate noticeboard for an investigation. If they disclose things on Wikipedia that can be used as evidence against them, then that's the appropriate time to mention those details. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• That doesn't sound, to me, like the other editor is consenting to being outed. Be aware, that WP:OUTING is in balance with WP:COI and it isn't cut and dry that one can violate WP:OUTING merely to aid in the investigation of WP:COI. Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing is useful here, if only reminding us all that there is some nuance in these things. The ArbCom has itself issued a response to the above statement. Be aware that the local community has generally come down in favor of a stronger WP:OUTING policy over exposing WP:COI editing, and editors have been sanctioned in the past for going too far. Tread carefully. --Jayron32 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock assist

Resolved

 – Range was blocked --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 77Survivor has asked on my talk page if an admin could please look into blocking this range of IPV6 users:

• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:84A5:FE3D:5E83:B697 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:A0C0:4E61:BD7:7C07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:C459:90B7:1A4A:DCDC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:9FC:45B1:33D7:A8E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The issue, briefly, is that this range is submitting a ton of unsourced film genres. Looking through their edits, I see a bunch of questionable stuff like "action-drama" here for instance, when most action films are dramas. Here we get "thriller drama" when most thrillers are dramas, here we get thriller drama again. Here we get "action masala" even though by definition, an Indian masala film combines a variety of genres including action, comedy, romance, drama. If any of you cook, "masala" is mixed spices. (Coriander, cardamom, mace, cumin, turmeric, etc.) So anyone going out of their way to expand these genres are just adding words for the sake of adding words. The general range identified thus far is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70.*. If anyone can please calculate whether or not a rangeblock is possible in this area, I would be most appreciative, as it is not my area of specialty. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: A range that covers those is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:0:0:0:0/64 (2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:0:0:0:0 - 2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - What you're describing translates to an IPv6 CIDR range of 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70::/64, which I've blocked as you requested. Since this range makes a lot of edits, I kept the block to 36 hours. We can always extend it if necessary. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and DannyS712: Thank you both. IP ranges are a tricky business for me and maybe I don't need to be as scared of them as I am, but I do appreciate the mind power you both donated, as well as the actual blocking that you did, Oshwah. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - No problem! Always happy to help. :-) Once you have someone give you a crash course on ranges, how they work, and what the numbers mean when they're calculated - it's really not too awful. The main thing to know is that ranges for IPv4 addresses are different than ranges for IPv6 addresses, since IPv6 addresses are longer, use hex (base-16) instead of base-10, and other things. I have a response that I made awhile back for another admin that you might be interested in reading. Take a look at it here - it explains the difference between IPv4 and IPv6 ranges and goes over everything a little bit. If you're looking for a tutorial more like this, let me know and I can type one up. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sivagopalakrishnan

Sivagopalakrishnan (talk · contribs) has recently admitted (here) to undisclosed paid editing and very belated made the required disclosure on SamHolt6's talk page, which was then copied to their user page and the article talk page for them. While looking a bit deeper, I found a disclosure on Commons from 2016March 2019 where they admitted paid editing trying to get unblocked (unsuccessfully). They've been pressed here on their talk page to make the required disclosures on all other articles they've created for pay. They've edited since those comments without responding or making disclosures, so I'm coming here for some admin help on this. I'm pretty confident that many of the articles they've created have been for pay and more than a few have been substandard. Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali is a pretty good example of that. Many of their edits are related to Indian film and television which is probably very under-represented here but also has a lot of WP:UPE happening. At this point, I'd like to see a block until they respond to the concerns AND make all of the required declarations. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Cyphoidbomb as an admin highly involved in the topic areas. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirming the authenticity of Ravensfire's points above, and taking the time to thank them for their diligence. I originally suspected Sivagopalakrishnan of COI/UDP editing after I reviewed their work at Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali and found it to be riddled with puffery and WP:OR; very credible off-wiki evidence (being withheld out of respect for WP:OUTING) confirmed a paid connection between the editor and company. I have no bearing on any other potential violations of WP:PAID, but will comment that Ravensfire's points are strong, Sivagopalakrishnan's comments on the WMC are highly indicative of more undisclosed paid editing, and that future failure to communicate (WP:COMMUNICATION) should be grounds for a block.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Silence is never a good sign from editors like these and I would support a block until they start speaking and, as Ravensfire has suggested, until they agree to announce paid editing for each of the article's they've manipulated for pay. This, however, is contingent on a "are they even worth keeping around" analysis. If all they're doing is puffing up articles, I would be disinclined to let them loose in the wild again. If they tend to edit well with occasional bouts of puffery, that's a different story, perhaps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I misread / mis-remembered the date of their Commons post. It was actually from March 2019, not 2016. That does change the scope, but I still strongly believe that Sivagopalakrishnan has multiple articles that they've edited for pay and need to disclose, plus they really need to respond to comments made by other editors. My apologies for the brain spasm. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My own preference is that once an editor has been caught poisoning Wikipedia by undisclosed paid editing, they should not be given a second chance, at least not until they have blocked long enough to be eligible for standard offer. My own opinion would be no second chance even for an editor who otherwise has a reputation as an "excellent content creator", which is not the case here. We give far too many chances to editors who admit after the fact that they have been engaged in previously undisclosed paid editing. Our procedures for declared paid editing are very generous, and there is no excuse for not complying with them from the start. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Post RfC notice?

Hi,

There is a RfC on an article involving an extensive AN discussion from several weeks ago. Is it appropriate for me to post a neutral notice of the RfC here? BC1278 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know if it affects the determination, but I will additionally note I am a disclosed paid editor. BC1278 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't a formal RfC so that discussion didn't need a formal close. I know another editor had tried pretty hard to get a formal close on that thread and basically the answer was "not every thread needs a formal close". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:This question is not about the RSN discussion. It's regarding a statement in a specific article about a company using the HuffPo essay as its source. I am asking whether it's appropriate for me to post a neutral notice about the RfC regarding the company article since the identical issues have already been discussed at length here at Admin Noticeboard. So far, the RfC for the company article has only one response, from an already involved editor. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 sorry I misunderstood the question. This details how you can permissibly publicize an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about outing

