The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:103.85.241.58 appears to be a proxy server.[1] what is the best place to report such a thing? Would AIAV be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NCWP appears to be doing a fine job reverting vandalism; would someone consider confirming their account early so their edits will stop triggering filter 1? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jauerback: Not really a huge deal but I notice you didn’t set an expiry, they will be autoconfirmed in the next 24 hours or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
But Beeblebrox, why does it matter? I figured that the ability to time-limit rights was for testing ("will this person abuse the right? This way it will go away by itself, and nobody will complain that I removed it") or for someone who needs a right for only a short period of time. And it's not as if we have a limit on the number of manually confirmed users. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not a big deal - there are a couple of odd edge cases related to the edit filter, but not a big deal - someone will usually "clean up" these periodically as well. — xaosfluxTalk 04:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would file that under “only needs the right for a short time” but again, not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll be honest, it never occurred to me to set an expiry time. I guess that shows how often I've changed rights. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
New js/css admin restrictions are now in force[edit]
Hello Admins, new protections for javascript and css pages have been enabled. See Wikipedia:Interface administrators and its talk page for the progress on this change here. If you need a page updated, the edit-request process is the best way to get your requested edit completed. The same goes for if you need one of these pages speedy deleted. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators for more information. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk 11:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
What I'm assuming is a bug regarding access to viewing deleted versions of js/css pages appears to be going on. See phab:T202989 for status updates. — xaosfluxTalk 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This is being discussed with the dev team to determine if it should be restored, if you would like to comment please do so on the phab ticket. — xaosfluxTalk 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A change (phab:T200176 to restore your ability to delete (but not undelete) these pages is scheduled to be back this week. If you need any of these pages speedy deleted in the meantime, feel free to leave an edit request on their associated talk pages. — xaosfluxTalk 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This access should be working again, please let me know if you are having any issues with deleting other user's js/css pages now. — xaosfluxTalk 11:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've cleared some of it, but we still have upwards of 150 pages that need attention and I have to step out for a few hours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've got Gs 12 and 13. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I will take care of the categories if there are any left.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like they were mostly G13s. Back down to 20ish. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks everybody! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Can this be done manually? I blocked the editor because the edits are crap, but now I'm wondering if there's more going on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: I know what you mean, but I think it's still homsap; the highest rate is wat four, five edits a minute? I think that's perfectly doable. And incidentally, it would be possible to do about (*guess*) thirty, forty—by the means of having loooooads of tabs open, making the edit, and then just saving them one after the other. Which is a bit of a palava, but. Anyway, you get my drift. Morning! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 04:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm I suppose that's true... Drmies (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator who knows nothing about nor has ever edited articles related to the politics of the United Kingdom, I have placed this article under indefinite 1RR. Oddly enough, there is already a 1RR edit notice on the page that people seem to have been ignoring. It was expired because the previous sanction was set for 6 months and expired in 2016, so there weren't technical violations. Going forward, breaches in 1RR will be discretionary sanctions violations on this article. If edit warring continues after 1RR and blocks are not effective, any administrator may apply full protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a request for administrative assistance on this article on the talk page, though I'm at a loss to suggest exactly what to do. Obviously the antisemitism section has got a bit out of hand and people are arguing about how much due weight there should be. The most immediate thing I can think of is a 1RR restriction on the article; I don't think handing out blocks would be at all beneficial at this stage.
For the record, although I have supported Corbyn in the past, it's been more from a "not Theresa May" viewpoint, and I don't have a strong opinion on him anymore and think some of the recent criticism is justified. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just apply "pending changes". Which is both apt and massively ironic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The page is already semi-protected, which means pending changes would not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well that blows my best joke (of today). Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
My dog's got no nose. How does it smell? Terrible!
Anyway, does anyone else support putting the article under 1RR? Edit summaries like this are hardly conductive to resolving the dispute. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest indef blocking them all, or at the very least, cherry-picking the best personal attacks and protecting them. Richie, you're an admin, and one of the few who does a decent job here, just do what you think's best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
No opinion on "should" or "should not", but if it's appropriate, why not? You can't possibly enforce 1RR, or 3RR, or anything else like that with technical means only, so we have to have social decisions on what you may or may not do, and those decisions get enforced by a human using technical means. We already impose per-page bans on people, and topic bans that affect individual sections (go to WP:TBAN and look for the word "California"), and 1RR bans on entire pages; I can't see why a 1RR restriction on a section would be a bad idea, if that specific section (and only that section) is having problems that could easily be resolved with a reversion restriction. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping about 20 people would come here, say "support 1RR", then it would be under community consensus. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The page already shows a 1RR notice when you edit it - I was assuming it was under 1RR, though looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log - it seems the 1RR restriction was supposed to expire in 2016. Parts of the page are under WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction anyway, and WP:BLP obviously applies - all you've got to do is properly log the 1RR page restriction. I wouldn't section limit this - too complicated - as the content has been bouncing around between sections and could wind up in, say, the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with what Icewhiz says here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC) ... although I'm pretty involved, so you might want to totally disregard my comment.
I think this is what Icewhiz meant, but Ritchie333, under WP:NEWBLPBAN you could unilaterally impose 1RR on the article if uninvolved. For the record, I would support a 1RR restriction: I don't know how much good it will do because I suspect liberal use will be made of the BLP exception, but I can't see it doing harm. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Endorse 1RR, and if there is liberal misuse of the BLP exception, full protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm definitely an involved user here, but I would say that full protection would probably be a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We managed to reduce the New Page Patrol backlog down to nearly nothing by the end of June, but New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with with the influx of new articles over the summer and is back up to several thousand unreviewed articles and almost double that number of unreviewed redirects. We could use a few extra hands on deck. We are currently falling behind by about 50 articles per day.
Administrators are the largest pool of editors with the user rights needed to review new articles, but currently only a handful are active New Page Reviewers. I know that there are a lot of tasks that only administrators can do, but if you enjoy this sort of work, and have some time to help out, please do.
Username blocked by Drmies, nothing else to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I am receiving an error when creating my userpage. It says "Permission error", "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism". Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ࿗ (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I expect that it doesn't matter, since someone who wants to use a Swastika as their user name is gonna get blocked or force-renamed momentarily.--Jorm (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Jorm, what am I not seeing? I see a rectangle. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Drmies: You do not have the Helvetica Neue font installed, I'm guessing, or are using as skin that forces an antique font on you. A rectangle means that the display font doesn't contain the unicode glyph. It's a swastika.--Jorm (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm you lost me at the word "skin", but thanks--I applied a soft user block, in Times New Roman, which you and I have on our arms, haha. Thanks Jorm. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I happened to be looking at the username policy, specifically WP:NONLATIN. Call me old-fashioned, but I like the Latin to be mandated. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Me too. I think user names got opened up to non-Latin when unified log-in was instituted. I assume it's WMF-mandated, and there's nothing we can do about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if it offends you. I am a Raelian and we use the swastika to represent infinite time. Please don't let the nazi's corrupt one of our symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ࿗ (talk • contribs) 00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that BS doesn't work. I'm sorry if a soft username block offends you; you are welcome to adopt User:Raelian Swastika Thing or something like that, and while that takes place I encourage you take up semiotics and the idea of polysemy. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the usernames InfiniteTime or Infinite Time are still available to you. The swastika as a username is not, not because of what it means to you, but what it represents to most people (most Wikipedians included). General IzationTalk 00:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe that about as far as I can throw a cheesecake underwater.--Jorm (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Did you just coin that? Why would you be throwing a cheesecake underwater? Natureium (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm curious, how far CAN you throw a cheesecake underwater? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
A question: if we take him at his word that he's a new user and a Raelian, will he be able to create his user-talk page to appeal or request a username change? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Their only edits were to this page, which in and of itself is suspicious, so I say they just drop the account and move on.--Jorm (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Drmies created the talk page when blocking. Natureium (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
