Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, 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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 94 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 91 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 91 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 26 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 24 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	10	0	11
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	76	0	76
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 249 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Idea for maybe improving AE

CONTEXT - I had this idea while reading comments about AE from admins working in this area some time ago. Thankfully I don't really know how AE is working these days. This may or may not be relevant today.

IDEA - Give admins AE powers akin to Arbitration clerks. Specifically, create an admin-only section on each AE case's talk page. Informally, call this the "echo chamber". If any admin believes comments by an party are largely a regurgitation of their past arguments, authorize that admin to simply move the comment to the echo chamber. Any admin who does this may not close the case file. Combatants upset that their comments were relocated should be taught that complaints will only be tolerated for gross errors in judgment by the admin who relocated their comment. Be quite free to hand out short blocks for minor wails. There will be some pain, but eventually constructive collaborators will figure it out and drama addicts will more easily accrue longer blocks.

Meanwhile, allow other admins to close the proceeding based only on the lean mean case file, with no obligation to even look at the echo chamber. They may, and may cite material found there, but would not be obligated to even review it. This way the complaint would be reduced to the new stuff. This could make reviewing the material less daunting, and could inspire more admin service in this area.

Maybe I'm not seeing the alligators or am being wishfully naive. But after wading through some old history I'm thinking to myself "OMG, this is how it works? That's nuts!" Maybe we could make it better by putting a cork in argumentation regurgitation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, initiatives like this are really nice and encouraged. If you could make your proposal slightly more streamlined, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is probably the better venue for this. Alex Shih (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK... I figured the intended audience (admins who might be recruited) were more likely to see it here, but sure, will do. Please hat this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, and if you want a bit more feedback on / workshopping of the idea before you send it to the proposals page, WP:VPIL has an atmosphere more oriented towards that. Sounds like you have a promising idea. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Super, I will sit on it a few days while it simmers anyway. I will ask for hatting here when I return to add a pointer diff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Although I do believe that AE pages are hard to decipher and certainly needs improvement, the suggestion for issuing blocks over minor issues such as those listed above, makes me to think that this "echo chamber" should rather be called "massacre chamber" or "killing Chamber" for obvious reasons. WP:BLOCK doesn't work like that.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bart's Not Dead article move over redirect

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

---

Resolved

Hi, can you please move Bart's Not Dead (The Simpsons) to Bart's Not Dead? Thanks you --Patriccck (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Try WP:RMT. Rzvas (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for tip --Patriccck (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedical for page move. --Patriccck (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia on résumé

Curiously, do any of you admins put Wikipedia in the volunteer work of your résumé? Spellcast (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm applying for jobs teaching ESL students, I usually stick something put "Editor on Wikipedia (2006 to present)" in there, with a short description that mentions either "resolved disputes," "taught new users," or "collaborated with others from around the world." If a job might have a copyediting role, "performed research and edited articles." If I ever grab CompTIA certification, I probably wouldn't list in on resumes for those jobs unless it was for a Mom-and-pop operation run by folks who would assume that anything with the title "administrator" must be technologically advanced. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the only downside I can see is if you think it'll make you seem picky or too technical compared to the job in question. In those cases, you wouldn't add it. Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but I've only applied for one job since I've been a Wikipedia editor. I don't often change jobs, so my resume does not often need updating. --Jayron32 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed some of you have enough time left over for paid work. Or do you earn rent money in your free time, when you can get away from Wiki? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I've had the buttons for 10 years, it's not something I've ever bothered including yet. It can't hurt to add it though. Obviously it's no big deal to us but from the employer's view, it's easy to see how something like "Current administrator on Wikipedia (world's 5th most popular website)" sounds more fancy than it really is. Spellcast (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also it's funny thinking of all the ways you can spin admin work to sound like a bigger deal than it is in interviews. This is inspired by a Reddit thread which asked to explain your job in a way that sounds shady. But here, I make what's leisurely to us in our spare time sound like 'hard work' to someone else:

• Closing AFDs - "Oh yeah I listen to community debates (sometimes heated!) and serve as a judge who makes the final decision in determining what entries are appropriate for the public to read on our encyclopedia. I could hear as many as 5 cases a day!"
• Blocking - "I do the thankless task of stopping vandals who maliciously deface or remove content from our articles that thousands of readers will never see."
• Protecting articles temporarily (this takes 2 seconds and you may never look at the page ever again) - "I facilitate and encourage editors who have a content dispute to mediate and resolve their differences amicably. Disputes often take a few days or even several weeks to resolve."

Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes--I cite it as community service, and aspects of it fall under professional work. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Other activities/Extra-curricular activities/Passion": yes, I put it. --Titodutta (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• If you put Wikipedia on your resume, the only thing would happen is that your boss will keep an eye on your monitor to make sure that you are not spending work time on Wikipedia, lol 😁 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• It depends what aspects of your Wikipedia work are relevant to your (desired) job. GAB^gab 22:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• I describe my technical work here in a resume section, which is generally well-received. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Depends on the resume, on my CV I include it along with other volunteering. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• My problem is that I have been self-employed for 25 years. I constantly tell my boss (myself) that my Wikipedia editing is very, very important and I think that I am convincing him. Next, I am asking for a raise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have included it together with hobbies/interests. I think it is relevant to some qualities expected by employers, such as interpersonal skills. I have found that people outside Wikipedia often think "administrator" means something like System administrator. Hut 8.5 08:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• I do not have any résumé, since my job is permanent, and I am likely to stay where I am until I retire, but I mention it for my bi-annual evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• I do put it on my (academic) curriculum vitae but it's a single line somewhere in the middle of 22 pages of other stuff and I don't know that anyone who would have a reason for looking at the cv would be likely to notice or care that it's there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have it as a single line among the volunteer experiences too. I don't think I have ever mentioned it in a job/interview setting(s) though. Alex Shih (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• So long as you're not then unwittingly hired as a WP:PAID editor. (Vague memories of the story of a French admin who had to resign the bit a few years ago to avoid coercion). Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• It's not something that's even ever crossed my mind to do. I think it would actively repel employers in my field. Fish+Karate 12:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• I might mention it as a hobby, but resumes in my area a pretty dry; plus, as far as I can see most people don't know how Wikipedia happens. My work colleagues are aware that I'm some sort of dungeon-master here. The younger people (I'm one of two mamils in the legals team) for whom Wikipedia has pretty much always been around are somewhat intrigued. I explain the way WP works with the example of Portrait of Paulette Jourdain. One Saturday morning I was eating my breakfast banh mi - I'm pretty much a vegetarian on weekdays - when I came across this. Recognising the picture (from the days when I would be in the Glenorchy library reading art history books, instead doing something constructive like breaking windows or shoplifting like any other normal Tasmanian child) I went to you-know-where to find out more about it. No article! I explain how what was needed to create it is coverage in reliable sources - there is not so much online in this case but there would be extensive offline sources - how articles are referenced and so on; how you can see how it was built up over in the article history and that there would be assessments and discussion on the talkpage. "And by that Saturday evening, there it was. One of the criticisms of Modigliani's later work is that they're not really portraits but caricatures painted while he was out of his noggin on absinthe and hashish. Well, as you can see from the NYT references, this "caricature" sold at auction in 2015 for [Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies voice] forty-two point eight million dollars." Almost always, the response is, "that's an awful lot of absinthe/hashish." Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Shirt58: Could you possibly give more details about your workplace for the benefit of this thread? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Absolutely no. The government department I work for has very strict policies about social media posts, and I must adhere to them.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Since when has Wikipedia been social media? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Around about 2007 or 2008, maybe as early as 2004. It depends who you ask. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• It's all about what job you are after. It's definitely a valid listing for the category of hobbies. But I've seen people put World of Warcraft team positions on their resume because they wanted to show their familiarity with strategy development. You want to show experience with mediation? Why not put your ArbCom position on there. You want to show experience with information management ? Why not put your WikiData experience on there. It can also matter a lot if it is your first job, when you have little professional experience any volunteer experience will help you get some extra credit compared to that random other person with 0 experience being considered for a position. A big thing with a resume is that you need to stand out compared to the other resumes in order to survive the first culling. Better to be a bit unusual or quirky sometimes than generic and immediately land on the discard pile. I've always adapted the section of my resume with these kinds of volunteer and/or soft skills to the employer to which i'm sending it. Read what they are after, strike the right tone and make it interesting enough that they will actually take the time to read your cover letter. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I included it under volunteer work. Since I'm an admin here (and not on my native language wiki), I think it adds some credence to my claim that my English is much good Regards SoWhy 13:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oh yes, my resume clearly states that I am the fourth-ranked Wikipedia editor worldwide, that I trained archivists of the Smithsonian Institution in presenting materials through Wikimedia interfaces, that I was selected to make a presentation at one of Wikimedia's annual international conferences, and that I established and maintained the U.S. Courts and Judges WikiProject, improving breadth and depth of coverage of all state and federal tribunals in the U.S., and of U.S. federal judges and state supreme court justices. bd2412 T 13:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Interesting thread. I work in academia where I find a lot of negative attitudes about Wikipedia. When I mention that I volunteer my time here, reactions range from curiosity to revulsion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  I am in academia as well, usually I get positive responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do as well, also under "volunteer work". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• I put my admin rights under technical abilities. As an academic librarian, it's a plus for me (see WP:GLAM), although if I were in most fields, I can imagine it being largely irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RD1 backlog

