Hosta

Noticeboards, etc. Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing. General Administrators' noticeboard main incidents Bot owners Bureaucrats Closure Education main incidents Importing pages Main Page errors Open proxies OTRS Oversight User permissions Articles and content Biographies of living persons Copyrights file review questions on media problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Titleblacklist Translation Page handling History merges Mergers Moves Protection XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Miscellany Undeletion User conduct Abuse long-term cases Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring & 3RR Editor restrictions General sanctions New pages patrollers Paid editing Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism Other Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Mediation Questions editor assistance Help desk new articles new editors Teahouse Requests for comment Village pump ideas policy proposals technical miscellaneous Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts: WP:AN WP:ANB When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to do so.
Are you in the right place? Permanent deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism. Impolite or uncivil communications → consider the advice at the civility policy page. Page protection → requests for page protection. Edit warring → the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Suspected sockpuppetry → sockpuppet investigations. Improper usernames → usernames for administrator attention. Administrative backlogs → you can add {{Adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page or post a notice here. Cut and paste moves/history merge → the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Review of the deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review. Review of the close or requested move discussion of a page → Move review. Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution. Issues not requiring administrative tools (content concerns, naming conventions...) → the Village Pump or Editor assistance requests. Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) If you are blocked → place the code: {{Unblock|Your reason for unblock}} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "Email this user"). If you can't edit your talk page, you may appeal your block via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia → Meta-Wiki.

Centralized discussion An RfC to permit trusted non-admins to close TFD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes A proposal to forbid IPs from participating in the RfA process. A proposal to elevate WP:BRD to guideline status An RfC on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata A proposal to add an edit restriction function to Wikipedia.

Noticeboard archives Administrators' (archives, search) 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 Incidents (archives, search) 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 3RR (archives, search) 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 Arbitration enforcement (archives) 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 Other links Talk Checkuser Backlog

Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

XfD

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion backlog

(Initiated 53 days ago on 25 April 2015) WP:TFD now has a backlog stretching back more than one month (April 25, 26, 28; May 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16). Could an uninvolved admin please help close some of the discussions? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 23

There are two open discussions that were open almost a month ago, and nobody has commented on them in over 3 weeks, and to me, the conesus seems pretty clear on both of them. JDDJS (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 55 days ago on 23 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --slakr^\ talk / 23:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21

There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 116 days ago on 21 February 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Now down to two. Some of the usual CfD closers can't close these as they have participated in the discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right; it's down to one, but I voted in that one. All I can say is that the OP actually proposed one thing (to listify a certain category) and the !voters then !voted for something else (to delete, or to restructure, or to confirm that a certain category is not for people). I propose to close this procedurally as "no discernable result" and open a new thread discussing the real issue. Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"No consensus" would be the usual wording. If no uninvolved editor closes it within another week of your comment here, I say go ahead. – Fayenatic London 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I voted in that discussion, so I shouldn't close it. The problem with "no consensus" is that it defaults to the status quo, and no action will be taken. Action is however necessary because the present state of things is a mess, which needs to be cleaned up. Your own !vote, Fayenatic, is the most sensible way how to do it. That's the reason why I propose to either amend this RfC, or start a new one, giving that option for choice. The !voters actually, as far as I can see, rejected Binksternet's proposal to listify the category. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Done --slakr^\ talk / 05:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Category:Death in New York City. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfD related to Mattress Performance

Per a discussion on my talk page, this RfD discussion could use an early close because of a BLP violation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If an uninvolved admin could please look at this sooner rather than later, it would be helpful. This seems to be a case of SNOW delete as a BLP violation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done --slakr^\ talk / 04:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 7

DRV headed off the rails due to a number of end-runs around process (including perhaps by me); currently generating more heat than light. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrative

ANI proposal to dissolve IBAN between me and Catflap08

This proposal received no opposition, was supported by one of the subjects and three other users; the other subject was neutral. But the thread got archived no result by a trigger-happy archive bot. It's not really a close request so much as a request to read the discussion and remove the WP:EDR entry accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 39 days ago on 9 May 2015). Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note: This thread has been unarchived; it can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IBAN violation by Catflap08. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to dissolve interaction ban at this time. There's no need to resurrect the thread out of the archive to close it. If this topic flares up again, editors can refer to it there. Hopefully the editors will mind the IBAN and there won't be any need.