If a user has voluntarily disclosed their identity on another language Wikipedia, but not on enwiki, would it be OK for someone to disclose their identity on enwiki? If not OK, would such a disclosure be blockable for outing? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well that's an interesting turn of phrase: unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia (emphasis in original). So presumably es.wiki or de.wiki are fair game, but Wikidata and Commons are right out. GMG^talk 16:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo That interpretation of policy produces an absurd result and thus, cannot be correct. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, common sense probably dictates that this should be replaced with "on a public Wikimedia project". GMG^talk 16:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would be conservative and say that it means English Wikipedia. We don't write rules for other Wikis and while someone may have outed themselves on another wiki, it's not our job to bring that person's name into the English wiki if they choose not to do so. I would "err" on the side of until they release their personal information on this wiki, you can't do it either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• That policy page should be amended to include Commons in "Wikipedia". Most of the time the information is included in the local versions of file pages anyway. I can recall at least one occasion where the disclosed-on-Commons identity of an uploader was discussed on en-wiki, without causing any concern. The discussion involved the removal of various images over licensing issues, and citing the Commons disclosure was uswful, if not necessary, to resolve the copyright concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I can think of no reason any editor would be justified in posting another editor’s personal information anywhere at any time. Even if someone posts their personal information on the English Wikipedia there is no reason any other editor should be repeating that personal information on the English Wikipedia. It is irrelevant to what we do here. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Some people put their name on their talk page or user page, so they are OK with being "outed." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• How is an editor’s actual identity ever of any relevance to anything being discussed? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bus stop This response of mine is off topic of MelanieN's original query, but the actual identity of users is often extremely relevant when, for example, discussing copyright status of their contributions (and their ability to release text and/or images under an appropriate license). It's also relevant when discussing issues surrounding COI and paid editing. Those are just two examples, I'm sure there are more. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• COI/PAID stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Both of these responses are right on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Those are specific exceptions. In light of such exceptions I would revise my position to assert that outside of such explicit exceptions the disclosure or even the mere mention of information pertaining to another editor’s real life identity should be strongly frowned upon. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you've rediscovered the idea of having an outing policy. --JBL (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sir Joseph. I really need an opinion about other language Wikipedias, not so much the WikiMedia issue. This is not a theoretical question; I am looking at a case of this situation right now. My response was to redact and revdel the disclosure, and to warn the discloser not to do it again, but not to block them. They are now asking if they can disclose it at the COI board. Any other comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The letter of the policy says "Wikipedia". Whether that should be changed or clarified would be a good question for an RfC at WP:HARASS. Whether a local-only option is even technically feasible (it isn't) is a different matter. Whether users are regularly outed cross-wiki when they have outed themselves already on some other public Wikimedia project is simply a matter of fact. GMG^talk 16:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING GMG^talk 19:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I would always err on the side of caution: When in doubt, don't out someone. Unless someone is actively displaying their personal data on their user page currently at en.wikipedia, you shouldn't presume to do that for them. --Jayron32 19:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Building off ONUnicorn's comment, here's a realistic situation that I just came up with. User:123456789ab uploads a file at Commons, claims it as an own work, and lists the author's name as "John Doe". Here at en:wp, 123456789ab uploads a file, claims it as an own work, and lists the author's name as "Jane Smith". Obviously one or the other is wrong, and barring evidence of permission from an actual uploader, we'll need to delete both images on copyright-related grounds. The nominator's statement at en:WP:FFD would need to cite the Commons statement (otherwise there would be no reason to nominate it), and sanctioning the nominator for such a nomination would be absurd. The point of WP:OUTING is that you don't compromise someone's anonymity; if you've already publicly stated your identity, you don't have anonymity that can be compromised. But yet this isn't a "go ahead and do whatever you want"; our policies are fine with admins sanctioning users who repeat self-posted information in a malicious manner or for malicious purposes. I know someone else's real name from his first Commons upload, but if I just go around randomly saying "So-and-so's real name is X; here's the diff" without good reason, I deserve to be blocked for harassment. But if he starts saying "I'm a professor and my name is John Smith [link to a real Prof. John Smith's faculty page]" and starts convincing people to do a good deal of stuff based on those claims, it would be reasonable to link the Commons upload and say "When you registered, you claimed to be this other person". Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS, see Essjay controversy. A major factor in this incident was this talk page note, in which Dev920 said to Essjay "according to your Wikia userpage, you're 24 years old and worked for this company, but according to your Wikibooks userpage here, you're 30 years old and a theology professor". Dev920's block log is clear, but if self-posted items on other WMF sites are off-limits, she should have been sanctioned immediately, and given the profile of the case (it got major news media coverage), there's no way she could have been overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why can we not ask this person for their consent instead a community discussion (without that person) or a mountainous policy debate? The whole point on having a harassment policy is to ensure people's privacy is protected -- which may very well end up protecting people we may eventually need to block -- but it reduces the possibility where someone makes a mistake and they do not have to live with those consequences forever. Mkdw ^talk 04:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case I am dealing with, the person is strongly objecting to having their identity revealed here. And up to this point it has not been. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that answers our question about whether it should be done or not, if not from a policy point of view, for moral and ethical reasons. If this person is disruptive or in violation of our policies, we have other preventative measures that can be taken without further spreading their personal identifying information. Mkdw ^talk 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the person strongly objects, that's significant — copying the statement from another project still isn't outing, but it's harassment if we don't have a very good reason. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly No. We are not here to "out" anyone. Even if an editor posts up personal information about themselves, no matter where they post it or to what extent is the information detailed, we are not here to amplify or facilitate the dissemination of such information in any shape, way, or form. Unless an individual has chosen to work in Wikipedia under his real name, the correct way to address that individual is by their chosen Wkipedia-pseudonym. Even if the individual posts up personal information with an explicit permission (or even a request) to use that information any way we want, we should strictly avoid using it: We're not here to promote anyone, either.

We are here to improve the encyclopaedic content of Wikipedia. That's it. The social interaction encouraged by the existence of user pages and talk pages, as well as the existence of community projects, often confuse people. Well, Wikipedia is not a message board. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed at the helpdesk

There's a minor dilemma at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Merge_to_a_draft_-_what_to_do_about_redirect? involving redirects to draft, copyright attribution, and parallel edit histories. I don't know how to solve it, and neither does the other administrator who is trying to help. Please comment there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for OTRS ticket

Wikimedia received a complaint about an article. ticket:2018112910001631 That complaint was received in November and has not yet been acted upon.

The article is in the Azerbaijanian Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, OTRS does not have a queue for that language.

The usual step in such cases is to track down a trusted admin with a working knowledge of the language and asked them to help. Can anyone recommend someone who might be able to help?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The entire azwiki administrative body is going to be removed pretty soon, so it's best to post it to a global sysop/steward. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Sup with the azwiki cabal?! ——SerialNumber54129 11:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What cabal? Also, I realize I might have accidentally included a juicy nugget of information, so people can go to meta:Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki and know what exactly happened. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Maaan...that is sceptic. Way to give the canalistas a bad name :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging stewards, @HakanIST and Mardetanha: who both have az included in their babel. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, Thanks. To the stewards: if either of you are willing to take it on my intended next step would be to ask if this is still an open issue given the timing, and asking for permission to share the email contents with you. As you probably know, OTRS agents cannot share contents of OTRS Emails without permission. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: Stewards have access to all info-queues. — regards, Revi 01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, by the way, HakanIST and Mardetanha are both non-enwiki users and are unlikely to notice pings on this wiki. (I discovered this because I was looking around enwiki AN for fun wikidrama^tm) You may want to contact them via Meta where you are more likely to receive a response. — regards, Revi 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

-revi, good point S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Mardetanha is already on the ticket actually! Stewards are more helpful than we give them credit for tbh. We sometimes ping non-enwiki stewards for global locks at SPI, someone usually comes by in a while. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, wow, that's great to hear. I was going to reach out personally but haven't had a chance so I'm happy to hear they are on it. It's quite a challenging ticket so this is great to hear S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler

The users Bilcat and Trekphiler appear to be making repeated disruptive edits on the article Vacuum distillation, as well as threatening users with bans for warning them. [3]

The edit history shows they have repeatedly removed information that is cited by textbooks, while repeatedly claiming the cites do not exist. The citation are clearly listed, and so it is clear that this is intentional disruptive editing. Not only that, but there are links to the main articles on the additional information, all of which are well cited as well. They have both been told this, yet continue to pretend that the citations and links do not exist.

Both of them have also repeatedly deleted the warnings on their user pages and insulted users who posted them. The users show clear sockpuppet behavior both on the article and on their user pages, where they assist one another in bypassing the revert rules and removing warnings.

A quick look at Trekphiler's user page shows he believes he is somehow being targeted for harassment and makes accusations against the admins, even though there is no indication of any harassment except users repeatedly asking him to follow wikipedia guidelines.

Both users show a total lack of respect for the guidelines, generally unstable behavior, and have knowingly continued to make disruptive edits using clearly false statements. I respectfully request that the admins take disciplinary action against both users.

Thank you for your time and all the effort you put into wikipedia. 174.234.11.61 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

They are both users in good standing. At a glance, it looks like they are removing your addition because, even though you provide two sources, not everything you've added has proper attribution. Please stop edit warring and realise that the onus is actually on you to discuss the changes on the article talk page. El_C 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article (but not talk page) for a week to end the edit war (I hope); both "sides" are asked to talk about it on the article talk page and help actually improve the content, citations, etc.

[Any administrator may undo or change as see fit etc etc., notification or documentation why appreciated KthxBai] Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, the IP addresses are a thousand miles apart and not attempting to mask their location information at all, so they are not the same users.

Secondly, they are not in good standing and one of them even makes false accusations against the admins on his own page. This is not the kind of behavior that a member in good standing makes with absolutely no proof whatsoever against the admins.