D'oh! I got a red-link clicking on the username and got confused. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's some background on the Raëlian effort to rehabilitate the swastika. It may go without saying to those of us who have a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia's purposes, but sometimes we need to explain to new editors that Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It's plenty fair to say "no swastika emoji in usernames" - the potential for harm and offense should be obvious to anyone. Someone calling themselves, in plain language, "Raëlian Swastika", I have no problem with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Nazis, were neither the first, nor the most notable nor the most wide users of Swastika#Historical_use. The Nazi Hakenkreuz is just one version of the list in Swastika#Appearance I am responding here as I am from one of the cultures who (have absolutely nothing to do with Nazis and yet) widely regard this as a symbol of Goodness and prosperity. People have it at homes, rooms, books basically everywhere (even on the head). And even though they know About the Nazis yet nobody in my culture gives a rat's ass that Nazis also used a version of this symbol. There are a lot of users who use it on their userpages, due to its auspicious nature. Also as one of the Supreme Court judges in India while deciding on a case related to an allegedly "offensive to some" movie quoted, "One can always find someone who is offended by something"
Now coming to the actual topic, why do you think a Swastika emoji be banned ? What next, are we going on a (Gestapo like) hunt to remove the symbols from userpages ? Lets be practical here. A vandal who is using it for offending others would soon be blocked for his actions rather than his emoji. which sounds reasonable. Just adding my 2 cents. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
As a procedural note (mainly as a reply to the thread directly above this one), the user in question was blocked because of WP:NOEMOJI (i.e. a UPOL violation), not necessarily because said emoji is a swastika. Plenty of other name options have been suggested above. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Primefac has removed my tag, but I will post my comment anywayPrimefac, thanks for quoting WP:NOEMOJI. The policy sounds reasonable to me and I support it. I hope it is applied to all emojis and not just to Swastika. The discussion above bothered me and my comment above was a direct response to Ivan's comment on "Swastika emoji" had Ivan mentioned "No Emoji" I would not have even bothered to comment here. cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 14:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I was living in China my wife got me a Buddhist prayer bead set that had a white jade swastika pendant. It's the chunky Buddhist kind, not the awful white supremacist kind. As somebody with a pretty deep grounding in Buddhist thought (though I am an atheist, my father is a Soto Zen Buddhist and I studied Buddhism in some considerable depth) I entirely understand how this particular representation varies from the version the Nazis used, including the process that led to the adoption of the modified symbol by the Nazis in the first place. It was a very sweet gift which I keep to this day as one of the very first presents she ever gave me, which means it has some significant emotional resonance for me. I still don't bring it out at parties, because even though I might know it's distance from the white supremacist symbol, other people can reasonably be expected not to know and I would not want to inadvertently upset somebody with something that might be construed as a hate symbol. So while I understand the perspective of Raelians, no, we don't need swastikas on Wikipedia. It would make a hostile environment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the Nazis and the Fascists were also offended by a lot of things and they effectively acted on it and censored "things" and "people" they found offensive. I hope people learn from it and stop imposing their own lack of tolerance onto others. Not that I am encouraging people to use Swastika, just trying to discourage Our respected admins who (atleast appear to me) to be on a "search and destroy mission" against Swastika. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, there are battles to fight and there are ones to walk away from. I'd suggest that an attempt to rehabilitate an old solar symbol that got thoroughly tainted by the fash in the first half of the twentieth century is one of the latter. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify again if I failed in my last attempt, I am not here to argue on any case of "rehabilitation of Swastika". No, I am really not interested. My only concern here on this AN thread, is against admins implementing an "Unwritten Rule" of issuing blocks based on a symbol that "they" find offensive. As Primefac pointed WP:NOEMOJI policy so I feel it is clearly a good block but the justification is different than what was being discussed here earlier .--DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the time to rehabilitate the Swastika will come someday, but not yet. This being the English Wikipedia, we need to be sensitive to what the Swastika means to English speakers, for good or bad. On the Hindi Wikipedia, feel free to do what you please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, but it still falls under NOEMOJI (though I suppose I could have used the shortcut SCRIPTPLEASE). Primefac (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is not an emoji but falls under WP:NOEMOJI"Usernames that use any non-language symbols. This includes:" specifically "Symbols and characters that are the block lists at Unicode symbols". We list it on the unicode symbols page under Religious and political symbols in Unicode if I am not mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I just feel the need to warn everyone that I am on a one-man crusade to rehabilitate the word "Belgium," so please don't ban me if I put it in a new user name. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
User:DBigXray, in between a few dog whistles I heard you loud and clear, with your supposition of 'an "Unwritten Rule" of issuing blocks based on a symbol that "they" find offensive'. Those scare quotes around "they" are clear: admins with an agenda, some "liberal" agenda I suppose. Well, I blocked also because unspeakable horrors were committed by a bunch of brutes who waved that swastika around, so even without the technicality of the character-user name, I would block for this: not just because I find it offensive, but more importantly because we should not be waving that kind of symbol around. There are victims of Nazism still, and they are likely to find the symbol offensive when it is used by someone as a username. (This does not apply to the word, obviously.) I suppose you also missed the link to polysemy. And if you ever get to be an admin you'll find that in some cases one can place a block for a number of different reasons, each with their own rationale.
Now, we are not going to restart this discussion here, since it's closed: I am using, or liberally abusing, my administrative privilege, and a certain prerogative as the blocking administrator who has a right to defend their actions, in order to NOT let these...odd statements of yours stand unchallenged here. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to be bold and close this as unproductive argument (of which there seems to be a lot going around at the moment, even by our usual standards). I'm not going to try to tell anyone not to open it again, but I'll just plead pathetically - there's a big encyclopedia out there with millions of holes still to fill, so please let's all drop this now, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This isn't going to go anywhere. You all know where ArbCom is, if that is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Michael Hardy has just started making personal attacks again right after his block expired for personal attacks. [2]
Two years ago the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy was opened and found that Michael Hardy made uncivil comments in the past. He has also failed to drop the wp:stick over the current incident. Here is a edit him attacking other users [3] during his blocked.
I personally believe admins should lead by example and be held to a higher standard than regular users. With Michael Hardy's past and current behavior, I propose a site ban. With the condition that he can get unbanned if he resigns the mop. Afootpluto (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose the community does not have the authority to desysop, and this is just an end run to attempt that. This would lead to an inevitable case anyway on appeal, and would waste even more community time. If people want him desysoped, they should go through the normal procedure, not create some new method that would not achieve consensus if put to a community RfC rather than just a thread at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I decided to strike that provision from my proposal. I personally think MH should be CBAN even if they aren't desysop. Afootpluto (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose- WP:RFAR is that way. Nihlus 22:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I'm not satisfied with how ArbCom handled this last time. If people don't like the resignation proviso, just drop that portion and make it an outright ban. It may not be fair, but nobody can say that MH wasn't given numerous chances to adjust his behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - If you want him desysoped, this is not an end round for that. If you want to argue that he is a net negative to the project, I don't see a convincing argument for that spelled out. GMGtalk 22:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - being in contempt of the drama-boards doesn't justify a site-ban. This is likely ending up at ARBCOM at this point anyway, so I see no reason to break precedent to try to de-sysop here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this is absurd. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think what offends some people is that I pointed out what probably many know: These noticeboards are saturated in corruption. Crowdsourcing works well for contributions and very badly for these regulatory things. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Very nice non-specific WP:Casting aspersions, Michael Hardy; reminds me of some 3AM Tweets I've seen.So how, exactly, are these boards "corrupt"? Lay some of your facts on us, oh "one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia". Who is corrupt? Who is paying whom for what? Who is behaving in a manner unbecoming an administrator? (Best not to look in the mirror on that one.) Who are the members of the cabal behind it all? Who's protecting whose behind, and from what? Please be specific, with supporting diffs, Michael Hardy.We're waiting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