Apologies if this isn't the place for it, but after making an RD1 request a few days ago, I've been continually surprised to find it unanswered. There are currently 25 pages in Category:Requested RD1 redactions, and it looks like most of them have been there for days—this one has been there since 24 August! Since RD1 is about copyvios, and therefore a legal concern, I was really surprised to find the category this backlogged. Note that the tag is also a huge red notice which readers and non-sysops can do nothing to address, so we really don't want many of these around at a time. I would have expected an absolute maximum of 6 hours between request and response. If a few admins can try to look at the category from time to time during their general editing, to keep it free from backlog, that would be excellent. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

16 articles in the category as of now, but still needs attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Back down to normal levels (1). Sorry for getting a bit behind, started a new job a fortnight ago and it's been a little crazy. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the backlog! The category isn't your personal responsibility and there should be enough active admins to prevent one person's dip in activity from causing a huge spike. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like 70, but we all know that there's a difference between "actively patrolling" and "I'll do it if someone asks" ;-) Primefac (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I do a fair number of RD in connection with copyrighted patrol but I confess I've only occasionally checked out that category and usually found it close to empty, so it isn't really on my radar. I see that it is in the {{Admin dashboard}} but not in the table of immediate requests. Should it be added?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki admin requests

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

---

Just wondering what the thinking is regarding requests made off-wiki for admin actions. Specifically someone who is globally locked asking for a lot of pages to be deleted from their user space. I suppose there might be a formal route for requesting such things, but it seems harmless to me - and beneficial if we get rid of a lot of obsolete old stuff. Any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally I favour keeping everything on-wiki where it can be seen, reviewed & understood by all. Off-wiki requests smack of WP:ADMINSHOPping. Suicide threats and requests for oversight are among the few things which should unambiguously be off-wiki requests. Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This is someone who has no on-wiki access, as their account is globally locked. And there's nothing remotely controversial or devious about it - it's simple WP:U1 stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd just do the deletions, log it as an off-wiki request for U1, and be done with it. That is, if I was sure that the author of the email was the right person, since it could not have been sent through the on-wiki email facility. Courcelles (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confident it's the right person, so I'll do as you suggest - that was my instinct anyway, but I just thought I'd check first in case anyone shouted loudly at me. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops Boing! said Zebedee - I missed that key point. Is there any of it worth rescuing into Draft: ? Cabayi (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think very unlikely - we'd just be setting up maybe a few G13 deletions for later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Bit of a backlog at AfD

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

---

Since the departure of stalwarts Spartaz and Randykitty, AfDs ready for closure seem to be backlogged up to a few days now; some of them I can't close because I've !voted on them. Any hands on deck would be appreciated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... Regards SoWhy 15:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, too. Vanamonde (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Will help where WP:NACD allows. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Kaniz Almas

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

---

Please, rename or move Kaniz Almas article to full and official name. I can not move from Kaniz Almas to Kaniz Almas Khan. Can any sysop help me? Thanks-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 12:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev (2nd nomination)

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

---

There was no consensus in making conclusion about the article of Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev. At the first nomination, the nominee was blocked by the duck test, which in my opinion was not enough. The re-closing of the nomination does not fall under WP:SKCRIT#2 as I want independent participants to reach the consensus, because I have questions about the interest of the participant - User:Wumbolo in attempts to keep the article. Instead, he closed the nomination again, which confirms my suspicions again. I ask the decision to be done by an independent participant - sysop in order to maintain neutrality. I ask to pay attention to a large number of participants who resemble sockpuppets, voting to keep the article. Although the verification did not confirm this, they might have relation to each other outside Wikipedia. Also, in the discussing one of sysops confirmed the presence of advertising, but this has not been fixed.--Marsellus W (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Two editors, both voting delete, accused all keep voters of sockpuppetry. These two editors were subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry. Now, Marsellus W is still accusing the keep voters of sockpuppetry, alleging they have an off-wiki conspiracy to keep the article. I think it's more likely that Marsellus W has an off-wiki relation to the blocked sockpuppets. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment@Marsellus W: as one of the Keep !votes in that discussion I'm curious exactly who you think the sock puppets are... Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Hallo, I am the author of the article and learned a lot from the discussion, and wish to thank all those who participated in good faith. I have started revising the article and have included some new and different sources. Users may want to add some further critical sources, perhaps in Ukrainian (I do not speak the language). I am, however, surprised that all those who voted against deletion were accused of sockpuppetry, either by the two ostensibly Russian users who were blocked themselves for sockpuppetry (and who appeared to have created their accounts just to ask for deletion of this article) or by Marsellus W. Marsellus W created his account in 2017 and made one single edit. He deleted a prod from an article about a book about South African gangs, “The Numbers,” written by J. Steinberg [1]. In my article about Maltsev, I have mentioned in passing his book about South African gangs, as I believe Maltsev is more notable for his idiosyncratic ideas about religion (which, also, is my specialized field). However, a quick search revealed that the book “The Numbers” and the book by O.V. Maltsev on South African gangs are fierce competitors in a small market. Interestingly, Marsellus W. defended the very modest notability of an article about the book “The Numbers,” while an article about his author already existed, then disappeared from Wikipedia altogether and resurfaced only to propose theee times for deletion the entry on O.V. Maltsev. As for those who voted to keep the page (and one “weak deletion,” which called for rewriting some parts, something I have started—but of course I need to find sources, otherwise I would create original research), I checked who they are (sockpuppet investigations were quickly closed and none of these users edited any of the many pages I created that I know of). Some are editors with many articles edited or reviewed. Those who argued based on some knowledge of Maltsev, except one (Emma) who appears to be a new user, are editors who have all contributed in the field of religion, in some cases for several years. They surely have more credibility than Marsellus W. when expressing opinions about religion. I have myself edited in the fields of religion and art for many years. It defies logic to argue that anybody who disagrees with Marsellus W. is a sockpuppet or part of a conspiracy (while we are asked to believe that the same Marsellus W. is a disinterested user). Of course, all this is not the center of the discussion, which is on the notability of O.V. Maltsev, but I believe this matter has been discussed at lentgth in the first deletion page Aidayoung (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Proper venue I don't see anything egregious where I would re-open the AfD as an admin. Therefore, per WP:NACD, the proper venue to revist the closing would be at deletion review.—Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bagumba thanks for paying attention. I just want everything to be done according with the rules. I see that there were done edits of the article, but I believe that the consensus should be made by a neutral participant.--Marsellus W (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Bagumba: I changed your wikilink from WP:DR to WP:DRV as I suspect that was the target you were trying to direct them to. Hope that's ok. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Review of ANI closure