Thirdly, neither of you has read the history or the citations, where they both claim sources literally do not exist before changing their claims to again falsely claim that the sources do not discuss the topic. Their reverts were clearly false and intentionally disruptive.

Read the history and the cited sources and it becomes 100% clear that they are being intentionally disruptive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Again, even only at a glance, not everything that you've added has citations attached. A user can be in good standing and still be a bit ranty about admin abuse. We can take it. El_C 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not read the sources and neither have either user before they claimed the cites did not exist AT ALL. Only after being repeatedly called out did they admit the source exist, then falsely claim they do not cover the information provided. Every single response here has not even read what is going on or the cited sources before judging them. How can you make a judgment about the information without even reading?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Because it's obvious there are portions of that addition that lack attribution. El_C 08:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is all the bold text really necessary? Have mercy on our eyes. El_C 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As Ive asked already, how can you know if you have not read it? What are you basing your judgment off of if you have no read it? Both additional sections are cited, and the links to the articles agree and are cited too. What exactly is not cited? Show examples. Not one of you has listed a single instance of information which was not cited, you just keep repeating it without having shown any actual instances. What information are you referring to? If you have an actual example, why not post it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

So much bold text. "[W]hich lowers the boiling point of most liquids" — no attribution. "[O]ften improves efficiency, and vacuum distillation of ocean water is considered one of the most efficient ways of Desalination" — no attribution. El_C 08:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe if someone had used tags or the talk section instead of throwing a massive hissy fit and edit warring, we could have clarified that information earlier.

As far as the statements you have challenged, not only is it cited repeatedly in other sections, there are multiple links where its cited in the links as well. In fact, its grade school level science and shown on many kids shows.

References

Perhaps if members do not have a grade school level science education they should stay out of scientific articles. There should be a minimum level of knowledge, just like the medical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Please don't force everyone to sign your comments for you. Anyway, it takes at least two to edit war. Yes, tagging problematic portions with {{cn}} would have been one way to go. But once your content has been reverted, you should have gone to the talk page and figured out what's what there. Also, this the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (yes, that also includes medical articles), and that is not about to change anytime soon. El_C 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've been watching this developing for a while and have avoided commenting on the talk: page, where this belongs, because I know how much personal hostility it will engender from Trekphiler (WP:ANI passim, but whilst we might describe BilCat as "in good standing", that certainly raises an eyebrow for Trekphiler).

We have here a conflict between a new and inexperienced editor (or at least AGF suggests that), who chooses to use an IP address, and two long-experienced editors. None of whom are making particularly good edits, but that is surely a bit more forgivable for new editors, not old hands. The two established editors are doing nothing other than persistent tag-team edit-warring for repeated dogmatic reversions of added content. 6RR over a few days. I can see no attempt by them at discussing this, beyond a bit of boilerplate, certainly not to discuss any content issues.

The content being added here is uncontroversial. It's not rocket surgery, it's college-level basic description of vacuum distillation. No-one here should ever challenge the addition of "lowers the boiling point": if it's not already there, that's a glaring omission and needed fixing. If it needs sourcing, then source it yourself, don't remove it (because it's a glaring omission to not say that). If you don't know this already, then don't mess with this article, it's clearly not your subject and you're likely to make it worse. Yes, sourcing is always a requirement. But I don't see any sourcing being added here (well, there was some, and that got reverted too!). A lack of sourcing in stuff which borders on the "self-evident" (Everipedia would be encouraging this as "editor knowledge", although we don't work that way) is no excuse to 6RR edit-war against any other editor, especially not in such a disconnected and uncommunicative fashion. Talk to people – it's how we get a mess like this sorted out. Explain just what the content problem is, and encourage the provision of adequate sourcing.

The IP editor has not helped here. They're templating as much as anyone, and WP:DTTR never works out well. But still, new editors, AGF, what else can we do but smile and be patient? Edit-warring with a lot of WP:IDHT in response is no way to go.

Sadly this sort of dogmatic bulk reversion is characteristic of much of BilCat's editing. I know this well: I overlap a lot with both of them, and I also find myself in BilCat's position of rolling back lots of unconstructive new additions which really don't belong here. But look at Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B016:5BC7:4CE5:D69E:8D86:58B9: four good, albeit unsourced, additions to separate articles and BilCat rolls them back [4] [5] [6]. He leaves one, because it's sourced. Otherwise it's no different. But rather than building on that, with a discussion (not a template) about how that's what we need, the rest is just rollback and edit-warring. Now I'm not saying he's wrong to do that, but it's not a welcoming environment for a new editor, it's not a constructive change to WP overall, and when the situation gets "worse" immediately afterwards with an edit-war on one of those, then that is not the time to continue a dogmatic edit-war with a tag-team (surely innocently, but still the same effect) to avoid technical violation of 3RR! And have I really had to describe "inspiring an edit-war" as "better" than just driving a new editor away altogether?

This is seriously unimpressive editing. The only thing more unimpressive is when (please don't) they then use the week's semi-protection as a lever against an IP editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACKUSE—To revert obvious vandalism? (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff]) seems to be a common denominator, admittedly. ——SerialNumber54129 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but for better or worse, that's just not how Wikipedia works. We don't have enough experts around in all fields for even the purported self-evident to lack attribution. And it certainly ought to be sourced by the person behind the addition, not by the person seeking it. El_C 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then they should use proper tags instead of throwing hissy fits and edit wars. Everyone keeps saying the onus is on new users to prove their edit, but how are users supposed to clarify something if the users like Trek and Bilcat wont communicate like adults or discuss anything? They just keep throwing fits and having edit wars and refuse to communicate!

If they refuse to tag disputed content or discuss what needs to be clarified, then their complaints are automatically invalid. It takes zero effort to add tags compared to the massive time consuming edit warring fits they routinely throw. They are experience users and should be expected to behave as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk)

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. You don't get to set the rules by which people's complaints are valid. You don't get to ignore valid complaints because they were not formatted correctly. Also, above El_C has laid out additional problems with your proposed additions, which you have repeatedly ignored. --Jayron32 13:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I'm the slightest surprised by Andy Dingley's dismissive & insulting attitude, nor by his taking the opportunity to weigh in against me uninvited. Nor am I surprised in particular false claims of vandalism are treated as perfectly okay, so long as they're made against me; I can imagine the outrage had I made them. Nor, frankly, am I surprised false (& frankly incredible) accusations of sockpuppetry are apparently okay, too. I will offer no defense, since it's a waste of time, only invite anyone interested to examine the diffs for themselves. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• You mean an accusation like this? "i can't tell if this is vandalism or just stupidity, but i'm leaning toward vandalism"

An IP editor does something that you don't understand, so you revert it, don't discuss it, and then can't decide whether to call them stupid or a vandal? But hey, they're only IP editors, and your attitude towards them is obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Andy, a registered editor does something you don't understand to an IP, so you naturally side with the IP. You don't discuss it in a neutral manner, and you don't wait for the accused editors to defend and explain themselves. You simply attack them with comments "this sort of dogmatic bulk reversion is characteristic of much of BilCat's editing". That's really helpful in diffusing hostility. But hey, we're only registered editors, and your attitude towards us is obvious. There's a lot more to this situation than you know, but you don't even wait to find out what that is before passing judgment, and making an already bad situation much worse. Btw, you probably revert my edits more than any other editor reverts me, and you NEVER talk to me about it first. But I'm an old hand, so to heck with respect. If you run me off, too bad. How long does a new editor have to be on Wikipedia before you're free to treat them badly? Six months, a year? - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Folks, for the record, see User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. I blocked the /64 for evasion of the ban noted at User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI#Community topic ban. You might note that the OP here, User:174.234.11.61, geolocates to the same place, as do the other IPv6 addresses also used in this discussion. There are behavioural matches too (including making unsourced or poorly sourced edits, and complaining strenuously about other editors when they are reverted), so I reckon this is User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI for sure. They're not actually evading their ban here, as the ban was from the history of Nazi Germany, but whoever evaluates this should note the deceptive editing while logged out. (DbivansMCMLXXXVI is actually blocked now for the ban evasion, so any further edits here logged out while the block is in place will constitute block evasion.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2019

Discouraged about backlogs

Color me discouraged.