With sadness I have been following the developments of the past days. I would suggest everyone to stop provoking, accusing or replying to accusations, what good does it do? Voorlandt (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please, please, can we give this a rest and stop posting multiple brand new discussions all over the place. No, seriously, I'm begging here. We seem to be ending the month with episodes of combat breaking out all over the place, and we're past the full moon (in a waning gibbous phase). How about we all relax for the weekend and try to think good things about each other? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needs a site ban, and perhaps closing down of wikiproject Maths, as we don't need any more of their alumni. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 09:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have fully protected University of Chicago Law School due to a report at AN3 where, while the report was being discussed, multiple previously uninvolved editors appeared at the article to join the edit war. One of the users involved in the report, Lorstaking, has accused me of involvement with respect to their editing in a separate discussion (see User talk:Abecedare. To the best of my knowledge Lorstaking and I have never interacted outside of administrative discussions and user talk pages, and I have taken no action against them directly, though it should be said I find myself frequently disagreeing with them in those discussions. At any rate per the "any admin would do the same" provision, and the facts that the page was already protected recently and that I have never edited the page, I believe my action does not violate WP:INVOLVED. If other admins reach a different consensus then please feel free to undo my page protection, but then please consider watching the page. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have not looked at the linked discussion, just general thoughts. WP:INVOLVED is interpreted by different people very broadly. For example, I have seen an interpretation that an admin, coming to protect a page and seeing it for the first time, can not remove obviously inappropriate edits first because they thereby become involved and can not protect the page. For me, this is way off mark, but it was a respected user (I do not remember who, it was quite some time ago), and they were quite serious about it. People argued that the same admin can not protect the page twice because the first protection makes them involved. I would not agree with that either (and I have proteced some pages multiple times, just because there are not infinitely many admins working on RFPP) but I am sure there are users which could interpret this as INVOLVED. I would personally say that if an admin had an exchange with a user on an unrelated topic without severe consequences (like blocks), or if this exchange was purely administrative, protecting a page where this user is edit-warring is not INVOLVED (assuming the admin has no relation to this page). Interpreting this broadly, a user can discuss with all active admins and then claim that all of them are INVOLVED. (I am not claiming that Lorstaking was aiming at this, most likely they did not). Other people could disagree with me, but I guess most would be on my side. Having said this, if a user in good standing complains about INVOLVED, it is always good for an admin to ask for a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Involved or not, you have protected what shows a promotional version and is also against clear consensus on the talk page. I believe the report had to be left opened. Either the reported edit warring editor had to be blocked or page had to be put under extended confirmed protection per original request. If an editor is still reverting even after getting reported on WP:AN3 then there are obvious chances that the involved offender needs to be blocked and that was the case here. Excelse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the input but I see the situation differently. I think that most admins would agree that when many users are edit-warring, it is not constructive nor fair to block just one of those users just because of who got to the noticeboards first - page protection is a better response. And I only protected the extant version at the time I decided to protect (see WP:WRONGVERSION) - if I had chosen a different revision to revert to, then I would be participating in the edit war. The editors can now discuss what material should be restored or removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A general rule is that an editor who is still reverting even after being reported to AN3 for the same offense is qualified for a block or should be asked to self-revert. Page protection can be seen as endorsement to edit warring until page protection. Excelse (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If what you said were true then any edit-warring editor could game the system by reporting editorial opponents to AN3, but fortunately for Wikipedia your "general rule" is not how it works at all. When a report is received, administrators review the situation and decide what is the appropriate preventive course of action. If an edit war is being perpetuated by one editor, often that editor is blocked, and it's just as often the filer of AN3 reports who gets blocked. A page where many editors are edit warring is more often protected, because blocking one editor would not prevent the edit war from continuing. Protection is not an endorsement of edit-warring, it's literally the opposite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
From the material linked I do not see any INVOLVED issue and the page protection was a reasonable action. There is no indication of editorial involvement or disputes between Ivanvector and Lorstaking nor disagreements between the two so bitter where I would suspect Ivanvector of even the appearance of bias re Lorstalking. I would suggest that the editors involved in the dispute be cautioned to address disputed edits in manageable chunks rather than en masse. From what I can see in the page history the original edits were made incrementally so it should not be difficult to address on a per edit, per section or per source basis. Jbh Talk 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Ivanvector joined the ANEW report only because it involved me, similar to their involvement on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eulalefty,[4] where Ivanvector disputed the evidence I had provided[5] but two other SPI clerks agreed that the evidence was enough for blocks.[6] These two incidents on two different days occurred after Ivanvector and me had heated disagreements on a discussion already pointed above.[7] You should not be following reports made by a particular editor for disputing their legitimacy per WP:HOUNDING. In the first message on ANEW Ivanvector even claimed that I reverted the editor for the first time after "three months"[8] when I reverted him since first day. There were many other disagreements and it seemed clear that Ivanvector ignoring the problems with the SPA who has probably has COI but find the ways to dispute the legitimacy of my report. However, I agree with the above that it is not even that much of a deal whether Ivanvector was involved or not, the very issue with how he dealt with the report. An SPA who is depending on providing false edit summaries to frequently edit war for retaining his WP:BROCHURE as clearly evident by his 2 recent reverts while already going through an ANEW report. He clearly had to be blocked or warned not to make anymore reverts unless he gains consensus since present consensus is against his version or otherwise he has no consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
On the issue of the SPI, nothing Ivanvector did makes him INVOLVED with respect to you. Your filings at SPI tend to be overly aggressive, and you often take it personally when members of the SPI team question your evidence. In this instance, Ivanvector's comments were extraordinarily mild. As for your hounding accusation, it takes an awful lot to demonstrate hounding, and you haven't done it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have anymore to add there, but Ivanvector had asked sanctions for me earlier.[9] And I never take "it personally when members of the SPI team question" the evidence. Lorstaking (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lorstaking seems to have decided that I'm following him around, though I've explained how I came across the ANEW report in the first place. That seems to be making them perceive intent in my actions which isn't there. Their SPI report on Eulalefty was declined by a checkuser for being stale, and two of the three pairs of comparative diffs that Lorstaking provided did not clearly demonstrate a pattern to me, but they had called it "obvious" so I asked them to clarify so I could understand what was so obvious. They didn't respond to my question but instead provided more evidence, which is just as good, though I still don't understand the pattern and if someone files another report on that case I'll have to ask again. Then another clerk beat me to the block, it was overnight for me. And yes, I did question Lorstaking's ANEW report. Lorstaking and the reported editor sparred three months earlier, after which the reported editor and several others worked together to build out the article with relevant historic details, some of which does appear to need copyediting for NPOV, but nobody seems to have felt during that time that any of the content was unduly promotional. Then Lorstaking reappeared on the article after three months and without discussing the matter at all nor attempting to explain what their issue was with any of the content (other than "same promotion") they removed all of the incrementally added content in a single revert - see where it says "112 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown", they're just going back to their last edit three months ago and undoing everything. I think we might be misunderstanding each other's English but this is what I mean by "after 3 months" but might also be what Lorstaking refers to as "since first day". Lorstaking vaguely hand-waved that there are issues with some of the content, and there are, nobody's saying that the content is perfect, but many other editors have been trying to help with that without resorting to rewinding the article by three months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nicomachian has made 3 reverts since he was warned for edit warring. If you don't want to block then another alternative was to put article under ECP. The page was put under WP:ECP by Kudpung in 9 May 2018,[10] against this same SPA as " Persistent spamming". Why it couldn't be put under ECP this time too when problem is still the same? WP:ECP is made for these reasons. Lorstaking (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Swarm saw fit to full-protect the article at the last instance of protection resulting from this same edit war, I followed suit. At the time of your report you had each reverted twice within the past 24 hours, and in my opinion this round of revert warring began with your mass revert, so it seemed unjust to block the other user. I also didn't fail to notice that a certain set of editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute, and the group of you together have reverted to your 38,492-byte version seven times since 11 August, despite the page having been protected already, and despite other uninvolved users trying to work through the situation. This isn't the one-sided edit war you perceive it to be, and at this time I believe that full protection is the way to deal with the disruptive behaviour on both sides. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes we have already tried that formula before and Nicomachian is still not getting consensus for his edits. There was no reason to repeat what has already failed. If you wanted to follow the same suit then you could do that early or Swarm would've done that when the initial report was made. It would be making sense but you are protecting the article when Nicomachian was already deserving a block for edit warring or a warning to stop reverting. The "mass revert" was justified because we don't retain WP:BROCHURE on main pages and Nicomachian is focused into edit warring to retain it. Like Lyndaship added that "what has been added is an absolute load of filler and guff. Most of the paras can be reduced to a sentence",[11] but to you these are "editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute" which is not only an unfounded accusation but exactly speaks of your bias. There is no consensus to favor the WP:BROCHURE. You are also told here that Nicomachian already deserved the block when he reverted two times after the ANEW, you have made no warning to him "despite" he is repeating this pattern of edit warring and avoiding discussion since last 2/2 protections for the sake of his WP:PROMO, which again shows that you are not neutral in this case. Lorstaking (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, if you have any actual interest in improving the article, you could be participating in the discussion on the talk page right now instead of still trying to get your opponent blocked. Nicomachian is "not getting consensus" because every time they try, you wave them off as a spammer and refuse to engage. The only objection you've specified with the content up to this point is the use of the university press as a source, but you're not listening when several uninvolved editors point out that it's fine in this context, and overall you're not listening to many editors now who have asked you to stop reverting because the content is not unduly promotional. You have a valid point about Books LLC, but this one thing does not justify throwing out all of the content. You've alleged misleading edit summaries and sources not supporting content but you have yet to specify any particular instances, and Lyndaship's drive-by comment about "filler and guff" is singularly unhelpful. I haven't "warned" Nicomachian because they were already reported (by you) and because in my view you're the belligerent here.