=

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

---

I am disputing the ANI closure since Swarm's closure (link to closure) is misleading and includes false accusations, none of which can be ever backed up and the closure completely ignores the harassment that occurred against me. Swarm himself heavily participated in making subjective arguments in the entire thread and made numerous allegations before he made the closure. Even after requests made to Swarm to back his accusations, he has refused to provide any evidence saying "I’m not going to continue debating it,[2] showing lack of accountability for his actions. Swarm had been criticized for mishandling an ANI case recently in April 2018.([3] ARC link) This case was just a content dispute placed on a wrong noticeboard.

Timeline of events in ANI

An editor opens a report on WP:ANEW,[4] after I didn't replied his new messages on article's talk page[5] and he made the reported only because I didn't responded under a couple of hours. Keeping WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:DEADLINE in mind, there is no requirement that an editor is required to keep replying on talk pages in a timely fashion. The report was moved to WP:ANI by a different editor.[6] EdJohnston handled the report first by adding that "there isn't a need for admin intervention",[7] and told NitinMlk not to term my edits as vandalism. Still, NitinMlk attempted to justify his bad understanding of "vandalism".[8] Swarm started to accuse me of personal attacks when I never made any. The hounding allegations were not without merit since NitinMlk has 100% negative history of interactions with me and he didn't reached the article in question without checking my contributions. GenuineArt, an uninvolved party showed Swarm that NitinMlk previously filed a bogus SPI and believes that me and some other editors are paid editors which is completely false.[9] Swarm ignores the above concerns and still asks for evidence when evidence had been already provided to him.[10] NitinMlk doubles down with his spurious accusations of COI/paid editing, socking[11] and continues this harassment while GenuineArt tells him to use a proper noticeboard and GenuineArt remained WP:CIVIL throughout his each and every comment,[12][13][14][15][16] and disengaged despite he wasn't even asked by anyone. NitinMlk was combative and refused to consider that his content dispute didn't belonged to ANI/ANEW.[17] I responded other day detailing the dispute but without repeating any of the points made by others,[18] to which Swarm responded and still ignored concerns about NitinMlk,[19] but I thought of letting it go. After 32 hours, Jytdog[20] makes a comment where he misrepresents my actions and asks if I am engaging in paid editing, to which I responded and I also made a short comment to the unnecessary WP:BLUDGEONING and misleading WP:TLDR comment of NitinMlk.[21] I corrected what appeared to be misleading and rejected any possibility of paid editing. Ivanvector, an involved admin who has been frequently disagreeing with me for months wrote a message by making false allegations and turned the incident one-sided.[22] I ignored this comment and so did anyone else since it appeared to be completely misleading and unconvincing to anyone who has read even 3 sentences of the ANI. Jytdog responds to my comment and attacked me that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia", after reading a talk page thread of my talk page,[23] which I clarified to him in my next response and I encouraged him to launch a COI investigation.[24] Later Jytdog replied the comment as "Thanks for your reply."[25] It seems the matter was resolved and everyone had their answers, however Swarm inflamed the situation (diff) by making numerous false allegations and misrepresentation of the entire thread with regards to me and GenuineArt, ignoring any concerns about other users and tells Ivanvector that if "you want to take action here, there will be no objection from me". Swarm went ahead to claim that I am "squarely in indef territory already"(for what?) Swarm cherrypicked my responses to Jytdog by saying "in favor of engaging in another fight with Jytdog". This shows that Swarm was assuming extreme bad faith as I was only responding to the allegations of paid editing and other false information. While Swarm falsely accused me and GenuineArt of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLE, WP:TE, WP:NPA, it appears that he himself violated it since I was the one being harassed with false accusations of vandalism, socking and COI and I have not made a personal attack or made any false allegations, let alone any "Battle", or "TE". After that Ivanvector responded Swarm admitting his involvement and he can't take any action.[26] GenuineArt responded Swarm asking him to back up the allegations he has made and the reasons why he has been ignoring concerns about other users,[27] and I also made a response to Swarm by clarifying the situation asking him to be neutral when dealing with the matter since the misconduct exists among other side of the dispute.[28] In place of backing up his apparently false accusations and personal attacks, Swarm closes the ANI,[29] and gives a "final warning" to me and GenuineArt.