Some of you may know that my Wikipedia activity was low for a few months due to family situation. I'm back, but feeling a little overwhelmed.

Readers often have issues with articles that they wish to bring to our attention. Not knowing how to navigate the Wikimedia world, they typically send in a query to a Wikimedia address which gets handled by the volunteers at OTRS.

I had been trying to keep the (Info English Wikipedia) backlog down to about 100, but when I returned, it had ballooned to 450, some of which were months old. With the help of other OTRS volunteers, the backlog is down to about 270 but there are still queries going untouched for weeks. If this was my only issue, I wouldn't be here.

My original hope had been to get the info backlog down to a manageable size and then tackle the permissions queue, where people send in licenses for images (and occasionally text). That backlog is over 2000 (all languages), and a brief glance suggests that there are many tickets over a year old that haven't been touched.

A few minutes ago I processed a ticket from someone wishing to create a username. In certain cases, A request sent to WP:ACC gets kicked over to OTRS. I decided to check there to see if it had been filed their first and I saw the notice at the top of the page:

The request an account process is severely backlogged. If you submit a request today, you can expect a response in approximately 3 months.

I do understand that the article review process is backlogged and arguably our main mission is creating articles so one could argue that's the most important backlog. However, I have no problem explaining to an editor that reviewing a draft article is a challenging task and waiting a couple months is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a much tougher time explaining why someone asking a simple question, wishing to donate an image to us, or asking for an account so that they can contribute, should expect to wait 3 to 12 months for a response.

There were only one queue, I might be simply pleading for some experienced editors interested in contributing in other ways to step up and volunteer to help tackle one of these queues, but with this many backlogs, I'm wondering if we need a more organized response. Maybe we need to develop a clear statement of the problem, and determine whether we simply bake for more resources and throw them at the problem, a whether we need to rethink the workflow.

This is not the right forum for an in-depth study but I'm hoping it's a good place to get some feedback on next steps.What--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing OTRS has no distinction of tiering (Data_center_management#Tech_Support)? Tier 1 for easy tickets and tier 2 for harder? --Izno (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Izno, I'm not intimately familiar with the software, but I'm not aware that it has automatic support for tiering. That said, I'm sure we have the ability to create new queues, and I have occasionally mulled over whether we should have a triage system, and move tickets into 1. Seems straightforward 2. a little work needed 3. buckle up queues. As anecdotal evidence, just yesterday I handled a five-month-old ticket that was very simple to answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Tickets are distributed among queues (you can only access when you are explicitly granted) and subqueues (which are automatically accessible if you have access to the queue), it's basically a free-for-all where agents can choose where they want to focus their attention to, so it's not tiering but separation of work based on supply-demand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The OTRS software does support prioritising of tickets, the question is how to prioritise them. Nthep (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nthep, Now that you mention it, of course you are right. I had forgotten it was there but I'm pretty sure no one ever uses it. If we were to conclude it would we could try. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been giving a lot of thought to this topic myself as the New Page Queue is my primary backlog (TonyBallioni tells me I'm wrong about calling it a backlog but I see it is a potato/can't get your article in google sorta situation) and our queue has been growing. Over the last year there have been a few users who have done way more patrolling and far fewer users who have done a little bit of patrolling. I'd seen this in some other areas as well (including OTRS where I am one of the ones doing just a little bit of work). My conclusion, which I've though about writing an essay about but just hadn't though through all the way, is that we're near or just over a tipping point where we don't have the editor time to support the bureaucracy we've created but we also can't really pare back that bureaucracy because in most cases it's there for good reasons. I am a learned optimist so I don't like ending on this conclusion given the understandable feelings expressed above but those are my .02. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Has the idea of handing OTRS over to WMF ever been seriously proposed? It seems like one of the few things currently done by volunteers that might be sensibly done by paid staff, except insofar as direct substantive edits are required as a result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_172#Failing_"request_an_account"_process and Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account#Does_anyone_care? (courtesy ping Swarm and Bluerasberry) for perspectives on ACC backlog. It's a boring tedious task and I, for one, find writing articles to be much more lucrative. Extensive automation workflows have been thought out but they are stuck due to constraints of volunteer time (which's perfectly understandable) -- the entire software is managed by volunteers.

• For a starter, WMF needs to divert fund into developing these technological aspects rather than spend millions on stupid re-branding deals and/or hiring travel-managers. As Kudpung might allude to, we managed to convince them to minimally support NPP -- a basic maintenance suite after begging for years, which is sheer pathetic. As much as there's a general reluctance of the community to be involved in heavily bureaucratic workflows, there's no denying that the technology that runs most of our stuff are developed and maintained by volunteers and are often not suitable to drive the 5th largest website in the world. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• My own ideas of what needs to happen -
  • More small grants to Wikimedia affiliates, perhaps with a goal of 50 wiki community organizations receiving WMF funds of at least $2000 a year. The bar is currently quite high for receiving funds from WMF and for lack of this small amount of funding, many volunteer groups which could grow to be well organized are stunted. This is especially true in the developing world. I am not suggesting that we throw money at risky projects, but 1 WMF staffer costs ~$120,000/year and the opportunity cost is that we are not sponsoring coffee / cookies which would greatly incentive community organizations.
  • I favor administrative staff being hired but not by the WMF. We should groom community groups to manage an administrative process. Currently the philosophy is no administrative funding for groups before they become super developed. I would flip that and say start with administrative support, especially to do reporting of outcomes and accomplishments, because so many groups find success in accomplishing things but failure to claim the credit they deservce.
  • Get funding to OTRS, possibly by funding a staff administrator in a Wikimedia chapter or wiki-supporting community organization or university. I do recognize a need for staff; I do not think it should be WMF staff because so often the interest of the WMF and community are in conflict. The OTRS staffperson should help present regular reports of OTRS metrics, including estimating volunteer hours put into the program, surveying the community for what community conversations it wants, convening regular (probably monthly) virtual meetups to discuss the requested issues, and notetaking at the meetings to document progress and consensus. OTRS is a likely community to work as a user group because of volunteer enthusiasm for everything about it except the bureaucracy of administering it.
  • OTRS is going to be increasingly automated in the future. We need to convene conversation now to inject ethical and community review into this ASAP before we hit a wall. Some automation would be readily accepted without much conversation; some other issues we need discussion.
  • Personally, I am ready to support the individual with a Wikimedia user group / chapter affiliation who would request and accept US$25,000 to run a short term or part time OTRS community survey and documentation drive. If anyone could put in 10/hours a week at this rate then I expect they would get ready results as we have such a great need for administrative development here. Wiki LGBT is developing a similar but more ambitious "Wikimedian at Large" staff position because of its comparable extreme global multilingual backlog for documenting LGBT wiki programs and accomplishments.
  • Overall, recognize that volunteers are fantastic for making an impact and planning strategy, but cannot be recruited to do the administration which creates the environment for impact to flourish. People volunteer for the wiki, not for the conventional office work behind the wiki.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's not just OTRS. Requests for unblock has been struggling - the highest I have ever seen it, and it refuses to go down. But yeah, NPP/AFC/removing spam from mainspace is the worst - newbies/spammers/UPE clients often use WP:OSE to justify their junk. The mathematically astute would see a differential equation (dS/dt ~ kS) whose solution involves the amount of crap/spam increasing exponentially with time. I completely agree the WMF's failure to invest in software development for the community is a significant contributor to the problem. I'll go on the record to say that the admin/patroller toolkit is derelict from a software point of view. The Anti-Harassment team's work, while welcome, is woefully insufficient. (As an aside, bug bounties would help with the software problem.) Better software only buys a little time. What is needed is root cause analysis. Yes, that means pruning the bureaucracy where possible (e.g. devising processes that require less community time) and strategically retreating from areas which are not worth the effort. ACPERM is a start. We also need to be less tolerant with spammers, tendentious editors and other time wasters. In the long run, we need to focus on recruiting and retaining the right kinds of editors, which is not commensurate with the "growth, content quality be damned" attitude of the WMF. MER-C 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The ACC backlog was particularly scary. There were some reasonable notes in those discussions that suggested the state of affairs is too bad for additional volunteers to resolve - we needed to stem in the influx. The same could be said for OTRS in some aspects. The corporate "we're told we can't paid-edit, so do this for us" comes in a mixed blob of work and unstated threat that has spiked upwards just in the last month or two.Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd really, really not want to see WMF control in OTRS to increase, but I could see the necessity both in improving the workflow and aiding in the software. @Barkeep49: makes an excellent point that we are both stuck in the bureaucracy and yet we didn't create it just for our personal entertainment. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The real killer of smaller number of people doing more is that becomes spectacularly dull for some of the more tedious workflows (ACC and routine permissions-queues come to mind) to do as their primary activity. With regard to UTRS - there was a suggestion made that the new admins of the last two years (who are generally very active) could be queried if they'd be interested. "Standard" vandalism seems fairly well handled - perhaps a campaign to encourage that 1500-4000 edit group to reach out to try alternate areas (NPP, AfC, etc etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Standard counter-vandalism is also one of our most highly automated areas between true automation with Cluebot and effective automation with Huggle. It is also an area that lends itself to automation more than something like OTRS/UTRS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nowhere is the lack of interest in doing back office work more evident than at NPR , arguably the most important of volunteer tasks. After all, it's the very process that controls the growth of the corpus. The "growth, content quality be damned" attitude of the WMF (MER-C) is very real however, hence the years-long battle (and really a fight) to finally get ACPERM. Unfortunately the NPR backlog has now suddenly doubled in the last two months. The WMF claim their Executive Officer, "...lives in a metal tube in the sky". Perhaps if that massive travel budget were to be converted to software development or scholarships for volunteers to travel to conferences and meetings, the unpaid communities may be encouraged to do more on a 'get involved' basis.