Marking this as Done. HiDrNick! 15:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#History of the WWE - Long-running edit war

No comments for a couple of days bar my bump, consensus is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 30 days ago on 18 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: This one has already dropped off the main ANI page (it's gone to Archive886, here); I'm rather shocked that no action was taken on it, as the consensus was clear. So if an Admin wants to move on it, they're going to have to pull it back from the archives to the main ANI page first. But I get the impression that this one is going to be left to slide, unless and until if flares up again I guess... --IJBall (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Stale – I'm shutting this one down, as any Admin action at this point is exceedingly unlikely as it's basically moot after all of this time. But this one will continue to exist in the archives for referencing if this issue should flare up again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Braess's paradox#Requested move 21 May 2015

One opposing editor, has not answered requests for facts supporting his/her claims, appears to have said all they are going to say. 85.178.209.39 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 27 days ago on 21 May 2015)

Done Moved by EdJohnston on June 15. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Port Stephens, New South Wales#Requested move 07 June 2015

This RM was a flawed open. An editor who had made multiple, undiscussed moves and who has been discussed at WP:AWNB for these moves, moved Port Stephens to Port Stephens, New South Wales and turned Port Stephens into a disambiguation page. I requested it be moved back at WP:RM as an uncontroversial technical request, but this was opposed by an unrelated editor so I gave up and moved the page to the correct disambiguation. I then retargeted Port Stephens, New South Wales to a more appropriate article. Without asking, another editor then opened the RM 5 hours later. The RM has the appearance that opened it, but I did not. This has caused confusion as it looks like I'm asking for a redirect to be moved over a disambiguation page, which was not the purpose of the original request. Attempts to explain this have proven pointless and, as the discussion serves no purpose it should be closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. The dab page has four credible entries. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins) (Initiated 89 days ago on 20 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles (Initiated 74 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably weigh in on this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 60 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Proper noun#Merge?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proper noun#Merge? (Initiated 79 days ago on 30 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've drawn some additional attention to this discussion recently, or tried to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Major edits at the merge-from article mooted the merge proposal, so I rescinded it (i.e., it's already non-administratively closed).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You closed one part of the discussion, what about the rest? And what about the merge tags on the articles? Is there still something to merge, or should they be removed? Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tensor#RFC: is V = V**?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tensor#RFC: is V = V**? (Initiated 66 days ago on 12 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Done—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities proper by population#RfC best resolution of definition of title and content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of cities proper by population#RfC best resolution of definition of title and content (Initiated 91 days ago on 18 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure there's anything clear to close. --slakr^\ talk / 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Proposed change

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Proposed change (Initiated 55 days ago on 23 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Is this an "actual" RfC? Does it even need a "formal close"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  I have no idea. Realistically, this should probably just be handled with an {{editprotected}} request and whoever responds will spot-check for consensus. --slakr^\ talk / 03:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards#Proposed_move_to_align_with_rest_of_MOS

Last comment was made on May 23rd; there do not appear to be any new arguments forthcoming. Thanks! —Swpb^talk 17:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 May 2015) —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?

Total WP:SNOWBALL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to let it run. Its still early days... Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 June 2015) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity?

The last comment was a few days ago. This should be easy to close, so any uninvolved editor can close it. Thank you. - MrX 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 16 days ago on 1 June 2015) The RFC header is still there, it hasnt went 30 days, it needs more time before closing. AlbinoFerret 14:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RfCs don't have to run for a full 30 days. I actually posted this thinking there was a backlog and it wouldn't be looked at for several days. By then it would be appropriate to close.- MrX 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem to list, and there is still a backlog so it may take awhile to get to. By then it should be closer to the 30 day mark most are closed at. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis_Hastert#RfC: Should the lead mention that there were allegations of sexual_abuse?

There is a single editor with an oppose comment. Request closure per WP:SNOW. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 3 days ago on 14 June 2015) Not a "SNOW" close – the opinion is rather more divided than you make it out to be, as I see a few for just "abuse", and a few more for "sexual abuse". Further, your one "oppose" makes some good points. I'd advise letting it play out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

New Twinkle block module!

Hello admin community! I am pleased to announce the deployment of the new Twinkle block module. Over the past few months I've worked with several admins and Twinkle's maintainers to bring this module to you, geared toward productivity. I am confident you all will come to enjoy this update but it may take some getting used to. The major change that will affect you is that block templates are no longer issued from the Warn module, but from the new Block module. Just uncheck block to issue only the template. If the module is used as intended, you'll almost always be blocking and issuing the template at the same time using Twinkle.

Allow me to briefly demonstrate what would be a common scenario and the intended workflow with Twinkle:

• You want to block User:Example
• You go to either Special:Contribs/Example, User:Example or User talk:Example and click Block in the Twinkle menu
• If the user has been blocked before, you will see a message in red that reads "This user has been blocked in the past (block log)". Clicking the block log link will open it in a new tab. Use that to determine the duration you want to use
• Choose your options accordingly. You'll almost always choose a preset and then adjust only the duration if necessary
• Execute the block and be amazed! (hopefully)

So the idea is that you'll never have to go to Special:Block again, and that letting JavaScript do both the blocking and issuing of the template will save you mucho time.