At any rate, all this nitpicking about who reverted who and which version should be reverted to is pointless bikeshedding. The article is protected so that nobody will revert anybody until the issue is settled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"and refuse to engage"? That's completely an unfounded accusation. I am always participating in the discussion, problem is with Nicomachian who almost never participates. No one has pointed until now that the content is "it's fine in the context". No one has asked me to stop reverting and my reverts are not an issue here because I had already stopped reverting. One editor had misunderstanding about the history of this article, just like you who believed that Nicomachian was writing for 3 months when he was simply edit warring without gaining consensus. Now the way you are presenting the only one side of this issue while ignoring the blatant WP:PROMO by an SPA. How it is "belligerent" when I am only adhering the consensus to remove the WP:BROCHURE? Lorstaking (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no such consensus; you seem to have completely made it up. As for Nicomachian "simply edit warring without gaining consensus" that's just simply not true at all, and I can only assume by this point that either there's an error in your browser that makes the article history not show up for you, or you're deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the truth. Nicomachian and several other editors incrementally built the article, over the course of three months and more than 100 edits, without any evidence at all of edit warring or even any single reverts that I can see. Then you came along, declared all of the edits spam, and rolled back three months worth of work, then edit warred to maintain your version citing a consensus that does not appear to exist at all. That's belligerent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A few thoughts: WP:INVOLVED reads "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." No evidence has been provided whatsoever showing that Ivanvector has acted in anything other than an administrative capacity in this situation or with respect to the involved users. To the best of my knowledge such evidence doesn't exist. Furthermore, neither version of the article is particularly good; they both contain reams of unsourced info. Ivanvector is quite justified in not reverting after protecting; if the promotionalism is so blatant, it is the users adding who should be sanctioned first (as they are all registered users). It is bothersome, but not surprising, to see a bunch of editors whose usual areas of interest are far removed from the University of Chicago line up on the same side of a dispute there. Finally, this edit-war is serious enough that Ivanvector would have been justified in protecting the page even if involved, per WP:IAR (and he isn't involved). Vanamonde (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED: "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". The above diff here by Lorstaking shows that Ivanvector requested sanctions against Lorstaking, however uninvolved admins didn't sanctioned him or found him qualified for that. That certainly does speaks of "bias". Rest of the incidents have been also mentioned here that does show that Ivanvector could be well watching over the reports made by Lorstaking, though there was no mischief in Lorstaking's part nor the intervention of Ivanvector was really helpful. This incident reminds me of Mike V and The Rambling Man. Mike V had acted in administrative capacity but was biased towards The Rambling Man. I would also conclude that anyone edit warring after warning on their talk page should be blocked right way as that is clear disregard to WP:DR. Page protection was not an ideal choice here. Razer(talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is a cherrypicked diff from a discussion on topic bans for widespread disruptive behaviour under the ARBIPA topic area, on which I was commenting as a neutral administrator. Razer2115 is also misrepresenting the result: eleven editors drew sanctions from that discussion, and GoldenRing's close noted "I am not going to take any action against Lorstaking at this time, though they should note that some have found their participation on noticeboards, and in particular as it relates to [the sanctioned editors], to be disruptive and I advise them to go careful in the future." I don't see an assessment of my competence in that statement. For anyone who wants to review from a neutral perspective, my full statement is in the archive, and you'll note that I either endorsed or proposed sanctions for 12 editors throughout the course of the discussion, which does not demonstrate a bias regarding any one individual. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I am talking only about Lorstaking, not "eleven editors". It is contrary to WP:INVOLVED to first attempt to seek sanctions and then start watching over the reports concerning the same editor/s to find out if they can be sanctioned or otherwise get the negative outcome for their reports. Razer(talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem with your comment: I was talking about eleven editors. Twelve, actually. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Razer2115: an uninvolved administrator opining at AE that sanctions are warranted against an editor does not render them "involved" with that editor. If you had read the full quote, which is helpfully provided by Vanamode immediately above you, you would see that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor ... purely in an administrative role ... is not involved". Given that the interaction you cite obviously falls into that category, which you left out of your quote, you're either intentionally casting aspersions or simply not understanding WP:INVOLVED here. Would you care to explain how this mistake happened? Swarm♠ 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically that wasn't "purely in an administrative role", because Ivanvector had commented above the section of uninvolved admins on WP:ARE and proposed the sanctions against a number of editors including me but uninvolved admins (commenting under the section of uninvolved admins) didn't sanctioned me and Lorstaking. This is why I had also mentioned the example of V and The Rambling Man, where Mike V had interacted purely in administrative role but was deemed to be biased by the community. Ivanvector recently had negative interactions with Lorstaking as original post mentions, right before he joined the reports that involved him. It does indicate that there are more chances that Lorstaking would see negative results if Ivanvector is going to take any action given the history itself. Razer(talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Evidence suggests otherwise. I noted in the ARE thread that I was commenting outside the "uninvolved administrators" section because I had interacted with so many of the editors being discussed through clerking at SPI. I have clerked 4 SPI reports filed or commented on by Lorstaking: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Three of those resulted in the reported users being blocked, and in the fourth I endorsed CheckUser based on Lorstaking's report, though it turned up inconclusive. I'm failing to see how I'm biased against Lorstaking based on the "history", but please do go on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Even though he made a statement in the "Discussion" section, as opposed to the "Result" section, he was obviously commenting as an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of sharing his observations and recommendations. You're grasping at straws. Swarm♠ 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The accusation of involvement at User talk:Abecedare appears to be a frivolous, unsubstantiated aspersion. This is concerning, because the context of the dispute at hand is Lorstaking repeatedly rolling back major changes to an article on the basis that the user they're reverting is obviously a spammer. Myself, Ivan, and at least one other administrator, EdJohnston, as well as users Robminchin and Simonm223, have looked at the situation and don't think it's at all clear that Lorstaking's basis for reverting is in fact true. The accused "spammer" has come across as perfectly willing to engage in discussion to improve their edits, yet Lorstaking seems unable or unwilling to AGF and even try to handle the issue responsibly. Had I actioned this, I probably would have blocked both sides for edit warring, so Ivan's "involved" protection comes across to me as pretty reasonable for a user with an alleged grudge. Swarm♠ 17:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been always willing to AGF as evidently I had accepted 10k bytes of the content even though the information was entirely unsourced[16] but not really a violation of core policies. I haven't seen him until now that he is engaging in the discussion unless when he finds his preferred version to have been reverted. He has not addressed any problems yet either. Therefore there has been no violation of a policy by me. @Ivanvector and Swarm: I don't think we need any more opinions now, do you mutually agree with closing the thread? I am inclined to let this go and work to build the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, you only "accepted" their content after I suggested you do so. I appreciate you making an effort to work this out, I just wish it had come sooner. Swarm♠ 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You have a strange definition of assuming good faith, seeing how you assumed that all of Nicomachian's edits are spam, and that I was deliberately harassing you. At any rate, I'm satisfied that protecting the page was not a violation of WP:INVOLVED, which was really all I was asking about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Somehow I managed to duck in and edit that article yesterday (adding a minor thing to an image caption) without knowing all that warring was going on (must have been in a lull). Looking at that article history now, wow, I think any reasonable admin would have protected, so no INVOLVE vio. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Noting that I discovered and it has been also agreed on the talk page that protected version violates WP:COPYVIO. Admins are welcome to take action on the diffs as violations occurred since the first edit made by Nicomachian.[17]Lorstaking (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There was one sentence which appears to have been an inadvertent copyright violation. It was, however, present in much of Nicomachian's work, through subsequent incremental revisions. The affected edits have been suppressed. Two administrators were already on it when Lorstaking posted here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Nyttend worked on redacting copyvio before anyone and he joined the article after I had posted here. Lorstaking (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest Lorstaking put down the WP:STICK - there are now several editors at the page working it over to address all their concerns without resorting to a 15k rollback and a lot of people are putting time and energy into improvements. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not the case. It is perfectly valid to correct the misleading timeline of the events. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we all stop with the parting shots here? It's not helping anyone or anything. The copyvio has been dealt with. A second potential copyvio that Lorstaking brought up on the talk page is also being dealt with. Any more that are brought up will be dealt with in course. Go do something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Page blanked despite unanimous consensus against blanking[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was it really necessary to open up another thread about this? Is it really all that important? I can certain see considering it a slap in the face to WP:CONSENSUS, but what, exactly, do you think will come of opening the issue up again? Aren't you getting into an internal-RIGHTINGGREAT(Wikipedia)WRONGS area? After all, the AfD is just blanked, not suppressed, so the whole thing is in the history for anyone to read it who wishes to. I ask these questions as someone who !voted against blanking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
One practical thing I can see coming out of this is an RfC which disallows discussions on Jimbotalk from overriding a recent consensus on the Noticeboards. If Jimbo himself wants to take action as a result of a discussion there, that's a different matter, but I think we should remove the future possibility of a discussion there being used as an end-run around an already determined community consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It is important to note that the protecting administrator, Dlohcierekim, protected the page because of the "Edit warring / content dispute" happening there, not to enforce their preferred version. It does not appear that they were involved in the matter before they answered a request regarding the page at WP:RFPP. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Blank per Jimbo "someone is sad, and Wikipedia is not here to make people sad. So we want to respond in a helpful and loving way" [19] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this really the justification given by Jimbo for blanking? It's one of the most insipid things I've read in a good while. Wikipedia is not here to make anyone glad or sad, because the emotional well-being of our readers is no more our business then their sex-lives, their favorite adult beverage, or the decor of their kitchens. We are an informational resource, and because of the kind of resource we are, we by necessity carry on internal debates about what is and is not suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Whether those debates please or displease, gladden or sadden, or depress or enthuse our readers is totally irrelevant. If he really said this, I think that Jimbo has gone off the rails and forgotten the purpose of this thing of ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with readers. This is about backroom pages. If someone is sad about the truth revealed in a backroom page and would be happier if it were blanked, why not? The page is not hidden from any editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The source is linked. Note the year of 2006. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Above thread/request has been closed (it received significant participation within the few hours after this was posted). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uninvolved admins and editors are invited to comment on the above thread #RfC close review, notably following the #Closer's rationale and #Rebuttal: no consensus by the OP (me) who requested a close review. Many thanks in advance. — JFGtalk 13:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
JFG, Thanks:-) I was planning a thread-bump, too! ∯WBGconverse 16:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move request withdrawn. Let's see how the AfD pans out. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few minutes ago, James500, boldly moved the above named article to Cordell Drive and added more content to it. 9250 Cordell Drive has been at AfD for about three weeks. After the last relist, a consensus seemed to be forming to delete, but there is clearly no consensus to move. My contention is the move was disruptive and am asking that it be undone so the AfD can run its course. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This is preposterous. It is not disruptive to improve an article. Unless John thinks that 9250 Cordell Drive is notable, there is no problem. The move clearly has a basis in WP:ATD and WP:NOTBURO. The only possible explanation for this thread that I can think of is that John knows perfectly well that Cordell Drive as a whole is notable and that the article is likely to be kept if it stays where it is. James500 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Requests to revert recent undiscussed controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted.