OTRS is the victim of its own lack of success - it fires its agents for not doing enough, and is or has been riddled with paid editors abusing it for their own ends. That said, rather than handing OTRS over to the WMF, the community should be looking at ways of wresting some of the power away from that organisation instead of giving it more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I did volunteer at OTRS years ago, but was criticized for some of my answers, and quit. I also have a history of letting my unease with the drama in Wikipedia lead me to periods of inactivity. Frankly, I don't see Wikipedia getting any better, so I am trying to find a balance that lets me continue to contribute without losing patience and going on another extended break. I think about volunteering for OTRS again, but worry about not being able to sustain it. Sorry, just ranting here. - Donald Albury 01:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Really basic question. I used to volunteer at ACC before I was an admin. Then when it switched over to the global accounts I was unable to create accounts (either that and I’m confused and I stopped accessing the login portal for it). Either way, I could help if I understood the current process better. I’ve dabbled a bit with OTRS as well. NJA | talk 01:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've been seeing the same problem with template and other more tech related tasks within the community for years and have warned about it repeatedly. You see, if people are not enthousiastic about doing things (having fun or believing in the cause), they seek out other things that are enjoyable (Wikidata for instance). By doing things that are enjoyable they build dedication and that is how they end up going beyond the line of duty for years and years without pay. It is the simplest of mechanics of volunteering. At Wikipedia we have so much focused on the quality, the rules, the status quo and the infighting that people are going to other places. And without people no content. This has been happening for years now, where the dedicated few have picked up the slack, but now they need to do ALL the boring stuff (going beyond the line of duty) and don't have time for the nice stuff, while the influx of new community staffing has been lackluster. We really need to fix that. We need to bring back the experimenting, we need to make it easier to do lots of boring tasks easily on your phone, which is where people reside nowadays and we need to encourage people to have fun, instead of only focusing on the work as the holy grail of everything. And yes we would be making mistakes along the way and yes WMF will fuck up all the time in this process because it is HARD, but without that we are slowly bleeding until we bleed out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've just started my daily look through CAT:CSD. It's the usual list of spammers and socks who've been coached, through about six dozen previous unblock requests, to finally put the right form of words into their latest request. It's hard to say how discouraging I find this. On the one hand, we're supposed to AGF and I'm generally in favour of giving people a second chance; on the other, I have no expectation whatsoever that these accounts are going to end up productive editors. So I have three choices: (a) unblock them, in the near-certain expectation they'll keep causing trouble; (b) decline the request, in the near-certain expectation that even though they've jumped through all the hoops put in front of them in previous requests, they're never going to be unblocked because no-one's ever going to trust them; or (c) be a coward and leave the request for someone else to deal with. Spammers are the worst; I'm looking at a request now of someone who's been blocked for promoting non-notable figures in the entertainment industry. Now they swear they will only "be mentioning the entertainment industry's highs and lows and the working module in general which will be purely for information and not for any promotion or favouring any company or product, not defaming or tarnishing any images and not linked to anyone's monetary gains. This will be a total new talk/user/article page from a fresh prospective and not linked to any of the previous contents or edits. If I decline the request, they'll just make another one and I don't have the emotional energy to come up with a reasonable decline rationale today anyway. If I accept the request, I'd bet good money I'll regret it. What to do? Reblock them with TP access off? I usually get through two or three requests before the whole thing is so soul-destroying I go do something else. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Tbh, if it's got to the point where it's got to the stage where it's causing a degree of personal discomfort of any kind, I think, yes, leave it to someone else; you don't need to take sole responsibility for the CAT:CSD flotsam and jetsam...or any other for that matter  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: TBH that's what I often do. I'm not sure it makes the personal discomfort any better; I just feel I've been a coward as well as not dealing with any RFUs. I'd really value advice from others on how they handle these; if the answer is just "grit your teeth and switch TP access off" then so be it. I suspect such advice is unlikely to be forthcoming, though, because others are probably in exactly the same predicament I'm in, and that this, after all, is why there is a backlog at RFU. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I bet you're right, hot potatoes are made to be passed along  :) but on a more serious note, I also wouldn't want you to feel cowardly. As you said, these characters are spammers and socks by the dozen: they've had a chance to prove their good faith and failed to do so, so your good faith need stretch no further. Personally, I wouldn't waste any of your time on 'em; make em jump through the hoops, four-five-six-seven unblock requests with the standard templated reply. If they're serious, they'll stick with it; more likely they'll get bored and (perhaps) leave. The bottom line is that the famous nuanced approach and articulation that got you the RfA should never be wasted on "socks and spammers", it's too valuable ELSEWHERE. Bugger them! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think I'll take your last piece of advice, at least not literally, but thanks for the rest. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Backlogs? So recruit some more people to assist in clearing them (as admins, junior janitors, or however you want to slice the permissions). Oh, but we don't have an adminship process, do we, we have the Jeremy Kyle show instead. Admins have built this situation, or at the very least, allowed it to arise. The more paranoid might say that was to reinforce the cabal, the less so because it just happened that way, but still nothing has been done to fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Maaan...did you have to mention that?! :D  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ahem[7] Lectonar (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

He knew what he was getting into and should never have stood at RfA. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, I have often noticed pleas for backlog clearing in this thread. In many cases, someone reports, often in minutes, that they're working on it and have cleared out most of the backlog. For some backlogs, that's the right approach. I have also come to this thread in the past and begged for OTRS help, which has often provided some temporary relief, but my approach this time is different because I don't think it is as simple as throwing a few more resources at it. As others have noted, we may need to do some more fundamental rethinking of how we approach some of these administrative tasks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  So is the problem insufficient admin attention then? From your first comment, it sounded like a lot of the backlogs you were concerned about didn't require an admin as mentioned below, but now I'm unsure. Is the OTRS problem that too many of the requests do require an admin and there aren't enough dealing with them on OTRS? Nil Einne (talk)