Please share any feedback that you may have. I'm actively working on this and will try to be as responsive as possible in addressing your concerns. Below is a list of known bugs that will be squashed no more than 12 hours from the time of writing. Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Known bugs and to-dos

• See User:MusikAnimal/twinkleblock

Discussion

• Won't this be an issue when trying to template users who do not yet have a talkpage? (pinging Drmies who brought it up) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  It should create the talk page if it doesn't exist. The issuing of the block template should function the same as it did when it was in the Warn module, except for that bug with the duration mentioned above =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, I tested it on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings and it worked just fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was a problem the first time, but the second time I tried it it worked fine. Funny thing is, MusikAnimal, I've been meaning to ask some smart person to make something like this--blocking and notifying in one go--but never got around to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Doc, that smart person created it long before you thought of it, it's at User:Animum/easyblock.js, though I'm guessing you won't need it now. —SpacemanSpiff 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes some will still use EasyBlock, as it serves a different purpose I believe. Twinkle block is more of a full-control interface rather than quick and dirty vandal-blocking tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still use EasyBlock for some things, and the Twinkle module for some other things (I have been using the Twinkle module for about a month). They both work well. Also echoing Chillum below. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for this most useful tool. Chillum 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Looks very useful, thanks for the work. Just came across it now - I blocked as normal, then agonized for a while that the block option was missing from TW's warnings popup. When I found the new menu item I quickly chose a template and this notice was posted. In these (rare, I assume) cases, can it say "until" instead of "for a period of"?  —SMALLJIM  08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Smalljim: Did you have this functionality before with the Warn module? I don't see a way to change the wording with the {{uw-block}} family of templates. However, I am going to release an update that will allow you to omit a duration parameter, so it will read "you have been blocked temporarily". Would that work for you? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  In the rare case of just issuing a block notice (i.e. if the "block" tickbox is cleared) the expiry param in the template should be blank (like the old TW block option did), so that the template then fills in "blocked temporarily", rather than getting something like "blocked from editing for a period of Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:27:53 GMT", as I did. I think I understand why it happens - if posting the template after the block was issued separately, the original block length parameter ("31 hours" or whatever) is no longer available since it's been converted by the system to a block-expiry timestamp. But per my reply to your 2nd comment, I don't expect this to occur often. I've issued a few blocks today using the full system and it's looking good.(*)  —SMALLJIM  17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  (*) Not sure about having the page name included in the block notice by default though - that's not how it used to work.  —SMALLJIM  17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  I can make that happen. When issuing only a template, leave the duration parameter empty. Thank you for catching that! Smalljim About the page name: I assume you mean how the linked article is supplied when vanarticle parameter is present in the URL. I believe this is default-functionality (I don't think I added it), and you should see the same when issuing any other warnings. As far as I know this vanarticle URL parameter is only set when an edit is reverted with Twinkle and the user's talk page opens up in a new window. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  1). Great! 2). After rolling back a vandalism edit, I'd go to the user's talk page to check the warnings: if appropriate I'd warn again (the vanarticle param being useful), but if it was appropriate to block, I'd use Special:Block to do so, then go back to the UTP and use TW to issue the block notice: the link to the "vanarticle" param would therefore be lost and it wouldn't appear in the block notice. Most block notices don't include it and I don't honestly think it's appropriate in most cases (unless the vandal has only worked on that one page). Don't know what others think, but I think it should be omitted, if possible.  —SMALLJIM  18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Got it. This makes sense to me... if there was really a single article that was the target of disruption you can simply put it in yourself. The script should not assume that. I just looked at the code and this is easy enough to remove, so consider it done — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  That would be excellent, thanks. I'll let you know if I come across anything else in the next few days. It's proving very useful so far :)  —SMALLJIM  22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Also let me note that moving forward you can use Twinkle to perform the block and add the template at the same time, and it will correctly add "31 hours" or what have you in the template. If you are in fact opting with adding a timestamp instead of a duration, you may wish to use the "exclude duration in template" option that I've mentioned above, which I hopefully will have deployed for you sometime today. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  I get that - see above. This was just the first time I came across it without knowing of your enhancement.  —SMALLJIM  17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, this is already proving useful. However, blocking with talk page access revoked does not hand out a template with notalk=yes. MER-C 12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @MER-C: Interesting. I tried out several templates in my sandbox, such as {{uw-block|notalk=y}} and it didn't see to note anything about talk page access being revoked. There is however an option to do a "Generic block with talk page access revoked". This will use an appropriate template, but it should be fixed to have the same block options as the normal "Generic block (custom reason)", which I can do. Would that preset suffice for you moving forward? Or could you share which templates accept the notalk=yes parameter? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Addendum: I was using notalk=y and not notalk=yes. This is a great idea and I will implement it so that if "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" is checked the script will append the notalk=yes parameter. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that this has partially broken Timotheus Canens' SPI helper script since block notices aren't being issued.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Berean Hunter: Hmm, how does this script have a dependency on Twinkle? I see in the code where it generates the block notices. Are you saying you were using Twinkle to issue block notices? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, odd. When I did this case earlier, it didn't tag so I manually tagged and then found the thread at WT:Twinkle which lead to this thread. I went back and tried tagging again just now and it works. (shrugs) Happy that it is working.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Spelling mistake: Preset - Extended reasons - "Possible comprimised account". Should be "compromised".  —SMALLJIM  13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know if it's possible but {{schoolblock}} shouldn't be subst'ed – see Template:School block).  —SMALLJIM  15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks Smalljim! I should have all of these updates out soon (tonight hopefully!) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim and MER-C: Thank you for your feedback! I've updated the module and fixed all the aforementioned bugs and added a few other things (options to exclude duration parameter from template and option to add |notalk=yes when issuing only a template). This has been tested thoroughly on testwiki and I tried a few things over at WP:NAS and all seems fine, but please let me otherwise. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:MusikAnimal How come I got User talk:90.219.210.96 an indefinite template for a 24 hour block? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  @CambridgeBayWeather: With the old Twinkle I believe you could not issue {{uw-spoablock}} without it being for an indefinite duration, and now I see why. That template apparently does not conform to the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings (doesn't accept the time= parameter), and has it own system of parameters to distinguish the sockmaster from sockpuppet.