Corrected timeline of events in ANI by Ivanvector

(In reply to original bullet points by Accesscrawl, see [30] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC))+ An editor opens a report on WP:ANEW,[31] after I didn't replied his new messages on article's talk page[32] and he made the reported only because I didn't responded under a couple of hours. Keeping WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:DEADLINE in mind, there is no requirement that an editor is required to keep replying on talk pages in a timely fashion. The report was moved to WP:ANI by a different editor.[33] There is no requirement for an editor to reply in a timely fashion to messages on their talk page. There is, however, an expectation that when a revert is challenged, the reverting editor will provide an explanation for their revert, rather than reverting again without discussing. EdJohnston handled the report first by adding that "there isn't a need for admin intervention",[34] and told NitinMlk not to term my edits as vandalism. Still, NitinMlk attempted to justify his bad understanding of "vandalism".[35] EdJohnston observed in the ANEW report that NitinMlk's concerns about the quality of the sources was valid, and encouraged both editors to discuss the matter in the open AfD. NitinMlk responded that they understood why Accesscrawl's revert-without-explanation should not be described as vandalism, but more accurately as disruptive; "attempted to justify" is a misrepresentation. Swarm started to accuse me of personal attacks when I never made any. The hounding allegations were not without merit since NitinMlk has 100% negative history of interactions with me and he didn't reached the article in question without checking my contributions. Misrepresenting NitinMlk's comment in the previous point could be considered a personal attack, although I think it's probably something more like poor comprehension. The bit about 100% negative history of interactions is 100% unsubstantiated, and a personal attack to boot. GenuineArt, an uninvolved party showed Swarm that NitinMlk previously filed a bogus SPI and believes that me and some other editors are paid editors which is completely false.[36] It's been pointed out repeatedly to GenuineArt and Accesscrawl that the "bogus SPI" was entirely valid, by many administrators, clerks, checkusers, and others. They don't hear it, but keep bringing up this "bogus SPI"; another misrepresentation. Swarm ignores the above concerns and still asks for evidence when evidence had been already provided to him.[37] Swarm did not ignore anything. They provided a detailed assessment of the situation, observed that NitinMlk's problematic action had already been dealt with, and that the continuing discussion about other misbehaviour was unsubstantiated and asked for evidence. None has been provided even up to today, just more repetition of the same misrepresentations. NitinMlk doubles down with his spurious accusations of COI/paid editing, socking[38] and continues this harassment while GenuineArt tells him to use a proper noticeboard and GenuineArt remained WP:CIVIL throughout his each and every comment,[39][40][41][42][43] and disengaged despite he wasn't even asked by anyone. NitinMlk was combative and refused to consider that his content dispute didn't belonged to ANI/ANEW.[44] These are examples of GenuineArt continuing to pursue the "bogus SPI" red herring, and NitinMlk repeatedly trying to bring the discussion back on topic. If there's harassment going on here, it's not NitinMlk doing it. GenuineArt suggested alternative discussion venues throughout this sideline, apparently ignoring several other editors who pointed out that those venues would likely not accept the dispute. I responded other day detailing the dispute but without repeating any of the points made by others,[45] to which Swarm responded and still ignored concerns about NitinMlk,[46] but I thought of letting it go. This is Accesscrawl continuing to deflect the conversation back to NitinMlk's supposed misbehaviour which Swarm had already analyzed. After 32 hours, Jytdog[47] makes a comment where he misrepresents my actions and asks if I am engaging in paid editing, to which I responded and I also made a short comment to the unnecessary WP:BLUDGEONING and misleading WP:TLDR comment of NitinMlk.[48] I corrected what appeared to be misleading and rejected any possibility of paid editing. Jytdog's single comment about potential undisclosed paid editing hardly meets the definition of bludgeoning. Accesscrawl's diff here also shows them responding to yet another attempt by NitinMlk to discuss the content situation with an aggressive parting shot. Ivanvector, an involved admin who has been frequently disagreeing with me for months wrote a message by making false allegations and turned the incident one-sided.[49] I ignored this comment and so did anyone else since it appeared to be completely misleading and unconvincing to anyone who has read even 3 sentences of the ANI. How many personal attacks are embedded in this bullet? GenuineArt responded to my comment in the ANI suggesting that I was waiting for an opportunity to attack, which I didn't reply to, but when you post a thread at the administrators' noticeboard, you have to expect that administrators will see it. If I'm frequently commenting on noticeboard threads concerning this set, it's because they've been discussed so often these past few weeks. Nonetheless they have repeatedly accused me of hounding and involvement, much as Accesscrawl has done in this incident with respect to NitinMlk and Swarm. Jytdog responds to my comment and attacked me that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia", after reading a talk page thread of my talk page,[50] which I clarified to him in my next response and I encouraged him to launch a COI investigation.[51] Later Jytdog replied the comment as "Thanks for your reply."[52] Jytdog noted in this reply that Accesscrawl was not responding to the query about COI editing but was attacking instead. Accesscrawl responded with an attack, accusing Jytdog of canvassing for some reason. It seems the matter was resolved and everyone had their answers, however Swarm inflamed the situation (diff) by making numerous false allegations and misrepresentation of the entire thread with regards to me and GenuineArt, ignoring any concerns about other users and tells Ivanvector that if "you want to take action here, there will be no objection from me". Swarm went ahead to claim that I am "squarely in indef territory already"(for what?) Swarm cherrypicked my responses to Jytdog by saying "in favor of engaging in another fight with Jytdog". This shows that Swarm was assuming extreme bad faith as I was only responding to the allegations of paid editing and other false information. While Swarm falsely accused me and GenuineArt of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLE, WP:TE, WP:NPA, it appears that he himself violated it since I was the one being harassed with false accusations of vandalism, socking and COI and I have not made a personal attack or made any false allegations, let alone any "Battle", or "TE". I don't know what Accesscrawl thinks was resolved at this point, as they had at this point still not offered any explanation for their reverts nor any evidence for the allegations of hounding they were continuously repeating (c.f. argumentum ad infinitum). Swarm was not assuming bad faith, they were offering a fair observation of the situation. Again, Accesscrawl has overlooked that Swarm already reviewed the situation with NitinMlk (has not "ignored any concerns") and has repeatedly asked Accesscrawl for an explanation, and Swarm is right that Accesscrawl has only responded by starting more fights; from my perspective I agree that Accesscrawl has exhausted the discussion at this point and is in line for a block, but see next bullet. After that Ivanvector responded Swarm admitting his involvement and he can't take any action.[53] GenuineArt responded Swarm asking him to back up the allegations he has made and the reasons why he has been ignoring concerns about other users,[54] and I also made a response to Swarm by clarifying the situation asking him to be neutral when dealing with the matter since the misconduct exists among other side of the dispute.[55] I've "admitted" nothing. I declined to take action at this point because I don't necessarily agree that indef is the right response, and because I know that whoever is the admin who actions the thread will have to deal with brigading from the group (see [56] for a recent example) and I'm tired of being that admin. In place of backing up his apparently false accusations and personal attacks, Swarm closes the ANI,[57] and gives a "final warning" to me and GenuineArt. Swarm made no personal attacks, the allegations against Accesscrawl were warranted and their defense was more battleground behaviour, and warning both of these editors to knock it off was a respectfully conservative response from Swarm. Original comments by Accesscrawl in black, my replies in green. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think that any uninvolved or neutral admin would have completely ignored conduct of the other side of dispute when they have been worse. Given Swarm was biased enough to think that I should be indeffed when I did nothing, I also think that no admin would have falsified the evidence to gain upper hand in the disagreement like Swarm has done. Neither his warnings to GenuineArt makes any sense since his role was only to make a single comment then reply to the comments directed at him and he had disengaged 3 days before Swarm resumed taunting him. To give a "final warning" over only 2 reverts that happened 3 days before the closure and misrepresenting only 2 reverts as "ownership", "battleground" seems completely misleading. I don't think Swarm can cite a policy that prove that other parties were not prone to sanctions or they have a special status. Or if a "final warning" is justified over the things that never even happened, let alone "long term" misconduct that would justify such a final warning that currently stands without any basis.

If things are handled this way then everyone currently reported on WP:ANEW who has reverted two or more times in 24 hours, should be treated similarly and anyone can be sanctioned for reverting two times without using a dispute resolution. Or anyone responding to ANI against false accusations can be sanctioned for merely disagreeing with someone else.

In any case, these warnings without any basis needs to be overturned because they are only going to set bad precedent and raise more amount of spurious complaints and requests for the blocks and also the requests to issue similar spurious warnings to other users. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest as an uninvolved non administrator, that this immediate post coupled with this quite rude post here should be enough to show that yes, Swarm made a closing error. He should have blocked Accesscrawl, and an uninvolved admin should do so now. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The warning was supported by another administrator, Ivanvector, and by an experienced editor, Jytdog. I believe your complaint here may achieve the reverse of the result you want, and cause even more people to scrutinize your behavior, which does not seem to have been beyond reproach. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• I checked the "Swarm started to accuse me of personal attacks" link. It shows two things. First, there is a minor but obvious personal attack as outlined in the linked comment, namely that the accusation that a good-faith editor was hounding you. Your comments at User talk:NitinMlk#Hounding were not of an enquiring nature—they do not seek information but rather are statements of fact ("emerging pattern of your WP:WIKIHOUNDING"). The second point is that the linked comment is mainly asking about your reverts at a particular article so focusing on the minor statement regarding a personal attack at the end of the comment shows a failure to get the point and a failure to engage with other editors. That is either battleground behavior or lack of competence. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: There have been multiple credible accusations of UPE against Accesscrawl, which bear scrutinizing. See his talkpage, for example: [58]. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I was never involved in UPE and I have already explained it appropriately, both on talk page and ANI. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Appears to be a very poor example of a "final warning". The nature of the report was itself poor that it had to be closed in ANEW as malformed than being moved to ANI. Once EdJohnston appeared to have already handled the concerning issue, there was no need to escalate further. I don't see a bright-line violation of a policy from these two editors and such inaccuracies makes the closure invalid. Kraose (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You do realize that WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, WP:EW, and WP:NPA are policies, right? And WP:DE is an enforceable guideline. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • 2 reverts made by two users (with one accusing other of vandalism) days ago does not certainly qualify WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN or WP:EW(once halted). Though describing edits of others as a vandalism does qualify WP:NPA but OP doesn't appears to be the one making them. Unless there is a bright-line violation of WP:DE then that would be enforceable, otherwise anyone would be calling anything a DE whatever they disagrees with. Kraose (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
      • You have failed to read the entirety of the ANI thread. It wasn't just about two edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
        • However more than 80% of the closing note of the ANI with regards to Accesscrawl was all about those two reverts. If those two reverts didn't occurred or they were handled on an appropriate noticeboard which is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where the report was originally lodged in a malformed manner[59] then I am confident that we wouldn't be facing this mess at all. Kraose (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
          • No, the close made no mention of specific edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• This reminds me of the mentioned incident when Swarm blocked an editor who commented in the same ANI as him and most editors/admins disagreed with the block.[60][61] On ANI, Swarm seemed to have escalated situation by frequently using wrong choice of words and his comments were disputed as inaccurate including the obviously misleading assertion that Accesscrawl is "in indef territory already". Swarm could first establish his argument by providing WP:DIFFs then wait for any other admin to take action in place of repeating the same allegations to close with final warnings. Still there was no reason to keep it one-sided. Swarm's conduct has been well below the standards of an admin.