Many of the backlogs do not technically require an admin to address the issue, although there are many situations (the need to review deleted content) that make it helpful to be an admin. I posted to this thread, not because I was simply begging for more volunteers to help, but because I was looking for insights on how to handle the broader problem, and this seemed like the best forum to reach out to experienced editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• A person doesn't have to be an administrator to work on some of the backlogs mentioned in this thread. That includes both OTRS (which does require OTRS permission set) and New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation. Recruiting more people is one obvious solution for sure, but are there other avenues that could be pursued? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Would expanding CSD criteria and tightening up notability guidelines help with NPP And AfC backlogs? Also, more NACers might help free up admin time to tackle admin-specific backlogs. Leviv ich 16:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when you get the CSD criteria expanded—I'll put my name forward for pontiff. ——SerialNumber54129 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah Andy's comment just seems weird to me. I read their comment first, then went to the top and read what the issue was and I was thinking 'am I wrong, I thought most of these don't require someone to be an admin', was going to check but quickly re-read this thread and found your comment. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm probably overlapping somewhat between "admin" and OTRS et al., but the point is that they require raised permissions of some sort. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I keep asking this question, but I do not think I have ever got a satisfactory answer to it. Do we have a general understanding which areas (admin-specific, or even no necessarily admin -specific) are badly backlogged long-term? From my experience, at WP:RFPP we are generally fine, there are backlogs there but they get cleared very quickly. WP:AIV is typically fine. WP:CCI is really badly backlogged. But there are many corners of the Wikimedia Universe I have never been to and have no idea how things are doing there.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A parallel alarming problem is areas where one or two people are doing the bulk of the work, and their loss or temporary absence is practically catastrophic. This is the same problem that Sphilbrick noted when he was called away for an extended wikibreak due to an illness/death in the family: we are spread pretty thin in several important areas.
    • When he returned to editing he discovered that the backlog on the OTRS queue had ballooned from 100 cases to 450 cases.
    • Here is the leaderboard for CopyPatrol where you can see there's only two people working most days. I can do about 10-20 cases per hour. So 60 cases per day represents anywhere from 3 to 6 or more hours of work daily. I was able to keep up during Sphilbrick's wikibreak but it was stressful and hard and I would not be able to maintain that level of participation long-term without endangering my own well-being.
    • Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers shows that the bulk of the work is being done by two people. While it's not always been the same two people, this is not a new phenomenon. There's currently 7156 articles in the new pages queue. These date back to the beginning of March (10 weeks). There are also 3480 drafts awaiting review - I was unable to determine readily as to how many people are working that queue right now.
    • The bulk of the work at Wikipedia:Copyright problems is being done by just one person.
  • What this means is that if one of the core people leaves, there's nobody up-and-coming that is in a position to take over the task. That's all I have to say for now; I don't have any solutions to offer; I just want to build some awareness as to the scope of the problem — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks, this is useful. May be someone should invest time in writing an essay about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Writing essays is helpful, but actually working on the tasks even more so — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

      I do not think anybody can say I am not doing enough, but we are not just talking about working on backlogs, but also on optimizing tasks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I'll share with you where I look when I want to see if there are backlogs. {{Admin dashboard}} is a great place to start, because some of the more important backlogs especially those that are time sensitive are in a nice box on the right-hand side. That page also has a section on administrative backlog. The box on the right has a link "click here to locate other admin backlogs". I think that covers most of them with a couple notable exceptions. Curiously, I don't see CCI (did I miss it?). The OTRS backlog isn't here for the obvious reason that it is an external tool, not part of en wiki. Copy Patrol is also an external tool, and not something I discussed in my rant above because Diannaa keeps it under control. (But I concur with her concern about having too much of the activity handled by one or two people) S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. I remember I user to look at {{Admin dashboard}} a few years ago when I was given the tools, but somehow I did not find it useful (at least not clicking through everything and figure out where the actual backlogs are). May be it can be improved though, for example, as GoldenRing suggests below.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  CCI is an ordinary backlog, not an admin backlog, and wasn't tagged as backlogged until just now. MER-C 20:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  MER-C, good point S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Is there potential to add more of these backlogs to {{Admin tasks}} which is transcluded at the top of this page? I've had a go at adding a count of WP:Copyright problems (currently refers to a sandbox module so needs use, but it's a start). Thoughts? Many of these are not technically "admin" tasks but rather tasks that are often done by admins. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many copyright problems require the use of (revision) deletion, so it is sometimes an admin task. That said, a manual count of the copyvio backlog gives me 67 items. MER-C 20:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the copyright violation count to not require a module dedicated just to it. * Pppery * _survives 20:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment that now is probably the best time to run for RfA in almost a decade (ignoring the January '17 surge). Candidates tend to pass in the 90s, and all but one of the serious RfXs that we have had this year have passed. I hate to sound like a broken record, but just encourage people you know to go for RfA and offer to nominate them. This doesn't address all the backlogs here, but it will help by giving more active users access to the tools that can help clear many of these backlogs.
  Also, I'll put in my by now standard plug that we need more patrolling admins at SPI to evaluate behavioural evidence in SPIs with CU results or where CU hasn't been requested since everyone is plugging their pet backlog . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ReeceTheHawk

ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has requested the standard offer, placing this request on their TP:

It has been 1 year and 2 months since I was told to take the standard offer and I have not edited Wikipedia in this time. I forgot to post an unblock request 6 months after the standard offer but now i'm back into wikipedia hoping to start editing again. Reece (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am bringing this to the community for consideration. A quick flick through their mainspace contributions suggests to me that they have the potential to be a useful editor of the gnoming sort, though with a bit to learn about policies and procedures. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} @GoldenRing: The block was a CU block and needs a check before it can be removed, only then can SO apply. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support if (but only if) checkuser shows no violations. --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: there's not much data to go on, but I don't see any obvious socking on the range they are on. If there is community consensus to unblock, I'm fine with it from a CU perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• @QEDK and TonyBallioni: Thanks for the reminder and for doing the check. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Floquenbeam? –xeno^talk 14:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I guess the theory is that if you don't actually say anything in your unblock request, you won't be caught lying? Looking at their talk page history, including their last few unblock requests, I think the odds of them being productive are pretty low. I suppose if they're young they've grown up some? I'm not going to waste my time negotiating unblock conditions, but if someone else wants to, that's OK with me. I'm perfectly happy for any individual admin, or a consensus here, to decide anything they want to. But you might want to get Reece to, I don't know, at least link to their previous ANI thread, or their previous declined unblock requests, or see if they understand what the previous problems were, or explain how they're going to avoid them, or something, instead of expecting others to do the heavy lifting for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per Floq, I also would not accept the SO request unless and until they can explain 1) what they did wrong and 2) what they plan to do differently. Unblocking without those two items doesn't seem like a good idea. If they CAN do those things, I would be fine with an unblock. --Jayron32 15:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues above, I think we should be requiring a basic "here's what I did wrong, here's why I won't do it again" even for SO unblocks. A fair amount of recent drama involving an editor who filed and had accepted a bare-bones SO unblock request only makes me more certain of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• The thread leading to their initial one-week block is here. After that block expired they did something to get indeffed which I don't really understand, but it feels to me like a WP:CIR sort of thing. Then this happened and they lost talk page access. Later, checkuser linked them to Ediitor10 (talk · contribs), and after another unblock request was declined Reece disclosed a bunch more accounts they had created to evade their block, although checkuser showed there were more they had not disclosed and were still using at that time. Several of those accounts were created solely to attack other editors. But, checkuser seems to show now that they're being honest. I'm willing to cautiously support here, with the understanding that any new misstep is going to result in a much more permanent sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018 using IP