Clearly, policy backs my request.John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that the correct forum is WP:RM, not AN, and all that would be achieved is that I would make a request for move at RM, and that request would be certain to succeed (WP:SNOW), since you have no valid grounds for objecting to the move, since you deny that number 9250 is notable. So, as I said, NOTBURO backs my move. James500 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
James500, in case you weren't aware, the longstanding advice at WP:AFDEQ is that moving articles while they're at AfD is to be avoided because it confuses the discussion and makes closing it more difficult. However, @John from Idegon: I agree that the move was not disruptive and I don't see any point in moving it back. The AfD will continue and the outcome will apply to this page regardless of what title it currently has. At the moment it's looking like a delete, so unless a lot of editors change their mind in the next two days, the move makes absolutely no difference. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Joe Roe, respectfully, I disagree. The quote I pulled above does not appear to give the administrator handling the request adminstrative discretion. It does not say "may", it does not say "should", it says "will". Admittedly, I've asked in the wrong place, but that is what WP:NOTBURO is for. His move was not an improvement to the article that would rightfully be considered by those voting at Afd, but instead obscures the subject being discussed. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: What I am trying to say is that moving an article back and forth purely on procedural grounds is a waste of time when it's at AfD anyway. It's hard to see how this move is controversial otherwise. Do you actually have an objection to the new title, aside from the fact it was moved during an AfD and without prior discussion? – Joe (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I do, as not only did he move the page, but he added a bunch of additional content about other houses on the street. It is not the same article that was nominated for deletion. But you know what? I'll withdraw my request. I don't think the new article is any more notable than the old one, so if, as you say is likely, it is deleted, then if and when he recreates it, it can be speedy deleted. Following consensus is generally the best way to go...trying to force it usually has unexpected negative consequences, and this is no exception. If he would have created a new article, he may have had a chance to sway the AfD to merge. You can close this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding additional sources and content was an attempt to improve the article to or towards the WP:HEYMANN standard. That is normally considered to be a good thing. James500 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Let this be your final warning. Your additions are inappropriate. Stop. Now."[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that vandalism may result in revocation of your editing privileges. If this edit is constructive, please click 'Publish changes' again, and report this error."
That. Also, WP:ELMIN is what you should be focusing on. Anyway, this is a content dispute, and Dirk has policy on his side. I suggest you discuss on the article's talk page if you want to press the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
there are many youtube linked to on Wikipedia that are not uploaded anonymous content
Yeah, sorry, I thought that was an ANI notice. How about this: Beetstra knows. Good luck. Hey--can you be a bit more economical in your posts? We're all living on borrowed time and stolen energy, and you didn't have to repeat the actual notification. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3 different types of {{subst:AN-notice}} - 69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
XLinkBot is falsely accusing me of linking to uploaded anonymous content and admins are falsely accusing me of over-linking to youtube username as the file's author, which seem a more complete web cite. Only "corporate": music, news, and other video by verified users such as CNN were added, the admins claim otherwise.
The threat of a block by false claims by admins is why notices were posted
Discuss the appropriateness of the link on the talkpage. Bluster on the noticeboards isn't going to accomplish anything. Acroterion(talk) 00:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I see no "false claim" - you were inserting a link to a movie that is Chanel advertising. You were correctly warned. Other edits of yours seem reasonable, but you need to explain, politely, on the talkpage why your edits comply with external link policy, rather than blustering here. And your assertion that Beetstra is "blocking you from his talkpage" is nonsense.Acroterion(talk) 01:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I warned you just a couple of days ago that your re-insertion of a YouTube was not appropriate. You have tons of XLinkBot warnings of such additions. Here again, you go from 4 links to 7, where already the first 4 are questionable. You are right, YouTube movies are not forbidden, but they are discouraged, and regarding external links you are too often adding links that are not appropriate. You are not heeding XLinkBot's warnings, you are just reverting him. And we keep cleaning behind you.
So I stand with that remark: this is your final warning. Fail to heed XLinkBot again, and I will impose blocks. --Dirk BeetstraTC 03:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2018: Announcement[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
1 September: Request for candidates to apply (via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org).
Are we going to get a real CU workshop sometime in mid-October? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: I plan to make myself available in mid-October for one-on-one training of the new CheckUsers, but that would be for those who are already technically proficient (e.g. the "new hires"). I plan to do more of a workshop approach in January for the new arbs and possibly former arbs who are less technically proficient but wish to understand the CU tool better. So yes, I think a training process should materialize this time around. ~ Rob13Talk 12:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing an edit-warring report as a 3RR report[edit]
Hi, the administrator User:RegentsPark recently closed an edit-warring report I made as a 3RR report with no violation. In the discussion I explicitly mentioned I am not making a 3RR report, and closing the discussion as such is, I feel, a deliberate misrepresentation of the problem that was reported.
Please open the discussion and close it as an edit-warring discussion, not a 3RR discussion. Bright☀ 08:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Or you could do what RegentsPark suggested you do: file a complaint at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@BrightR:WP:AN3 is not meant to be a place for handling long term edit warring issues (or any long term issues for that matter). If you feel an editor needs to be sanctioned for perennially edit warring, you need wider community input, and the best place for that is ANI (or AE if it involves arb sanctioned pages). Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 12:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Huh? The title of the page is literally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and the first line in the series of boxes relevant to that page is This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule (emphasis mine). Unless you're reading "active" to mean "making the reverts over the past X hours", the page seems exactly the place to report any kind of edit warring. You don't need to violate 3RR to be listed at that page. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Izno, the complainant is alleging hounding and long term edit warring on multiple articles, that's something that should be addressed at community level because it would need more context. On the complaint itself, there was no bright line violation and BMK had stated that they would not be reverting further. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Still it's wrong to close a discussion as if it's about 3RR when it is not about 3RR. Bright☀ 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
RP's action was quite correct. ANEW is for addressing recent edit-warring, typically violations of 3RR or 1RR. There was no violation here. BrightR's report was describing a recent (minor) conflict as an example of long-term behavioral issues. The place for that is ANI. If you wish to pursue this further, please open a discussion there (and if it's a really long-term pattern, you should open a discussion here, at AN). Vanamonde (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Closing a discussion (or undoing a block) by shifting the focus perpetuates the problem. For example, RegentsPark closed a discussion by shifting the focus of the close to consensus and reverts (it is confined to statements about consensus and reverts). BMK admitted almost no wrongdoing (I do not lie; responsibility to build a consensus [is] not mine; deserving of a slap on the wrist) and promptly returned to incivility, edit-warring, and disregarding consensus. If the close addressed these issues instead of shifting the focus, change could have been effected.This discussion isn't about BMK though, I'm just asking RegentsPark to frame the close correctly. There is a huge difference between No violation and Not blocked, especially when it comes to preventing a recurring problem. Bright☀ 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not required for a report to specifically allege a 3RR violation in order to be declined per "no 3RR violation". If RegentsPark completely ignored the fact that you were complaining about a long-term problem, I would understand your frustration, but they directly addressed that in their close, simply directing you to the correct forum. If you are simply interpreting "no violation" as a complete invalidation of your complaint, that is not the case. We use a script called 'response helper' and it gives us several responses to choose from at AN3. The response you saw was just the canned response for declining reports due to the lack of a 3RR violation, which was technically correct; the subsequent comments directing you to ANI was RP's actual response that he typed. The "no violation" template itself is does not inherently imply there's no basis for an edit warring complaint, it's just a "stamp" that indicates that the report has not been actioned due to the lack of a 3RR violation. It was not an intentional attempt to misrepresent your report, nor reject the basis for it. Swarm♠ 19:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Content dispute. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stop them, please. I wrote some information in Battle of Kursk. But two men (both of them are German) removed all of which. Their reason is "Unbelievable data because the author is Russian". So funny!Utakem8 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Utakem8: You say they say that, but I don't see that in the edit summaries or the talk page. Could you provide a WP:DIFF where they actually said that? Because otherwise it looks like you're making up stuff and imagining their reasons instead of actually bothering to understand them. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
08:26, 30 August 2018 Dennis said "Unbelievable data and hardly unbiased data for german losses" and removed my information - but he didn't show the reason why he said that (book, link...)