I would not go into further details about the other users. But NitinMlk has a habit of calling non-vandalism a "vandalism" for years of years.[62][63][64][65][66][67] Fact that Swarm ignores such long term competence issue, together with false accusations of COI or paid editing is concerning. The closure was bad and is available to more spurious complaints and requests for getting opponents under the same "warnings" for users working in actual area of AC which is WP:ARBIPA where people often use better evidence to get others sanction compared to what had been used in the ANI by Swarm, but their evidence is never enough to get anybody sanctioned. Lorstaking (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 7) A few points here.

• First, the arbitration case over Swarm's block of Tarage was declined by 7 out of 8 arbitrators, and it was generally agreed that Swarm's action was "below par" as one arb put it, but also that the rationale was sound. It's been six months since that isolated incident, but there are a number of editors who still keep misrepresenting that discussion as a severe rebuke of Swarm, when it was far from that. This is battleground behaviour.
• In yesterday's ANI thread I described Accesscrawl's reported reverting without explanation (reverted 8 edits by NitinMlk in which they described removal of duplicated or inaccurate sources, and referred to talk page discussions for each one), declining to discuss, then reverting again without explanation, as "indistinguishable from vandalism". Whether or not it should actually be described as vandalism, the statement that "NitinMlk has a habit of calling non-vandalism a 'vandalism' for years of years" is completely unsubstantiated: the list of diffs provided are regarding the reported edit which I described as indistinguishable from vandalism, and the rest are diffs from 2-3 years ago, at least one of which is inquiring about vandalism. The degree to which this statement exaggerates the situation makes it difficult to distinguish from a personal attack, and bringing up actions from years in the past is yet another example of battleground behaviour.
• Lorstaking's last statement is difficult to follow, but I believe they are suggesting that the fact that some editors they've reported in the ARBIPA conflict not resulting in sanctions means that Accesscrawl also should not be sanctioned; a display of whataboutism at its finest, and more treating the dispute as a personal battleground.
• I also observed in yesterday's ANI that "Accesscrawl refuses to [collaborate], and instead when questioned in good faith they immediately go on the attack, and there always seems to be someone waiting in the wings to join the battle." Observe Lorstaking, Orientls, Kraose, and DBigXray, all here repeating the same arguments that GenuineArt made in the ANI yesterday, and that Accesscrawl made in their post on Swarm's talk page.
• Accesscrawl's "timeline of ANI" is full of more misrepresentations; I'll respond in a separate collapse.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Lorstaking, you've brought six diffs here. First one of them is related to the current & the previous relevant ANI, and I've already acknowledged it as my one of the worst mistakes. Now coming to the remaining five diffs, all of them belong to either late 2015 or early/mid 2016, which were early days of my editing here. The one from the late 2015 is addressed as disruption in the details provided by me. Remaining four are of early/mid 2016. Two of those four edits were made in regard of the blanking of sourced content, whereas the remaining two were made in regard of the BLP violations - if you are familiar with caste-related area of India, which comes under discretionary sanctions, then you would know that already. Finally, if this is all you could find in my three years of editing here - which include 3400+ edits - then I guess my editing here has been fine. And I was advised few days ago by an experieced user to disengage from dealing with AC. Now reading the above thread where they call my interaction history with them as "100% negative", and also in the light of the various comments regarding me by them & the other user at SPI or/and at the ANI, I guess their advice was totally correct. So I am done here unless an admin asks me for clarification. BTW, this time I was keeping an eye on this page because of all what transpired here recently. Hopefully I won't get accused of hounding for this edit. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• I blocked a highly established editor with a clean block log, that was why it was "controversial". Four uninvolved admins subsequently became involved and upheld the validity of the block, and both the unblocking admin and Arbcom (who I self-reported to) rejected the accusations that it was somehow abusive. So, your portrayal of the situation is disingenuous or poorly-informed. Of course people disagreed, and of course I listened to those people and learned from the feedback I received. Apart from that, this situation doesn't match up at all, AC is not Tarage and I didn't block them over a fairly minor offense. Also, even if I was entirely in the wrong there, it's just downright low to try to use perceived past mistakes to malign someone. Swarm ♠ 17:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "even in regards to accusations against them"[68] this could be deemed to have allowed other side to to continue with their misbehavior.
  Adding that Swarm had instinctive debates over the incidents with the involved editors without finding any unambiguous violation of a policy, it would have been better for Swarm to simply disengage.
  Overall, I believe that no action was needed in this case. Orientls (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Swarm's close asserts the obviously correct statement that WP:AGF is required at all times. Even if the other party has brought a complaint to your talk, it is required that you assume they have a good-faith reason for their complaint and you should address the issue making that assumption. Battleground behavior by Accesscrawl was evident and "no action was needed" is very wide of the mark. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'll have more to say later, I'm just noting here that no blocks have been placed, and there is no action to overturn. Accesscrawl was warned (among other things) to stop their battleground behaviour and personal attacks, and they've responded by waging a new battle against the closing admin and impugning their competence, rather than say trying to demonstrate that they were not doing the things they were warned to stop doing. Several users warned Accesscrawl to drop this stick. It looks like time to take the stick away from them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment What happened at ANI could have been well avoided since I was about to give the explanation of the large edits on the talk page sooner. Once I logged in for that, I saw the notification of ANI on my talk page from EdJohnston,[69] I thought of resolving the misunderstanding related to the issue on the ANI first. I couldn't get a chance to respond and discuss on the article's talk page and putting the issue to bed due to real life but in place of arguing any longer I recognized the reply from Swarm and continued working on it. As far as I know Swarm is an experienced administrator, and I was listening what he had told me.[70] Since then I have made no reverts or any edits to the main article. I only made some talk page edits and I have withdrawn from that entire article for the time being. A lot of things here could have been avoided; frankly, my conduct was clearly below what I expect. For that I apologize. I humbly withdraw where I overreacted anywhere, however I was attempting to make it clear that I am not involved in any COI and also make it clear that I am willing to collaborate. I assumed that if I don't reply to the COI allegations they would be considered appropriate since it was a serious matter. I panicked when Swarm said he would indef me and recommend Ivan to do that.[71] I opened this thread in hopes of getting the warning, Swarm imposed, removed; in doing so, again, this is not to say that I am not acknowledging where I was wrong. You can say that I had already learnt the lesson days before the closure that I should avoid reverting when I can't provide the sufficient reason to revert. This is clearly why I didn't objected any further edits that took place during that same day. Next time I would rather consider informing on the talk page whenever this happens again. I had thought of making a note about it on ANI but things escalated into a wrong direction. Having said this, I hope now that Swarm will pardon and remove the warning. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor has been put on the Guillotine One can say that the head is still attached and the blades are still up, but was all this preparation really necessary ? For 2 reverts ? Were the trouts out of stock ?