175.36.91.0 (talk · contribs) appears to be an obvious sock of Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned for battleground rants on Talk:Falun Gong, user talk pages, and elsewhere. In addition to the recent IP contribs see [8], [9], [10] and compare 120.18.17.66 (talk · contribs) with the new IP. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week after continuing to rant here (which I reverted). Sandstein 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• After looking at some of Unicornblood's rants and seeing his behavior escalate, particularly seeing that their behavior has gotten worse over the past month, I'd like to nip this in the bud and propose a community ban of Unicornblood. I don't see their behavior stopping anytime soon. If this is premature then feel free to ignore me. Rockstonetalk to me! 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the ban. I've also removed Unicornblood2018's e-mail access after receiving more rants in the same vein via e-mail. Acroterion removed talk page access for the same reasons. It appears they're now spamming WP:UTRS with tickets... Sandstein 07:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, they've also been spamming #wikipedia-en-unblock with repetitive messages. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on Unicornblood2018

I know I proposed it above but I'd like to officially start the ban process officially and let the community have their say. Given that their behavior has escalated and become increasingly obnoxious, I propose a community ban of Unicornblood. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• User has posted a long, rambling message from yet another IP on my talkpage identifying as himself as a sock of him. I think, now that this is his third sock, that this qualifies under WP:3X. I'm going to mark his account with this template. Feel free to reverse if this is premature. (I know WP:3X generally requires a confirmation by checkuser before the ban starts, but it's very obvious that he's socking, so I'm ignoring all rules) Rockstonetalk to me! 04:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't exclude a situation where someone pretends to be the user, obviously. IAR is about improving content, not stifling dissent. cygnis insignis 09:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but it's bleedingly obvious that this person is the same user as before. I'll make a checkuser request later. You are of course welcome to undo my edit to his userpage, I was being boldRockstonetalk to me! 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It would appear they agree when they posted on my talk page. A shame it came to this, I see evidence of a thoughtful individual who knows they jumped the rail. I asked a question of them and got a helpful answer, nice enough to me to declare my conflict. I had a mind to try moderating the discussion, but the ban smothered my enthusiasm. I got little traction in identifying concerns with the article myself, more PR than balance based on my own evaluation before reading what anyone had to say. Not the best use of my time, but I expect someone will come at this article from another direction and improve it. Please excuse where my intervention was unhelpful, if closing the door on the user was the better solution. cygnis insignis 11:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Modification of sanctions

I would like to seek community input to loosen my active sanctions. In particular, I would like the following changed from User:Swarm's comment, which I am placing here for convenience:

Unban conditions

Hi. It appears there's a consensus to unban you, so congratulations. However, before unblocking you, I need you to indicate that you understand and accept that you will remain on a final warning status for disruption, broadly construed. Some examples of what this entails are: You will refrain from editing Wikipedia policies and guidelines You will refrain from unnecessary edits or participation in the Wikipedia namespace or in any Wikipedia meta-processes. Any such participation should be directly and unambiguously related to the uncontentious improvement of articles. You will refrain from any experimentation outside of your personal sandbox. Frivolous experimentation will not be tolerated. You will refrain from making unconstructive edits in your userspace (you may still personalize your user pages, but any such edits with negative effects will not be tolerated). You will refrain from creating redirects. If you think a redirect is needed, you will go through WP:AFCRD. Frivolous requests will not be tolerated. You will refrain from making any edits that are not in compliance with the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. You will refrain from creating unnecessary or frivolous pages of any kind. If you receive a complaint about your behavior, edits or actions from an established editor in good standing, you will immediately cease said behavior and self-revert prior to any attempts at defending yourself. You may defend yourself and pursue dispute resolution measures, but frivolous, excessive, or unconstructive arguing will not be tolerated. You understand that you have no say in what conduct will be considered "disruptive", "frivolous", "unnecessary", or "broadly construed". Should any admin feel that you have caused or are causing any sort of "disruption" whatsoever, within or outside of the above examples, they may reblock you for any period of time, or indefinitely, without further warning. If you abide by these conditions without any issues, you may request that this arrangement be lifted or loosened by community consensus, after six months, at WP:AN. Please let me know if this is something you are willing to agree to. Swarm ♠ 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC) — User:Swarm

Here are the changes to the sanctions that I want:

• Redirect creation is allowed, but cross-namespace redirects are prohibited without first consulting an administrator. Also, I am limited to a set number of redirects per 24 hour period (which can be increased as I make more needed redirects). Start with one for now.
• Policies and guidelines are edited only after seeking a consensus on the talk page. Grammatical corrections must be clearly marked as such ("typo", ☑ Minor edit).
• The expiry should change from indefinite to 1-2 years from now.
• Other than that, any series of actions deemed as "unnecessary", "disruptive", or "time-wasting" could still get me blocked as summed up by User:Swarm.

What I have learned from this experience:

• Edits that do not align with Wikipedia's pillars are disruptive, regardless on what policy says.
• Making policy-related edits is disruptive, as highlighted by users on this site and on wikiHow.
• What seems like a good idea at one point can prove to be impractical, as seen in this discussion. It is important to ponder the practicality of an idea before proposing it to the community.

Anyway, I have decided to wait until now since I have gotten more experience with inserting images and helped out more on the site and wikiHow. I hope to come back in a week or so to see what happens. Awesome Aasim 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To add on, the reason why I was blocked back in May and August 2017 was for the repeated timewasting of good-faith editors, something that Iridescent, Tony, Neil, Aiken, Bishonen, EEng, and numerous other editors fell victim to. Yes, Wikipedia is not my personal sandbox (one of the contributing factors to my two blocks). I also know that for the time being, it is only a good idea to work on improving the encyclopedia rather than messing around with policy-related and policy-violating edits. One of the problems I had was with, rather asking kindly, persistently using a policy to justify why something is broken rather than actually showing something is broken until the end where I did provide a link to a screenshot, but the disruption was already done. It was more of a problem that I needed to mind my own business (since I had a white-on-black talk page and hard, contrasting colors), and not a problem of "this editor violated policy so keep on proving that it is a violation". This is what my talk page looked like when I was blocked the first time (May 2017), and this is what my talk page looked like when I was blocked the second time (August 2017), if you want to see all of the problems I caused then. Because I have not made that many edits now, I am asking for the gradual loosening of sanctions, not a full "I am free to roam the country" lifting of sanctions. Awesome Aasim 06:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please disclose your former username so the community can judge. I have no view on this appeal, but did want to make that comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, that was fast. My old username was UpsandDowns1234. You can see my talk page for more details. Awesome Aasim 19:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• As one of the many people who had to clean up the train of incompetence and disruption that got you blocked in the first place, at an absolute minimum I'd expect any loosening of sanctions to be on the strict understanding that any fucking around—by our definition, not yours—will lead to an immediate re-banning from Wikipedia. From the above request I'm not seeing the slightest indication that you understand why you were banned in the first place; it wasn't a case of "Edits that do not align with Wikipedia's pillars", it was a case of your treating our website as your personal sandbox and creating pages with such content as "I dreamt that the article Elevator was deleted per one of the WP:XfD processes and SALTED. I was trying hard to try and get the article restored. Of course, I was dreaming, so it was not really deleted, but I was wondering where it went. I got this weird interwiki link to a different wiki that had an article on "elevator" but things when you are dreaming do not make sense. I sent an email to the deleting admin, tried to list a deletion discussion, etc. That was only one part of a longer dream where I was going to the California Academy of Sciences. I was trying to get the deleting admin blocked and desysopped. No one undeleted the article, and no one was blocked. Then I woke up after seeing an elevator in my dream.", and creating intentionally disruptive templates like Template:Tilt to assist your disruption of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Consider an article FuelRod which this editor wrote recently. It has two sources, one of which is a press release and the other of which is the promotional outcome of a press release. Awesome Aasim, why are adding product promotional junk like this to the encyclopedia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you know how much cleanup it would require to get it to Wikipedia standards? If it is too much, then maybe move it to userspace or draftspace so I can work on it more.