17:41, 31 August 2018 Dircovic said "Litwinenko also reassess Soviet losses and claim that they have been overstated by various Russian historians such as Grigoriy Krivosheev, Boris Sokolov and Andrei Zubov and they should be comparable to German losses" and removed my information - but he didn't show the reason why he said that (book, link...)
May be I imagine nationalist hatred. But they removed a valid source (without a valid reason) is wrong, ok! If they do it again, plese stop themUtakem8 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
See WP:BRD and WP:DR. Go to the article's talk page. Explain why the source is valid and ask for elaboration on their reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you said, I tried to talk. Their reason are only personal view, they didn't show a valid reason (book, web link...), But they still remove my information, again and again.. Please stop them!Utakem8 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You must not have understood WP:BRD. You need to keep discussing matters until some sort of consensus is reached. That consensus might not include your ideas. Stop asking us to "stop them," that's not how this page or the administrator tools work.
You just went onto the page, said the book was reliable, and told them to stop. Don't do that. Present actual reasons why the book is valid. Explain things. Stop telling people "stop that!" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Utakem8 Please read our policies WP:BRD, WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS, and follow them on the article talk page and not here. I have renamed the title of this section to something meaningful as per the policy--DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has been stated to be significantly different, so AFD is the only way forward to proceed. Nothing more to say or do here. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this not be deleted? It was recreated by User:Abhishe78 right after this AfD, yet Admin User:Ivanvector felt it shouldn't be deleted under G4, even know it still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also Abhishe78 continues to restore his deleted articles even know they fail WP guidelines. Could another admin please review the situation thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I declined deletion because the recreated version was significantly improved, and as I said on the article's talk page I felt that the rationale for deletion no longer applied. The player is signed with a top-tier professional club but has not played as the club has not yet started its season, so yes, he fails the letter of the guideline. Because the season starts in less than a month I offered to move the page to draft as a compromise, but several editors insist it must be deleted. If a reviewing admin feels it should be deleted then I won't object, but I will restore the article on request the moment the player touches the playing surface. As for the allegation that Abhishe78 is serially recreating deleted articles, I know nothing of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Being a regular at AfD (and not involved in this case) I thought to weigh in. The above comment by Ivanvector is a perfect case of WP:FUTURE, although it is almost certain for the season to start but the same cannot be said for the player to play. He could injure himself in a training or be left out due to many other possible reasons. Articles are kept in mainspace, only when their notability "has happened" not when the notability is expected to happen WP:TOOSOON. Deleting or Userfying/Drafting should have been the appropriate admin action to be done here in my opinion. If (as Ivan says) " several editors insist it must be deleted." and with valid reasons, doesn't it point out to the current WP:CONSENSUS ? And even if the CSD was denied nothing stops Govvy or others to AfD this again and let community decide. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 13:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, four other editors decided it should be deleted last time around, I really don't see too much extra which makes me think it should be kept in main space. The article currently isn't in draft space, I would have no objects to that. I do question Abhishe78 methods and his talk page isn't a pretty sight. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at User:Abhishe78's contribution His judgement on Notability may not match the Wiki standards. Govvy What is your opinion If I propose to place User:Abhishe78 on a Mandatory restriction for a reasonable time to only use WP:AFC route for any new article he creates from now onwards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Whether the subject is notable or not is irrelevant. Admins aren't permitted to delete articles because they think the subject isn't notable, or because an ad hoc group of editors ask them to. This is clearly not eligible for G4 or any other speedy deletion criterion, so it needs to go to AfD – it's as simple as that.
Sometimes I despair at how discussion-averse and process-centric deletion is getting. Regardless of Abhishe78's editing history, he has put some effort into rewriting this article, and it costs us little to nothing to take a week to talk about whether it is now suitable for inclusion. This thread has probably already sucked up more volunteer time than a second AfD would have. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
The user can request it themselves if they want it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could L293D (AWB) (talk·contribs) go ahead and be given the confirmed flag? They have confirmed that they're the alternate account of L293D. Therefore, I see no reason why their changes should have to be approved when they edit a PC protected article or why their edits should be caught in the general test filter.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, @SkyGazer 512: I've left them the mandatory notice that is all over this page for when you want to start a discussion about another editor. — xaosfluxTalk 03:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See this page for details of the research and other issues.∯WBGconverse 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Around a year ago, a WMF staff member reached out to me about participating in some external research to understand how experienced closers on Wikipedia go about closing an RfC or other similar discussion. At the time, I received compensation for participating in the interview, but no on-wiki contributions were made, so no paid editing disclosure was needed. Now, I've been contacted for a follow-up. The researcher has developed a tool that attempts to assist editors in analyzing and closing RfCs. They're looking for editors on Wikipedia to use the tool to close an RfC and then provide feedback on it in a follow-up interview. It's unclear to me whether this would require a paid contribution disclosure. While I would be compensated partially for making an edit, the actual contents of the edit are entirely up to me; I choose which RfC to close, and I close it exactly how I would normally with no input from any outside party. I simply test out their tool while doing it.
Could I get some opinions on whether this counts as "paid editing" that would require a disclosure? ~ Rob13Talk 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the same position as Rob.So, comments are equally welcome from my end:-)∯WBGconverse 06:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, now you've disclosed it, so whether or not it counts, you're safe :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: While I've quite literally disclosed it here, this disclosure wouldn't meet the requirements of a paid-contribution disclosure per WP:PAID. For a variety of reasons, I wouldn't be willing to disclose in the manner demanded there. If I put a disclosure on my user page, I'm worried it will be taken the wrong way (e.g. to mean I'm paid for my contributions generally) or used by abusive paid editors as "proof" there are paid administrators. If I disclose in the edit summary/talk page related to whatever RfC I decide to close, I'm worried it will be used by any participants who are unhappy with the result to challenge my close, even though I would (of course) perform it neutrally and without any outside influence. Worst case, if the community isn't clear that this doesn't require a disclosure, I'll participate in the study while requesting the researcher take what compensation would come my way and donate it to the WMF instead. ~ Rob13Talk 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Worth disclosing (as you have), but no, that's not paid editing. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly paid editing and it is fine to undertake with the required disclosure. Btw, in my experience most university ethic boards overseeing such research would advice that that the compensation structure for such research be based not upon the number of RFCs the participant closes (since that would create a perverse incentive) but on a fair estimate of time/effort devoted to giving feedback on how well the tool worked.
(It hopefully doesn't need to be said, but my comment is about the principles involved, and not the persons. BU Rob13 IMO is taking exactly the right approach by being open about the project and inviting feedback here.)Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, I don't see this as any different than (say) editing while at work (where you are allowed to "browse the web" if you have no other tasks to do). Could you explain your reasoning? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The compensation is technically for the feedback, not the act of closing an RfC. Of course, closing a single RfC is necessary in order to evaluate the tool. Does that change anything for you, Abecedare? ~ Rob13Talk 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: The fact that you are getting paid for the feedback, and not the close(s) themselves addresses exactly the issue I had raised in my post above, and increases my confidence that this is a thoughtfully-designed research project. But IMO the requirement for disclosure remains since the payment still creates a secondary incentive for you to close RFCs (I am ignoring the possibility of using the tool in the sandbox). Now, I realize that in your case that inducement is essentially a hypothetical concern, but the very point of having universal ethical and disclosure guidelines is to avoid such case-by-case considerations. Consider the thought experiments:
Lets say the researchers had put up an ad on Mechanical Turk: "Use this tool to close an RFC on wikipedia, and you'll get paid for your feedback". Would we not call that paid editing?
Or lets say, instead of of being open in your original post, you had logged out and posted as an IP, "Hi all. I have an account on wikipedia and around a year ago..." Would we then not have asked that the activity be disclosed?