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) After watching the entire discussion over a "minor revert/content dispute" on the ANI and now on AN from the fence. I can understand why this "review petition" has been made asking for another admin. Swarm's Closing statement basically has put Accesscrawl on a Guillotine paving the way for a block for even any slightest mistake in future. While I clearly believe Accesscrawl is the one to be blamed for this situation to arise by failing to engage at the talk page in the first instance of reverts. The other party then brought the issue of reverts to ANEW and then to ANI. While I believe NtnMlk only wanted a discussion not sanctions. Accesscrawl should have apologized and the two editors should have been asked to continue the discussion at the talk page. But instead the matter kept escalating on the ANI thread (thanks to these editors and Admins). Lots of blames were thrown around, many valid, many over-exaggerated. Finally Swarm closed the thread with the Guillotine blade in place. While I agree that mistakes were made, the punishment is far too harsh. Guillotine or Hammer isn't a substitute for Trouting. One can only imagine how it will appear to make voluntary contributions on wikipedia knowing that there is blade hanging in the air.

All said, Accesscrawl has "apologized" for his error of judgement, I propose the "Guillotine should now be sent back to the museum", by amending the closure statement to "no further action". --DBigXrayᗙ 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right that NitinMlk only wanted Accesscrawl to discuss, not to seek sanctions. You're right that the two editors should have been asked to continue discussing: they were asked, by EdJohnston, and then repeatedly by Swarm. And you're right that the matter kept escalating, because Accesscrawl refused to discuss but went on the attack against NitinMlk instead. "Putting them on a guillotine" as you describe it is typically how we deal with editors with a history of problematic behaviour: a final warning, and if they do not heed the warning they get blocked. If Accesscrawl doesn't want to get blocked, they can simply stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground. They have been more than generously warned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I made two reverts days before and did engaged in talk page discussion.  Do you have any previous examples where I had been warned for edit warring ever before? The warning over a subjective  debate is an overkill. I think that things escalated mostly after your response but I am not willing to argue about it since that is happening here as well. The thread concerns the ANI closure that  Swarm made warnings without mentioning any obvious misconduct and keeping issue one sided. Don't derail. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not engage in talk page discussion; you didn't edit the talk page at all until a full day after the ANI thread was started. Prior to that, there was a discussion about valid concerns with the sources on the talk page which you did not address, you simply accused NitinMlk of disruptive editing and left it at that. A day later you came back with this diatribe complaining that nobody had identified any issues with the sources, which is nonsense because NitinMlk spent the previous day doing exactly that right on the very same page. That's not engaging in discussion, that's filibustering (or see also WP:GREENCHEESE). If you had actually addressed NitinMlk's comments, instead of just rambling on about policies that don't apply, then probably we wouldn't be here. I don't think you understand what discussion is, honestly, which is why I suggested you should read Wikipedia:Collaboration first. "Discussion" is listening to other editors' concerns and responding collegially with an assumption of good faith. It's not telling everyone over and over that you're right and they're wrong. I don't think you get that. I also think you think everyone is your enemy, probably me especially, but I really just want you, and everyone, to work together at making an encyclopedia and stay generally out of trouble. You're on the "trouble" path, I'd really like it if you would realize it and change course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And what exactly were those crimes for bringing out the guillotine on this editor ? The 2 reverts on an article, a trivial content dispute. I am not considering any alleged conduct on the ANI as a crime here. The ANI is a place where tempers are already high. desmay correctly said that this was an unnecessary escalation. The punishment should always be proportional to the mistakes. Or else it will be called "reckless" use of admin powers. Swarm had already commented on the thread and even then he went ahead and closed the thread with a closing statement that was overly threatening. Accesscrawl has clearly apologized and the closing statement should have been made by an admin not involved in the thread, that says no further action .--DBigXrayᗙ 17:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ummmm... No. An admin commenting on a thread (especially one at WP:ANI) does not make them WP:INVOLVED. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This group does a lot of stretching the definition of INVOLVED, trying to scare admins off. Yet more battleground behaviour. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The WP:IDHT is strong with this one. The conduct on the ANI is precisely why Accesscrawl was warned: they would not acknowledge EdJohnston's and Swarm's advice, and only they themselves unnecessarily escalated the situation. If they could ever listen to anyone, they would have gone away and discussed their revert, and then this entire thing would have been avoided. The closing statement was not "overly threatening", it is a factual assessment of the situation: if Accesscrawl continues to not heed the advice to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground and continues to refuse to work with anyone, they're going to be blocked. See my comment yesterday that "It's obvious in this back-and-forth who is interested in discussing challenges with the article, versus who is just being combative apparently because of a grudge". Accesscrawl only stopped being combative after going to Swarm's talk page to argue the warning, and after opening this thread with more combative misrepresentations, and after several other users have said "should've blocked instead". Now, I'm satisfied that they've finally got the point here, but it took a lot more than Swarm's warning to get there. Struck this last bit per [72] - Accesscrawl evidently still doesn't get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Who could possibly have guessed that the editors coming to defend Accesscrawl would be User:DBigXray, User:Lorstaking and User:Orientls (see various ANIs passim)? We just need User:GenuineArt and we've nearly got the set! Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