  Instead, there should be two different templates conforming to standards. One would be the indefinite one for a sockpuppet and the other for the sockmaster which would accept a duration. I will post at WT:UW and see if I can't make these templates myself.

  In the meantime, you should probably reserve {{uw-spoablock}} for sockpuppet accounts, and use the generic block template for the sockmaster, manually typing in the block reason. However for IPs I would use the block evasion template and not a sockpuppet-related one at all. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Small spelling correction to make per this edit summary, block ==> blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

LTA and NOTHERE

• @MusikAnimal: Could you add block reasons WP:Long-term abuse and WP:NOTHERE to the new system? They are available in Special:Block, and I've just noticed their absence.  —SMALLJIM  21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Smalljim: NOTHERE is in the "common reasons" at the top. Is there a corresponding template for long-term abuse? If not, which template should we use? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. In the preset common reasons in the new TW, I've got "Anonblock" and "Anonblock - likely a school", "School block", "Generic block (custom reason) - IP", and "Vandalism". I'm sure NOTHERE's not there! Nor should it be, because it isn't a common block reason. But I can't see it in the rest of the list either.

In Special:Block, LTA and NOTHERE appear, one above the other just before "Revoking talk page access", the last entry in the "Common block reasons" section. {{Uw-nothereblock}} is available for NOTHERE, but I don't think there's one for Long-term abuse. I think Long-term abuse may have been added to Special:Block fairly recently, and it may be that the intention is not to template the LTabuser's talk page. I'll see if I can find any discussion about it.  —SMALLJIM  22:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've struck most of the above because I've found NOTHERE - I was looking at it with an IP selected, not a registered user. Sorry about that! I'm still not convinced that it should be one of the common reasons though. Regarding Long-term abuse, is it necessary to have a template for it to be added?  —SMALLJIM  19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: (let me know if I should stop pinging you) I admittedly am going off of my own practices in putting NOTHERE as a common reason, but this seems to be fairly popular for the anti-vandal admins. The idea being if you've got a blatant vandal that made but a few good edits, NOTHERE would be most fitting indef template. On a typical day I use it several times. I'm of course happy to adjust the ordering on whatever consensus supports. Which brings me to your next question: I can definitely implement a special case where the long-term abuse preset will uncheck the issuing of a template, but since default behaviour with Twinkle can influence actual practices, I'd like to see others showing support first. In my opinion it makes sense, sort of a WP:DENY scenario. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For LTA user accounts I would support denying recognition. However in my experience most LTA IPs are only using the IP briefly. For them a the likely audience of the template is the next person to use that IP, often not long later on a cell phone. Chillum 20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Yes, MusikAnimal, no-ping is fine for now) I agree that WP:NOTHERE can be a very useful block reason. My concern is that its home, WP:HERE, only has the status of an information page. I'd suggest that it's OK to have it tucked away towards the bottom of the list of block reasons, but not up top with the policy-based ones. Personally I'd like {{softerblock}} above the scroll because I use that one a lot at present – maybe the list order could be customisable? I agree with Chillum regarding LTA. —SMALLJIM  10:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOA is also an information page, but undoubtedly one of the most common block reasons on a day to day basis. For the purposes of the script it's more about usage than what block reason entails. What I am going to do I think is create a tool to rearrange the list in Twinkle preferences. This is the only mention of wanting to move NOTHERE but I've had requests to rearrange other items, so sounds like people want control, so I shall provide it :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, so it is! Though it is solidly based on current policy: "Vandalism is prohibited". Anyway ... I'm not going to argue about if you can make the order customisable – that would be ideal. Should we continue any further detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle?  —SMALLJIM  21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This entire thread probably should have been at WT:TW to begin with, but I guess I wanted it geared toward the admins, as this noticeboard is. I've got nothing more for this topic in particular. If you're okay with a customizable dropdown than I am too! I'm also convinced LTA can be added and by default unchecks adding of a template. It may be a bit before this update happens, just so you know. Hopefully within a week's time. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Looking at the way the Twinkle preferences panel works, it is not going to be easy to implement custom ordering. By any stretch of the imagination. I'm afraid this will have to be on hold. What am going to do is produce actual usage statistics of which types of blocks are the most popular, and I will reorder based on that. Right of the bat I see that "disruptive editing" should be in the common reasons. Anyway sorry if I got your hopes up :/ It's still on the backburner, though! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of Jaam0121