Now both the above scenarios, and especially the first one, raise concerns other than the simple question of whether the activity is paid or not. But my aim in presenting them is to (hopefully) show that if we anonymize the scenario (ie. remove you and and your established on-wiki reputation from consideration), it becomes clear that the activity does qualify as (ethical) paid editing. Does that make sense to you/others? Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In both of the scenarios you listed, no one would be required to disclose. Payment for use of a tool and providing feedback on it is not payment for contributions.Also, I’ll repeat my objections to saying that our standards are the same for research conducted on Wikipedia as a topic vs. commercial editing, and note how much I hate the use of “paid editing” as a term. The TOU and our guidelines were intended to target commercial editors and make it harder for them to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. In an attempt to make it seem like we aren’t discriminating against spammers, we sometimes take ridiculous stances like the community appears to be taking in this case by forcing an arbitrator who is well known for his privacy concerns (I think this is a fair description of Rob) to disclose more than is required under the TOU, breaching his personal privacy for a minimal sum just because a blind reading of the TOU without looking at the context can be read as “money must be disclosed.” That’s not the intent here, nor is it required, and forcing disclosure in these circumstances only increases the legitimacy of parties who use the disclosure as a weapon to ignore local policies on advertising for their clients. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the key phrase from the terms of service, "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation", RFC closures are encompassed as a contribution. As the FAQ says, "...you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project. This includes edits on talk pages and edits on projects other than Wikipedia." isaacl (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I suppose that may actually be the key here. I'm not actually required to make a contribution to Wikipedia in order to receive this compensation, technically. I have an option to "close" an already closed RfC. The compensation is for the feedback on the tool, not the edit I would be making. Does that change your thoughts? ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand: are you saying it is sufficient for you to use the tool to figure out how you might have closed an RfC, and then report this to the study in a way other than editing Wikipedia? If no contributions to Wikipedia are involved, then the terms of service do not come into effect. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That would be sufficient to complete the feedback phase and receive compensation, yes. Obviously, if I spent time closing a difficult RfC, though, I'd like that close to be implemented. Otherwise, I'm wasting some other volunteer's time to repeat my close. ~ Rob13Talk 18:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think this falls under WP:PAID, and don’t think the mandatory disclosure applies (for full disclosure, Rob asked me about this before, and I told him the same thing, but agreed it would be best to get community feedback in the interest of transparency.) Rob would be paid for providing feedback on a tool, not paid for any specific action taken on-wiki. Classifying this as paid editing is equivalent to the strawman argument that getting an $8 coupon to buy a sandwich at a university cafe during an editathon counts as paid editing: it doesn’t, it clearly isn’t the intent of the terms of use or the local guidelines, and people need to stop pretending that the TOU disclosure requirement is broader than it actually is. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree this isn't the same as conventional paid editing. For better or worse, the terms of usage are broadly drawn to minimize gaming, and it's too easy to see how non-neutral interests can influence editing through compensation of supporting tools. Think of how the soft-drink industry funds studies on the value of hydration; it could fund edit-a-thons where it didn't direct you to edit any specific pages, but provided you with tools to help find hydration-related information. Or... it could fund a study much like this one, to see if RfCs for hydration-related topics are closed differently based on the tool. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
And it wouldn’t be paid editing or covered by the terms of use, which cover only paid contributions to Wikimedia projects. Not analysis of contributions to Wikimedia projects or being a test subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, as I said above, the terms of usage only take effect for contributions. But if the test subject is making edits as direct part of the study, even if it's the tool that's being evaluated, then the edit is a consequence of the compensation. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
If you decide to do this, it is paid editing. The payment is for behavior, not content (which is indeed unusual), but it is still pay.
Because the pay is for behavior not content, there is no need for "prior review" so there is no issue with actually doing the close directly.
With regard to the reputational/mischief risks around "paid editing" you mention, the simplest way to avoid them would be to not accept the money. So perhaps ask yourself if the money is worth those risks. Only you can judge that for yourself. But not disclosing at your userpage and locally, is not the correct way to manage those risks. Doing that ~looks~ like avoiding scrutiny which is actually more opportunity for drama.
In my view if you choose to do this, of course you should disclose this clearly on your userpage, as well as when you do a relevant close. The disclosure should be simple: "I am receiving compensation as part of a WMFuniversity research project into a software tool I am testing that is meant to help closers evaluate the discussion, and my feedback on the use of this tool. The judgement expressed in the close is my own". The disclosure on your userpage should provide the start and end date of the consulting gig.
Since the pay is for behavior and since the research project involves your behavior and judgement, it would be interesting when you are done to see if participating changed your behavior:
for example you might close more discussions than you usually would. (The fact that you are testing a tool, which is interesting in itself, also could change whether you close more or less, of course). I don't think you closing more or fewer discussions is a bad thing; there is no real risk here.
Use of the tool will effect your closes. It would be like closing a discussion with a 2nd closer, where you have some other opinion you have to consider while writing the close. That's kind of interesting, but risks to the project would seem minimal. The final judgement will be your own.
I wonder if your approach to challenges of any given close made using the tool would be different (maybe influence you to be less open to a challenge since the tool might give you a sense of higher objectivity or something). Again this seems like a minimal risk.
Those are my thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (initial redaction based on further information provided here. I may change further based on other clarifications... Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)) (again redacting, the gig is to do one close, not a bunch of them. This is really small potatoes. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This is creating a false equivalency when none exists, and is dangerous. Rob would be getting paid for external research related to Wikipedia, not his contributions here. If consensus is that this falls under PAID, I’ll be proposing an RfC to exempt external research from the disclosure requirements, because I feel very strongly that such a reading of the current policy is harmful to the purposes of Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I understood from the OP that the pay is for doing closings using the tool. The pay is connected to the editing; not the content but the behavior. No closings, no pay. This pay-for-behavior thing is something we haven't thought much about as a community. I haven't thought much about it, at least. I will think about other sorts of behavior people might be interested in paying for that doesn't involve getting some certain kind of content into WP or about swaying some community decision. It's interesting. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, I do not need to perform a close to receive the pay. I was explicitly offered the option of "closing" an already closed discussion (e.g. evaluating how I would close it, using the tool, ignoring the existing close). What they're after is the feedback, and that's what I would be compensated for. I think this whole thing highlights how poor our definition of paid editing is, though. I think it's rather clear everyone agrees this shouldn't be covered, but several think it is due to an overly broad definition. We could do with some further exemptions or refinements of the paid editing definition, in my opinion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree this shouldn't be covered. Lots of research is funded by special interests, and so it's unclear to me that avoiding a disclosure is desirable for this scenario. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I would only close a single RfC with this tool to provide feedback, so most of that wouldn't be relevant. I will not be making a full disclosure, for sure, since I do think the risks outweigh the benefits. If the consensus is that this is paid editing, then I'll instead have the researcher donate the compensation to the WMF on my behalf. That way, I'm receiving no compensation and am not a "paid editor", but it's going to a good cause. ~ Rob13Talk 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Would you not be closing, were you not paid? I take it the answer is, you will be closing just as you would normally, except using a tool, and you will get paid if you report on the tool's use. Well, I think there are multiple ways one could handle this to ally any issue, but my suggestion is that in the edit summary, you put 'closed with '[ToolClose]', as that is the way our system often discloses similar things, like when I and others edit with Provelt [20]. And I guess I would also put on my talk page "I am testing '[ToolClose]' and the WMF will provide some compensation for my report on its use", and when you're done, then that can just archive. See also WP:ADMIN where it discusses paid by WMF. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not the WMF providing compensation, but rather a researcher at a major research university. I likely would not close an RfC in the absence of this research merely because I'm fairly busy these days with my role on the Arbitration Committee, but I'm receiving absolutely no influence in which RfC to close. I plan to just pick something complicated-looking at WP:ANRFC - probably whatever's been there the longest - and close that. ~ Rob13Talk 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you mention WMF up-top, so this research is in conjunction with WMF? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The researcher is working with the WMF, as external researchers usually do, but I don't know that it's in conjunction with them. A WMF staffer reached out to me initially along with other closers for a round of interviews, but since then, all contact has been with the researcher. ~ Rob13Talk 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Then I would amend what was on your talk page to trace the connections, but you would first have to clarify the WMF connection, which you can probably clarify by contacting the WMF person. You might also want to think about if you have not closed in a while closing without the tool, so you have the experience fresh. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I see above, you say you could do dry re-run of closes, not actually doing anything for the pedia, if you did do just that, no extra anything is needed (You could also try to know as little about what the close was and later compare, by eg. having someone else transfer the pre-closed RfC to your sandbox - just have them follow copying in Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, ditto, but I would not take any money so all good here :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(1)In my opinion, this not paid editing. To think it is, is to misunderstand the basis for our rules about paid editing and COI. The reason we have these rules is because of their effect on writing NPOV encyclopedic articles--NPOV is the fundamental principle upon which these guidelines rest. There is no reason to expect that someone given money for writing or editing or reviewing anything they might choose to do will cause a violation of NPOV, and this goes for routine administrative actions also.