First, if you actually read my comment instead of just reading the signatures, one can see that I am not here to defend Accesscrawl, in fact I hold him responsible. If in doubt read it again. Secondly are you suggesting me that using Guillotine (i.e. imposing severe sanctions) instead of trouting should be allowed and "regular" ANI/AN contributors [73][74] should close up their mouths and just silently watch the drama ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"We just need User:GenuineArt and we've nearly got the set!" And there you have it: the full set!: [75]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, did you notice that while mentioning the names Black Kite actually pinged GenuineArt to this thread ? what do you expect after that ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would expect, if they had any sense, that they would stay away so they do not look like part of the tag team / meatpuppet team or look like a disruptive battlegrounder like Accesscrawl. But apparently that was too much to expect. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PINGing someone to an AN thread related to an ANI thread he has particiapted on and then accusing him of MEAT is just absurd. I would leave it at that. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. He implied that the five of you are a meatpuppet/tagteam/brigading team and the ping was in the same post (as being the fifth member). It would have been the better part of wisdom to not confirm the implication, as it would be the better part of wisdom for you to bow out as well instead of continuing to escalate your accusations, because by now the community is well on the alert that the five of you are a meatpuppet team. Softlavender (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am speaking for myself here, Calling someone MEATPUPPET is against WP:NPA. Now, show me where I commented on this related thread on ANI or strike off your unfounded allegations.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, implying or stating that someone is part of a meatpuppet team is a neutral observation about the workings of Wikipedia and the behavior of a group of editors, which can be backed up by evidence. As Black Kite noted, it was typical of the pattern (and further evidence of it) for you and Lorstaking and Orientls to show up here. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple pings and moreover the talkpage notice[76] brought me here. I have AN watchlisted. GenuineArt (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup, it is obvious trolling of this thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want us to start talking about your obvious meatpuppetry? I think you ought not to pursue that matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is a minor content issue at best. I would say the closure should be overturned to no result or no action, as discussed above regarding the consequences of such action can be also interpreted as that any more revert on any article or argument can result in indef block. The closure as it reads now can be well misused, since it was made without a clear or a marginal violation of any of the named policy by GenuineArt and Accesscrawl. Even if we ignore input of EdJohnston, this ANI message of Swarm had already resolved the problem. After that any more messages to that thread were simply unnecessary escalation. Had the problem with the edits on article reoccurred after the report, then the situation would be different. Now that NitinMlk is also committed to disengage with Accesscrawl per his comment here, looks to me like the issue has been resolved. desmay (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think I would have warned if my previous message had "resolved the problem"? I attempted to resolve the situation voluntarily and reasonably, yes, but the fact that AC ignored that message in favor of continued battlegrounding was what led me to issue a formal warning. I'll also go on record and state that I agree with John from Idegon; a block was justifiable here, and based on all this continued IDHT and BATTLEGROUND behavior in response to my decision to be lenient and warn, it may well have been the better decision. Swarm ♠ 16:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. You made final warnings without first resolving the issue with them and in fact there was nothing serious or recurring. Issuing them final warnings after relying upon misleading analysis by Ivanvector (who has now badgered the entire thread) was enough for you to go back 3 days and issue warnings for the outdated and trivial matters. Until now you have failed to bring any obvious violations on which anyone can agree. This is why I support overturning the result because it misleads the viewers to think that only these two editors were involved in misbehavior when multiple other users were involved in worse behavior. You didn't had to be the person to close the ANI with that combative and emotive note. You were too non-neutral to issue unsubstantiated warnings without citing a single obvious policy violation. desmay (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that Swarm's warnings came because discussing the matter with Accesscrawl did not bring about a resolution. The matters were not outdated and trivial, they were ongoing as Accesscrawl's continued attacks and refusal to discuss indicated. As for "misleading the viewers" it was only those two editors involved in misbehaviour, seeing how by that point NitinMlk had already acknowledged what they did wrong and agreed to move on. And if I'm badgering, it's only because editors like you keep insisting on repeating these misrepresentations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) More misrepresentation. The edit flagged "this ANI message" by Swarm was not a resolution, it was another plea to Accesscrawl to drop the stick and discuss the content issue. They did not, and when NitinMlk responded in an attempt to discuss the content issue again ([77]), Accesscrawl responded with a dismissive attack ([78]). That doesn't look like "resolved" to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Given how quickly things take turn in ANI, I thought of presenting some details about the background and I attempted to keep my replies as brief as it was possible. I tried making my replies after carefully considering each of the replies and very soon I disengaged from the thread without having anyone telling me to do. I avoided replying anymore and avoided even after I had been mentioned two times on two different occasions and continued to avoid it until Swarm felt the need to sanction me over the comments I had made 3-4 days ago. Evidently the issue is also moot now. I will nonetheless try to be more helpful in the future and for now I would ask Swarm to remove the warning. GenuineArt (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• I really don't follow some of the reasoning here. Swarm closed an ANI discussion with a final warning about ownership, disruptive editing, and battleground behavior to GenuineArt and Accesscrawl. GenuineArt and Accesscrawl now say (after the warning) that they recognize the problems with their approach (sort of, for apologies these are pretty half-baked, but okay) and therefore they want the closure, which occurred before the apologies, to be reversed, and the warning, which brought forth the apologies, to be removed? What on earth for? The warning is just a warning, not a sanction; unless either of you want to engage in ownership and disruptive editing. Several users are saying "okay, the warning worked, now removed it". That makes no sense to me, and I would endorse Swarm's closure. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• The underlying rationale for my warnings are thoroughly described in my numerous comments in the AN/I thread itself; I trust uninvolved admins will find my comments reasonable and well-within policy. I don't feel that I need to add anything further in defense of the close, though I will say that this thread itself is directly indicative of the behavior I warned against. Swarm ♠ 17:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Unblocking of User:MaranoFan

Hi everyone,

I am coming here to discuss the possible unblocking of MaranoFan. They have lodged this request through UTRS.

They were blocked back in October 2016 by Bbb23 as a CheckUser block and then had the block settings changed by Floquenbeam. They have said that they were blocked for having an alternative account, User:MaranoBoy. They have said that this was meant as an alternative account for when they edit from public computers, and, in fairness, it looks like they did at least try to redirect the user page at some point. This is the unblock request that they have made to UTRS:

"I believe I should be unblocked because I've had enough time to realize how my actions violated Wikipedia's community guidelines. I assure you that it will never ever happen again when I get this account unblocked. Its been 6 months since my last sockpuppet was blocked, thus making me eligible for a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Administrators who declined my previous unblock requests cited this policy, hope I am welcomed back now as an act of good faith. This block feels punitive and not preventative at this point"

"There is a block currently affecting me due to sockpuppetry. I do not believe it was unjustified at the time but it has literally been two years since this account was blocked (and six months since I last evaded my block). I had a chance to realize my mistakes and a chance to realize what a privilege it is to get to edit Wikipedia. Its a very loved hobby of mine and I will never take it for granted once I'm unblocked. Hope the community will unblock me (as part of our own policy of good faith) because I've demonstrated my passion for it time and again."

"I would definitely like you to consider how keeping me blocked is doing the community a lot of harm (and no good). Once my account is unblocked, I will never make a sock again. But Wikipedia will gain a wonderful contributor (one who worked on so many good articles, and did you know? submissions). Its in my as well as the community's best interest to give me a second chance. Please let me have the standard offer now"

I have asked them to explain, in their own words, what led them to commit sockpuppetry before, why this was wrong and what they will do to prevent this in the future. I got this response:

"The account which I was blocked for User:MaranoBoy was intended as an alternative account for use on public computers. [79] I guess it did not comply with Wikipedia policies somehow and Floquenbeam indefinitely blocked me for abusing multiple accounts (I literally had always made it known that this is my alternative account, I don't think I ever abused it to pretend its a different user), and my talk page access was also pulled. I didn't realize that I can still contact admins through UTRS and felt like I was blackballed from Wikipedia forever, this did lead to me making some actual sockpuppet accounts. (Which did violate community guidelines but I didn't use them to vandalize. Look at the difference in this article before I worked on it and the current revision. Since I love Wikipedia so much, I finally mustered up the restraint to not violate my block for six months so I can come back with my dignity. I assure you that sockpuppetry is definitely not a mistake I will repeat in the future, hence me working so hard to get this account back. I have always had good faith and intentions with regard to the content that I actually edit on Wikipedia, even though I made mistakes along the way."