Jaam0121 (talk · contribs) was blocked at the end of last year for edit-warring and had a declined unblocked request on 7 January. He's now appealed his block and has pinpointed to specific articles he wants to write about, in perfectly acceptable English in my view. I realise the standard offer says 6 months, not 5, but I think this meets the spirit of that essay, and that's what's important. I'm happy to unblock (per basic conditions such as any more 3RR violations will get a indef) - does anyone have any objections? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds acceptable to me; good call. All the best, Miniapolis 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Perfectly acceptable English" is something of an overstatement, but I've read worse. Sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to be difficult, but I would have serious problems in accepting this user's unblock. I feel that his standard of English is unsatisfactory, and would invoke competence issues. I am certain that there are other language wikipedias in which he would be more comfortable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with the esteemed Mr. Bradbury and others. CIR due to language skills. The odds of this becoming a problem in the future are closer to 1 than 0. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned about the user's English language proficiency. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• For example:

  Greetings to the entire community making life wikipedia article. I dirigo to plant a drawback orginó an edit war, in which the user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) added DonBarchanga article modifying information supported by official figures and very safe source. The problem is the figures for Venezuela, which according to the National Statistics Institute (Single demographic entity, governmental and able to provide data of this kind in the country) it is clear with the percentage of the population, which ignores the user. Venezuela is a very racially mixed nation. Research in 2001 on genetic diversity by the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC) in which the population was compared to the historical patterns of the colonial castes. According to the last population census in Venezuela conducted by the National Institute Estadististica (INE), the population in the country afrodescendienten represents 2.8% of the national total, which is 181 157 result in the number of Venezuelans with black racial characteristics[1]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [2] which is the year 2009, while the INE 2011 is also such reference is to the embassy, and the place is the Venezuelan government. I think it is clear, unfortunately I found myself involved in an edit war by trying to restore the information because despite trying to dialogue with the user I never received a response or Animos discuss here by the user, which is unfortunate. Currently, the issue is for the user, and can not be reversed because the article was protected in view of the edit war.. I hope to intervene in this discussion, although I sincerely doubt it does. Thank you very much, greetings.

  Sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and looks very much like it was mechanically translated. BMK (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with others here that the language is just too poor to fully function on the English Wikipedia...I believe the block must stay. only (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• In this post [3] Jaam0121 explicitly states that he is using translation - presumably software. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's a time and place for the use of mechanical translation. I've used it to translate articles from other language Wikipedias, which I then use as a basis for an English article, after more research and extensive re-writing -- but as a means of communication on talk pages it truly sucks, and if you can't communicate with other editors in English, you shouldn't be editing here. I wouldn't think of editing on French Wikipedia, for instance, even though I know just enough French to make simplistic edits such as Jaam0121 describes in the diff provided by AndyTheGrump, and I wouldn't edit there because I would have no way of communicating with other editors. As English Wikipedia, we have enough problems with different varieties of English and the conflicts that arise from them, we don't need more problems from people whose command of English is not sufficient to edit and communicate in more than a sub-rudimentary way. BMK (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but the English isn't really understandable ... at all - I know this has been mentioned above but it'd be like me editing on for instance a Dutch Wikipedia and using a translator to help .... It just wouldn't work and ofcourse I'd end up being blocked especially if I were writing on talkpages and unfortunately in this case with him it doesn't work .... I have to agree with everyone above keeping the block seems the best option here. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have to oppose an unblock as well. There is a fundamental expectation that editors be able to communicate effectively in whatever language they are contributing in. Blackmane (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not having a problem understanding what they're saying, though I can see that others might and the potential for mistranslations is certainly there. I'd be willing to support an unblock if they could show that their understanding of English would not get in the way of making changes to articles by giving us some example changes. They've said this on their talk page, but maybe I've missed something, so, unless their English skills were previously an issue, they were blocked for edit warring, not poor English. There's no reason to think a problem that didn't exist before will suddenly pop up, surely they didn't forget all the English they knew in the few months they've been blocked. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• PhantomTech - I think I can get the gist of what Jaam0121 is tying to say after several rather laborious read-throughs of a passage such as the one I posted above, but I'm far from certain that I am correct, and such uncertainty usually leads to misunderstandings which can, indeed, end up in edit wars. In any case, it is irrelevant that the original block was for edit warring, we're now considering their overall capacity for editing here, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That a lack of proficiency in English wasn't noticed before is perhaps interesting, but it's not a salient point, nor is their "I'm only going to do X" statement. If he's reinstated, is someone going to dog his edits to make sure that he only does "X"? No, he'll be just another editor until a problem pops up again, and he cannot cogently express himself to explain what's going on. BMK (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to have to trust their promise to stay in a certain area of editing, looking at their contributions shows that that's all they've ever done. I know that we're now considering other problems that they may have when editing, my point was that they've always been contributing with the same (or worse) level of English and if it wasn't causing a problem then, there is no reason to believe it would now. That said, while they seem to have been very active in keeping information up to date and their English did not seem to interfere with the changes they were making, as I skimmed over their contributions, I started to notice issues in places where their edits were contested so it does seem that problems simply went unnoticed instead of not existing. I have to agree then, that contributing to the English Wikipedia is likely to just cause more problems. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support encouraging the user to contribute to their native language Wikipedia instead. Sam Walton (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is no criteria for how fluent or proficient someone is in English in order to edit. We do, however, have a policy about disruption. If this editor's contributions end up being a net-negative then we have to assess on those grounds. It may be unorthodox but I don't think they're helping, not until they improve their written English and stop using a translator. The Spanish Wikipedia was created for those who are fluent in other languages to contribute. I think it's also important to note that this editor was blocked for edit warring -- not poor English. Mkdw^talk 17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is true that the block was imposed for edit-warring, not for competence issues; but this is irrelevant at this point in time. An admin considering an unblock is expected to consider not only the original reason for the block, together with the comments made by the blocked editor about his block, but also in more general terms whether an unblock will or will not be of apparent or expected benefit to Wikipedia. Consideration of competence in this case is therefore entirely relevant and appropriate. I have commented on the competence issue above and will not, to avoid giving an impression of piling on, do so again. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I would also note that "competency" isn't an issue of character or mental stability. For instance, I wouldn't make a competent surgeon, so two weeks ago I had a real surgeon work on my knee. It does have to do with an individual's ability to assess their own limitations. I've gone in on foreign language Wikis and made changes and corrections, but I know the limits of the translator and limited myself to changing geographical features or measurements, and I didn't try to write long passages of prose. I know my limits, he doesn't. That is what makes competency an issue, an inability to recognize that his actions overreach his skill level. Wikipedia isn't a good place to practice your English skills, as you just cause more work for others. We have many editors with similar English skill levels who contribute here but limit themselves to small stuff, thus it never becomes an issue. They understand their limits. Again, he doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Retired administrators