If it only requires a little fixing, then maybe you can move it to draftspace and tell me what needs fixing? Awesome Aasim 22:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I just came within a whisker of AfDing it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Awesome Aasim, my advice to you is simple: Do not try to use press releases or content that clearly derives from press releases to try to establish the notability of businesses or products. That is both promotional editing and really bad editing. Why should we loosen your sanctions when you show that you do not understand the basic concept of notability and how to establish it convincingly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I can see no reason to remove these sanctions. They're not a block, they're not even onerous. Despite being unblocked back in August, you've only made a few hundred edits. This is neither enough to rebuild community faith in your contributions, nor do I see that these sanctions have been significantly restricting your editing. I'm not strongly against this removal, if others support it, but I'd want to see more editing before I pushed for it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• No set timeline - This is not a statement on the other requested changes. However I specifically oppose a shift from the other limitations remaining on an indefinite basis to a set timeline. We've no idea what your editing activity level will be in the future - if this was implemented then there's the risk the editor could just "wait it out" without much involvement. I'm not fundamentally against time-limited TBANs (in fact I've !voted for one last week), but the extremely severe breadth and depth here makes me nervous to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Can anyone explain this? [11]

Or, why has User:Awesome_Aasim been turned into some sor tof uneditable redirect to Meta:User:Awesome_Aasim? This shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be happening with a joker like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

See meta:Global user pages. This is a feature of all Wikimedia projects. Awesome Aasim 00:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are these IP addresses currently blocked indefinitely?

I see that some IP addresses are blocked indefinitely. Some are blocked because they're used on Tor or it's an open proxy. However, the IPs that I'm listing here are not blocked under those reasons.

• 65.31.98.71 (Pre-2009 block)
• 66.91.35.165 (Just only one block)
• 67.53.130.69 (Pre-2009 block)
• 76.10.176.221 (School)
• 77.115.31.71 (Just only one block)
• 82.71.49.124
• 96.243.149.64 (1 month to indefinite)
• 164.127.71.72
• 178.36.118.74
• 195.194.39.100 (School)
• 199.216.164.10
• 202.93.8.68 (Just only one block, but it's a proxy)
• 206.15.235.10 (School)
• 207.99.40.142 (Hmm a more recent one)
• 209.80.150.137 (School)
• 216.56.8.66 (School)

Is it because the multiple long term blocks the IP get wasn't enough to stop the vandalism from those IP addresses? Thanks! INeedSupport ^:3 02:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Each of these were blocked because the administrator believed it was the right thing to do to protect the encyclopedia. Many are schoolblocks where, as you say, multiple long term blocks were insufficient to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism, some are IP addresses used by banned editors (most of which were proxies), there is another blocked proxy and an IP address used for vandalism only. Indefinite blocks are much less common today as they have become deprecated in recent years. There was a proposal just a couple of weeks ago (you are probably aware of this) to lift all indefinite blocks on individual IP addresses placed in 2008 or before, which was overwhelmingly approved so we should see many fewer indefinite blocks in total soon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Hmm, so IPs can get indefinite blocks too if things gets too out-of-control. I was indeed aware of the discussion about the pre-2009 blocks. Thanks for telling me that! INeedSupport ^:3 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Permissions change at Portal:Portal pointing to this page?

While doing some digging at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 11#P:A I stumbled on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Portal (3rd nomination) and Portal:Portal, which was deleted after the content was moved to Wikipedia:Portal:Portal. After that move/deletion, someone seems to have changed the permissions at that deleted page to be template protected (or some other change in permissions that I can't identify). Why was this done? (And by whom? - I would have reached out to them directly if this was noted in the page's log, but it is not nor is there any mention of anything odd regarding permissions at the info page.) I noticed this when trying to create a redirect to Portal:Portals (really Portal:Contents/Portals with {{Rcat shell|{{R avoided double redirect|Portal:Portals}} {{R to plural}} {{R unprintworthy}} }} to avoid a double redirect) but I was greeted with this permissions error when I attempted to edit the page:

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

(The latter bullet is why I am here; note I changed the link to point to WP:ANB instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so that it displays as a link instead of being bolded.)

Am I missing something obvious about this? Am I in the right place? - Paul^T+/_C 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: Below the deletion log at Portal:Portal, I see that the title blacklist prevents its creation. Warning: This page can only be edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches the following title blacklist entry: Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix> —DoRD (talk)​ 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: I'm clearly missing something because I see no such warning. I've also checked when logged out. The permissions error is slightly different in that case, but there is still nothing about the warning you mention. Can you provide a link to the page with that warning? - Paul^T+/_C 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it when logged-out, either. Strange...but I don't really understand the technical wizardry behind the blacklist. If nobody else has a good answer here, WP:VPT can probably help you. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait a bit before posting there and/or hopefully someone else can chime in here as well. (Would you mind still providing the link where you saw that warning?) Regardless, given the error message's link to this page there has got to be some reason why it points here. - Paul^T+/_C 15:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I just clicked on one of the redlinks above to get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Portal&action=edit&redlink=1. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, you're in the correct place. DoRD has noted the blacklist entry, which is there to prevent editors from creating a page with a duplicate namespace at the start. Those with permission to create the page (have the tboverride (Override the disallowed titles or usernames list) right: admins, template editors, and page movers) will see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-warning instead of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix. Those without permission to create pages (don't have the createpage (Create pages (which are not discussion pages)) right: those not logged into an account) see MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission. I created the redirect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Another IP hopper

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

---

This user is jumping between user:2605:e000:1609:85f:1d66:7925:7118:58fb and user:2605:e000:1c0a:e0eb:848f:2ae5:cf55:8e8 and vandalizing. CLCStudent (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

CLCStudent, please take this to AIV. Thanks. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

SleeplessNight12 CBAN appeal

Here. Notifying everyone about this at their behalf. As I wrote there, it's a pretty good appeal, but it may be too early. As the blocking admin, I have no strong view, for or against, the appeal. El_C 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Decline unblock This looks like a CBAN from the blocking discussion. User was banned for harassment and bigotry. Due to the homophobic nature of the harassment, this is too soon for my liking, and suggest to wait at least 6 months per SO. Valeince (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support on very short ROPE. I fully understand, and can agree with, Valeince's concerns- yes, it is far too soon for a proper SO. However, I think they should be given one chance- unblock, and if they stray anywhere within a whiff of homophobia, reblock and no more appeals for six months. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Help doing a mass revert

Resolved

 – All reverted --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had setup User:MinusBot bot correctly, but turns out I didn't correctly filter out the list of articles to edit. I'd like some help mass reverting these edits. Basically all Wikipedia namespace edits, done on 18 May 2019, by User:MinusBot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks a bunch! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: No problem. It took a while, because I was rate limited, so stay tuned for a BRFA for rolling back bot edits (which would also avoid flooding recent changes with hundreds of reverts) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Was this really 977 rollbacks, with no edits to fix the initial edits? That really seems like it should have been left to a sysop, as it sounds like a perfect usecase for markbotedits. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: They original edits were marked as bot edits already. Only the rolling-back edits would have benefited from markbotedits, which can also be done by having a bot with rollback rights; hence the BRFA I filed, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 40 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

...Yes, which is why, barring a bot being approved for "oops," I said the 977 rollbacks...should have been left to a sysop. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

MFD

WP:ANRFC#Deletion_discussions has a big backlog of MFDs. Eleven of them were opened over a month ago.

Please could some admins help clear at least some of them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I gave the RfC backlog a whack. El_C 04:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Rox A

Hi,

Rox A (Singer, Music Director) and Rox A (Music Director, Singer) (likely the same person) are using their user pages as a drafts or a WP:FAKEARTICLEs about Arun Sharma a.k.a. Rox A. WP:NPOV without citation, those drafts or fake articles won't suit for the main space.

I have blanked the user pages but I don't know if it's the right practice on the English Wikipedia, and I don't know what message I could leave to explain what they're doing wrong.

Can some take a look?

Best regards --Lacrymocéphale 12:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser note: Roxarunsharma, Rox A (Singer, Music Director), and Rox A (Music Director, Singer) are all the same. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)