Ponyo has completed CheckUser and found that MaranoFan's IP range has been static for some time and no block evasion for the last 3 months which is as far back as CheckUser can check. Therefore, I am starting a discussion here under the standard offer regarding their block.--5 albert square (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Need more info. There's an exchange on User talk:MaranoBoy where Bbb23 asked why MaranoFan was using an alt, to confirm its legitimacy, and it appears that the two accounts were blocked because no answer was provided, or perhaps that instead of an answer there was snark. However it does seem like MaranoBoy was a legitimate alt, based on their explanation. From what I see on-wiki I would support unblocking, but I'd like to hear from the checkuser first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. This, as the user provided, shows they do have the ability to contribute positively. Happy to give them a chance. WP:ROPE and all that. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: There has been a checkuser check by Ponyo, see just above. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Should've been more specific: I'd like to hear from Bbb23 regarding the original incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector I have received a response from MaranoFan which I think is in relation at least in part to what you have mentioned above:

"Hi, I have a feeling this encounter will come up during discussion. The "private information" that is being talked about is my bipolar disorder. I didn't want to reveal it if not necessary but the situation requires it here. I'd often have mood swings (due to being bipolar) and go on script-enforced wikibreaks, thus the alternate account also served as a safety net for me to be able to ask a reversal of it."--5 albert square (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, 5 albert square. MaranoFan's description of the events leading up to the block leaves a whole lot out. Including:

• A long, long, long history of feuding with others
• A lot more sockpuppets than MaranoBoy, *not* just the obvious "MaranoXXX"-named ones, but others used on the same articles at the same time as MF (I've struck this one portion, because that particular allegation was made for 2 accounts, but never proven --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)), and used to continue to argue with the people he was feuding with using the MF account
• Wildly over-the-top, irrational, blame-everyone-but-myself behavior after the block
• Homophobic comment on their talk page while blocked, leading to revdel of an edit summary and talk page revocation by me

I also think we need to discount admissions of error when they're just the generic, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear variety like "I have learned from what I did wrong and won't do it again". And it isn't a good sign when they claim with a straight face that the only thing they did wrong leading to the original block was to have a legitimate alternate account. If you're going to consider unblocking, I'd put a whole bunch of restrictions on it, along the lines of:

• An actual description of what he did wrong, so there is some reason to believe this time will be different
• One-way interaction bans with everyone he fought with previously
• 1RR restriction
• no alternate accounts, "legit" or otherwise
• Explicitly acknowledging that good faith and rope and last chances will be all used up. This would not be an unblock to resume previous behavior, it would be an unblock to enable them to act 100% completely differently. Any resumption of unhinged behavior will lead to reinstating the block with little to no discussion first.

I'd still be disinclined to unblock, but if people decide they want to, these restrictions seem like the absolute minimum to give this even a chance of working. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, though, it probably makes sense to restore talk page access so they can respond to questions raised here. I'll go do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I've worked with MaranoFan on the Adele songs and consider their contributions very valuable. In terms of the disputes, the warring was usually from a tag-team/meatpuppet team that did no research but instead were AfDing everything by Adele without cause. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock principally for the reasons Floq mentioned. The idea of unblocking someone with that many restrictions, all of which would have to be enforced, makes no sense. Nor does the project need to take into account the user's mental disorder.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock only with one-account restriction - I'm not exactly disagreeing with anyone who's opposed an unblock here. I would like to think that Wikipedia can be sensitive and accommodating to people with health issues, as long as they are able to manage those issues themselves so as not to become disruptive. If MaranoFan wants to use these scripts to manage their own bipolar episodes (I'm sorry if this is not the right term) then I think that's fine; I'm not sure how well they've managed in the past but I'll take Softlavender's word for it that they can be productive. But no alternate accounts: if you need someone to undo the script when you're ready to edit again, use UTRS, or email an admin (I guess you'll have to email an interface admin these days). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply from MaranoFan on his talk page

Note:I've copied this from MB's talk page; if someone could keep an eye on their page and transfer anything else that would be appropriate, that would be great, as my participation is unreliable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Deflecting some of the talking points being used to keep me blocked

• I might have a "history of feuding" with people (who feuded with me equally), but they were never blocked at all and are editing for two years with no problem. The block I got was for sockpuppetry, not for this. The standard offer exists for a reason and the 2 years that have gone by since the respective feud has made me get over it. None of the accounts I violated my ban with interacted with those users either and I don't plan on doing it now
• Yes, I had sockpuppets. I did go six months with no sock activity to demonstrate how I'm a changed person. Again, the standard offer exists for a reason.
• Excessively reverting wasn't the reason I got blocked, and I don't have a problem with that in general. No idea why a user is saying I need a 1RR restriction.
• I'm not gonna interact with any of the users I "feuded" with, again I didn't with any sock accounts and I won't with this one. I'm over it.

I was responsible for at least 3 good articles, 3 successful DYK submissions and had more GAs in the work. Its unfair to deny me a second chance when its been two years since the alleged feuds. (I simply just want to return and work on Meghan Trainor articles, I do not come to Wikipedia to make friends or enemies).--MaranoFan (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please copy this to AN

Changes to Special:Block

Hello all,

If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

• Proposed changes to how logging of blocks happens is being discussed now.

• The third set of designs for a new layout of Special:Block are also available for review and comment.

Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only access to deleted edits?

• User:Mick2 (he is not an admin) asked me about read-only access to deleted pages. He wrote: "I am a somewhat experienced wikipedia editor and -user, and I would very much like to have read-only access to the Deleted Pages. How could this be arranged? I do not have time to become an Admin myself.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • First, I believe it is not technically possible for this permission to be given independently by en-wiki admins/crats. I believe the WMF can (or used to, maybe it's changed) give such an ability to researchers. Second, even if it was possible, I would oppose giving it to anti-vax, pro-David Icke conspiracy loons on general principles. Third, even if it was possible and they weren't a conspiracy loon, I'd want to see more evidence of being "a somewhat experienced editor" than 102 edits; "not having time" is not the only reason they aren't an admin... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • And more to the point, fourth, WMF Legal have said that there are no circumstances in which they'd give the ability to view deleted edits to anyone without "RFA or an RFA equivalent process", since it opens them up to all kinds of legal shit. (Researchers can perform a title search for deleted pages and view deleted history entries but not view the actual revisions of deleted pages.) Total non-starter, given that someone who thinks Monsanto are trying to murder researchers and Wikipedia is conspiring to hide the fact has slightly less chance of passing any kind of vetting process than my sister's cat. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I dunno, if her cat is anything like my kittens, they're a total dick. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive user report

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

---

Hi Wikipedia administrators,

Recently there has been a user who has returned causing disruptive edits on the New Orleans article. This user in particular creates images and has been warned numerous times here and on Wikimedia Commons about them using unlicensed images (or at least not providing the sources for such images). This user has also blatantly reverted an image with sources and licenses to prove its ability to remain on Wikipedia articles with his unsourced content. They have also further continued to produce red links too. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: admins won't be able to do much about it here unless you indicate who the user is. You're also required to notify them; see the big yellow notice when you make an edit on this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:. Hi. I was also writing a discussion with a Portuguese Wikipedia administrator. Apologies for forgetting the specifics. I did notify the user though (yet while chatting forgot to tell you the name of this administrator). Forgive me. The user is user:Nowhereman86.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see where they tried to replace File:New Orleans header collage.png with File:NOLA Header.jpg, a file which doesn't exist here and doesn't seem to exist on Commons. Is that what you mean? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That file got deleted as a copyvio Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did it? I couldn't see a deletion log, I assumed it had just never been created. Anyway, if it's deleted, then the issue seems to be settled, unless there is a pattern of copyvio here? I just see the one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

forgot to mention, was deleted on commons, so log is at c:File:NOLA_Header.jpg. Anyway, yeah, their last upload on enwiki was 8 years ago, and their last upload on commons was 2 years ago, and they've made hardly made any disruptive edits recently, so nothing to do here or on commons. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Not sure how best to fix this

Hey, looking for advice. I created WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_largest_empires_(2nd_nomination) only it looks like it's actually the sixth nomination, and the second was deleted or skipped for some reason. Anyway, I'm not sure if I should be deleting it and reopening as 6th nomination or if we just roll with it as is... Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: just leave it, leave a note on the AFD about the unusual naming. It looks like the actual #2 was under the wrong name, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Largest empires (with a capital L). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)