A question about Revdel vs Oversight

A user reveals personal information in their summary or edit contents, an administrator notices and decides to revdel the edit out of courtesy. However the interface for revdel says FOR USE BY OVERSIGHTERS ONLY, when suppressing privacy and defamation for the criteria User edited while logged-out, revealing IP address and Revealing of non-public identifying or personal information. If the admin is not an oversighter, does that mean they cannot revdel those types of edits? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good question. If I ran across an edit that needed OSing, I would be inclined to REV DEL then contact OS, to first get it out of the public eye (regardless of rationale I used in the interface), but not sure if that is some new change or what. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And the policy seems to contradict itself on this, because it lists material that could be suppressed as Revdel that is elsewhere implied to be the sole domain of oversight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tended to break the rules: I'll G6-delete the article and then restore it minus the offending edit(s) before requesting oversight. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• @FreeRangeFrog: What I've been told about those is that the interface uses the same list of rationales for oversight and for revdel. Those rationales are intended to be used as rationales for oversight only; they're not intended as rationales for revdel--if nothing else, the oversight rationales don't have any links to the revdel policy, which obviously isn't an issue for the private oversight log but is for the public revdel log. You're welcome--encouraged, in fact--to revdel edits that you send to oversight; you should just use one of the more generic revdel-oriented rationales to do so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT for policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If I can chime in with my own experience: of the very few times where I accidentally edited while logged out, I RevDel'ed the info but did not request OS -- personally, hiding it from "the public" was sufficient for my peace of mind and I did feel like suppression from admins was necessary. If I had, I would've similarly RevDel'ed + requested OS. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thank you for the clarification. Here's the 64K question though, what happens if I revdel, contact oversight and then they say no? I assume I have to go back and make the revisions visible again? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, no; oversightable edits are a strict subset of revdelable edits. So, if you've deemed it worthy of sending to oversight, you will have already deemed it worthy to revdel, and since there are edits that warrant revdel but not oversight, the oversighter's decision on OS doesn't have to override your admin decision on simple revdel. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, keep in mind Oversighters are also admins -- if they think that even RevDel was too much, they have the tools to deal with it, or at least talk to you about it (and/or can refer clear misuse of RevDel to ArbCom). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(As an OSer) Everything above is correct. Interface uses the same reasons which is why there are both RevDel and OS reasons there. As it says at WP:REVDEL I'd encourage admins to use the RevDel reasons if they want to delete before sending to Oversighters as it draws less attention and if an OSer declines to Oversight there's no need to change the reason (from an OS reason to a RevDel reason). The exceptions I can think of to Writ Keeper's comment above are editing logged out and revealing personally identifying information about yourself which aren't covered by the RevDel policy AFAIK so if an OS declines to suppress (very likely) it might need to be un-revdel'd. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thank you for the clarification. Just one question here, irrelevant to the situation that made me raise the issue in the first place. You're saying that if I mistakenly edit while logged out and I'm worried about my privacy, you would deny my request to oversight my IP address? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc and FreeRangeFrog: Removing IP addresses is covered by RevDel. "RevisionDelete can be used to hide any privacy breaching and/or defamation posts while waiting for Oversight." And on the linked page, "This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:: No not at all that would definitely be suppressed. I was thinking of a scenario like this: person vandalises with IP and is sitting on lvl 4 warning, then logs into their account and requests suppression - that would probably not be granted as it would be trying to avoid scrutiny. @NeilN: Yes definitely can be revision deleted before suppression, but if suppression is declined then it puts it in a limbo of not really being covered as it's no longer waiting for suppression (but depending on the circumstance you might be able IAR and keep it revision deleted). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Aaah, I completely misunderstood that one. Agree that would not be a valid revdel or oversight, of course. Thank you again! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Getting back to the heart of the matter, the suppression reasons are red flags that tend to attract attention if they are publicly visible (it's okay to admit that even administrators get curious), and that is why they're marked "for use by oversighters only" - our logged reasons are not publicly visible when doing suppressions. If an administrator was to use the same reason, it will be publicly visible. Keep in mind that not everything gets revdeleted or suppressed as soon as it occurs; it may not be noticed until hours, days, months, and sometimes even years later, so there is always the chance that the edit in question will be "findable" in one of the site dumps if someone is motivated enough. I can remember there used to be a thread or two on Wikipedia Review just pulling out "oversighted" edits, and for all I know there is a non-public one on WO or even some public ones on other off-wiki criticism sites. So, yeah. No point giving them free material - we're doing those suppressions for a reason, most of them pretty obvious. Risker (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• The suppression and revision deletion interfaces are the same interface in the software. Although the software supports conditionally displaying the suppression tick box, it doesn't seem to support conditionally displaying customised suppression messages in the dropdown. It probably should. I filed phab:T102581 to track that request. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Returning disruptive editior

Lachlan Foley genre warring

• Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs)

Leading up to March, the editor was making disruptive edits to music articles, genre warring specifically, and after this revision to an album article, they were blocked. I noticed a few days ago they had continued genre warring when a number of album articles I have on my watchlist showed similar changes, including some of the same articles they had been warned for disrupting in the past.

• 01:08, 12 May 2015 at Daydream Nation
• 01:11, 12 May 2015 at Sister (Sonic Youth album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Sonic Nurse
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Murray Street (album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at The Eternal (album)
• 01:52, 15 May 2015 at Human After All
• 01:56, 15 May 2015 at Discovery (Daft Punk album)
• 00:00, 16 May 2015 at The Fat of the Land
• 03:33, 16 May 2015 at Blow Up (EP)

I suppose because these articles receive little-to-no attention, the editor's changes were not noticed by anyone else. Dan56 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The only diffs that truly bother me are the last few. The first five are petty genre warring that I would probably just ignore unless they were part of a long-term issue. The sixth and seventh ones removed a reliable source and replaced it with original research. The eighth looks like edit warring to maintain original research. The last one looks like it removed a dead link in violation of WP:KDL. The review is archived at the Internet Archive, which he should have checked before removing it. Although WP:INFOBOXREF discourages citations in infoboxes, that does not mean that you can strip out citations and replace them with original research. Personally, I'd be satisfied with a statement that he's not going to genre war any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, the first few are part of a long-term issue; see "general update" to Daydream Nation on 5 December 2014, this revision to Sister (Sonic Youth album) on 19 March 2015, "general update" to Honi Soit (album), "general update" to Helen of Troy (album), "general update" to Vintage Violence, "general update" to HoboSapiens... there are numerous instances of providing a false edit summary while genre warring. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This editor has continued genre warring, veiling their edits as style/format changes in a lame attempt to revise genres in an article's infobox (11:00, 14 June 2015, 11:52, 14 June 2015, 11:54, 14 June 2015, 11:56, 14 June 2015, 11:57, 14 June 2015, 11:58, 14 June 2015, 12:00, 14 June 2015, 12:10, 14 June 2015, 12:21, 14 June 2015, 12:44, 14 June 2015... all their edits the past few days have been like this. They deserve a block at this point, @NinjaRobotPirate: Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Dan56: please notify Lachlan Foley of this thread. Also, has there been any discussion or acknowledgment on his part of this issue? I have seen where other editors have raised the issue or warned him on his talk page but I do not see that he has replied anywhere. I would like to know if he has engaged with any other editors.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I did a month ago (User_talk:Lachlan_Foley#ANI_notice). He was blocked before for genre warring and ignores any of the warnings given to him. Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lachlan Foley: Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, notifying means following the instructions in the big orange box: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I've done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe a solution to the genre warring which is likely to continue in many articles by many users into the future is to display a notice such as in the 'Genre' section of the infobox (ideally written into the coding).

I will do my best to remove all uncited genres. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, after making the above promise in vain, this editor continued making genre changes to articles, thinking they're slick with edits like this (00:16, 17 June 2015‎, 01:26, 17 June 2015). It's pathetic how no administrative action has been taken against this editor, whose edits are strictly unexplained and unsourced changes to the genre parameter of the infobox in album articles (WP:GWAR). In this edit, they removed genre which are clearly cited within the article, but genre warriors tend not to read the actual articles. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kind of like how you didn't search those articles just then for references explicitly supporting claims on which genre the music is? That there is merely prose about what genre an album pertains to isn't enough.

I left "big beat" in the Chemical Brothers initially as I assumed big beat was that artist's established genre on Wikipedia, but in hindsight no genre should be listed that isn't explicitly referenced in-article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Could an actual admin look this over and do their job! Anyone?? @Kww:, @Berean Hunter:? Dan56 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor had the nerve to genre war at this article on 10 June, removing clearly cited genres in place of unsourced genres, remove them altogether claiming they are not sourced (well DUH dude, you added them), and then reverting ME when I restored the cited revision from before he edited the article ([4]) Dan56 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't clear to me because I can not find a policy, guideline or consensus that lends particular support to back up one way or the other. I see this thread at WikiProject Albums which really doesn't give any guidance on dealing with genre warring over referenced vs. non-referenced genres in the infobox. I would suggest that you get a discussion going over there with an intent on forming a more solid guideline. This guideline is vague.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring is a particular peeve of mine, so this discussion is of great concern to me. From the diffs, it appears that Lachlan Foley has been genre warring, signaled by the removal of cited genres, and the presence of WP:NOR-violating personal determinations as seen in the edit summary "I think this is mainly a big beat album, maybe with influences of other electronica, but alternative rock is really quite inappropriate here."[5] Genres should be cited in the article body, and if they are not, then they should be cited in the infobox. As well, disputed genres should be cited in both places in the same manner as controversial facts being cited both in the article body and the lead section. In no case should editors be making their own determination about what is the genre of a song or album, nor should they be shoving aside published genres that they do not agree with. Lachlan Foley is a productive editor in other ways but it would be very helpful to hear an affirmation that genre warring behavior will cease. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a block would be out of place at this moment. Checking Lachlan Foley's recent edits, I see him adding sources to unsourced genres (example), not causing problems as before. If he's now following our guidelines, a block would prevent him from improving Wikipedia (so I'd be violating the IAR policy by imposing it), and it would also be punitive: nobody would benefit, and the articles and he would suffer. If he's still violating standards in other edits, come back and show that I've overlooked those edits. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

hi their wikipedians