(2)However, the enWP is reasonably concerned to keep its contents and decisions about content independent of the WMF. This is based upon the basic principle that we are a volunteer organization where everyone can edit. Professionalizing our decisions goes against the very reason that WP was founded in the first place. As WP has become complex, there has been need for a certain involvement by the WMGF in some aspects--but we have never accepted any involvement in content (except to make sure its legal & help us keep it free from external influences).
(3)That goes for research into WP also. It's desirable and necessary there be research, but it cannot be allowed to affect content or other decisions at the encyclopedia. This prohibits breaching experiments--it also prohibits editing or adminsitrative actions which are done for some purpose that might even potentially conflict with the true purposes of the encyclopedia. We are I think rightly particularly sensitive of this for actions by admins, or similar decision-makers, even when they do not directly invovle content. Therefore I think this sort of activity must be explicitly declared. This is the same whether or not there is money involved. (There are indeed certain types of otherwise desirable research which this might prohibit, but it's like any rule on ethical research.) DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
User:BU Rob13 would you please clarify what activity this involves? In the OP you wrote use the tool to close an RfC then here you said you could just go through the motions and not actually do a close. This matters, since the first involves actually saving an edit, while the second does not. Also I just noticed that the OP says do this once and this is what you have said a few other times. Are they really just looking for you to do this once? This is also relevant... Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just seen a similar email in my inbox, which I suppose makes me "involved" enough to join the conversation and reply to your query. The researcher in question has developed a new tool to help close RFCs. They want users like Rob and myself to use their tool to close 1 RfC, give feedback, and we will be paid for our efforts.
I am in the same line of thinking of TonyBallioni and others on this matter, in that we are not being paid to close a specific RfC (there is even the caveat given of or a previously closed one), but rather that we are being asked to use the tool. To me this does not sound like a "paid contribution"; it's saying "hey, here's this thing, how well do you think it works?" The caveat mentioned basically means that it doesn't have to be a "real" RfC that's being closed, so it could be used on a "fake" RfC but something tells me the point is to look at a convoluted RfC and see if this tool makes it easier to edit.
In other words, I do not think disclosure is required. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, what Primefac said. A single RfC, and technically, we don't even need to make the closing edit to be paid. They want the feedback, and that's what the compensation is for. Having said that, from my perspective, I want to improve the encyclopedia, and if I'm going to the effort of working out a close, the thing that most improves the encyclopedia is for me to implement that close. It's a waste of effort for me to "close" a discussion off-wiki but make another closer duplicate my work for an on-wiki close. ~ Rob13Talk 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
As one of the editors, approached in a follow-up to test their tool, I pretty much agree with PFac.∯WBGconverse 16:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Two things. If you are saving an edit and will be paid for that, it is "paid editing". We get all kinds of sophistry from people around what "editing" is (e.g. talk page discussion is not "editing"; editing policy or discussion about policy is not "editing"). Second, people considering doing this, should not be evaluating themselves how the community should classify this. See Bias blind spot. I can't tell you how many discussions I have had with editors with an WP:APPARENTCOI who start out insisting "I have no COI here" and when I finally draw a disclosure of the relationship from them, they are in the PR department or are friends with the person or the like. Most everybody who has a COI thinks they are "doing just fine, thanks". The thing to do is disclose, and let others evaluate. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, whilst I'm obviously not the one to evaluate the aspects of PAID declaration, I think your equivalence is grossly hyperbolic.Neither I nor PFac nor Rob are liaisoning with any PR department.All that we will do, is to choose a random RFC, and execute a closure via the help of the tool and later provide feedback about our experience et al.∯WBGconverse 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Too much emotion. Bias blind spot is a very, very human thing. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest in participating, so I'm not really sure how knowing the specifics/answering your question/giving my thoughts mean that I'm biased, but whatever. I can see where you're coming from, and while I'm not quite as firm in my belief that it doesn't require disclosure as I was before, I still think this doesn't fall under the definition of a "paid contribution" (since the close would have happened regardless of whether the pay is coming). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
the thing about "blind spot bias" is about a person who is involved with it, judging how to consider it and what to do about it. It's just a human thing. That's all. I hear you, that you don't intend to take them up on their offer. It's unhappy to me that there is drama around this; nobody here has said "wow this could really damage the project". If there is one clear consensus in the discussion, it is that. I have acknowledged that this is pay-for-behavior not pay-for-content and that is some different kind of animal. But it would be better just to disclose it since money is involved and edits are being made, exactly to avoid stupid drama later. The not-disclosing would become the point of drama, and it would have a "hook". Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A third thing - since they are really are looking for just one close from each person (which I find a bit strange from an experimental design perspective, but whatever) the effect on the project is really minimal and again there is no big deal here. But everybody doing this for pay (or even if they refuse pay and as part of the research, as aptly noted by User:DGG above) should disclose it at their userpage and when they do the close. It is not complicated. Paid editing is paid editing. This is very GLAM like and benign. I hope the researchers doing this have a page somewhere in WP where they describe the project; they should link everybody doing this there (and the disclosure each person makes should link there). Disclosure is good. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Disclosure is good, but in re-reading Rob's original post it sounds more like he's concerned about the outcome of such a disclosure. Is "I tested a thing for a person" (hyperbolic shortening intentional) acceptable, or would he have to use {{paid}} and give specific details, which could then potentially be used to track him down? Primefac (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The disclosure does not have to use {{paid}}, look for example what I have on my user page. I would not call myself a paid editor, and in fact I oppose paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The {{paid}} tag is never required; the main thing is the disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then why don't you just forgo the payment and help without it? I find the payment for stuff like this to be highly inappropriate and the secrecy surrounding the "tool" to be problematic. In light of the community discussion and Arbcom's decision, closing an RfC as an administrator while being paid to close it could be viewed as a violation of this restriction. I highly recommend that no one move forward with this if they wish to avoid the obvious trouble that it will carry. Nihlus 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
But they're not being paid to close an RfC, they're being paid to use a tool to close an RfC. Also it is not a use (or abuse) of admin tools because there are no admin tools being used. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like the same thing to me. If editing the wiki is a requirement for using a tool, then they are being paid to edit the wiki. It's that simple. As to whether or not it is a violation, it could very easily be viewed as one and desysop requests could be made (with merit) if someone found them to be troublesome or a violation of the rules surrounding it. Closing it as an administrator while being paid can easily be seen as leveraging the sysop bit while being paid as it has implied authority that comes with it. As I said, if you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then all of this can easily be done without being paid. However, the questions will linger as this bell can't really be unrung. Nihlus 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I doubt seriously those alleged desysop claims would find merit, if they were made at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
if they were made at all I assure you that someone will make a formal complaint. Nihlus 17:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
So? Sometimes like 75% of the project is complaints (no biggie). :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think allot of discussion is just unneeded. It costs nothing to do some kind of disclosure here, no-one is wanting anything "private" or you all would not be here right now disclosing this stuff, just follow the spirit of nothing wrong with some disclosure and minimally do something like in the edit summary, and on your talk page etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
BU Rob13, someone is paying you to make a contribution to Wikipedia. That falls under "paid editing". But you don't have to add anything to your user page. It would be enough to say on the talk pages when you close the RfCs that you've been paid by [name of researcher, university or whatever's appropriate] to test a new tool. SarahSV(talk) 19:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
That sort of works but if there is a choice between local or central (at the user page), then local is better. The purpose of the local disclosure is that people who are "affected" are made of aware of it at the time; in my experience people who have had some interaction with someone editing for pay or with a COI, learning after the fact about that (say by going to the person's userpage at some later point in time after the interaction has been underway), have a negative reaction, in great part due to the lack of local disclosure. Again the only problem I see with this, is someone coming across it later and thinking they have found some scandal. That is all avoidable with clear disclosure. So normal disclosure (user page + local) Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not disclosing. The risks of an admin having to publicly disclose as a paid editor outweigh the benefits of this research, in my opinion. I guarantee if I made such a formal disclosure, abusive paid editing groups would be impersonating me by the end of the week, backed up by a convenient paid editing disclosure they could link to on-wiki to "prove" they have an admin willing to pull strings for the highest bidder. Further, I'm now worried that even participating in this study at all will cause harm, as paid editors could point to this discussion to show admins do engage in "paid editing" if I go through with it, even if I do some gymnastics to avoid having to disclose (e.g. declining compensation). I'll certainly respect the community's decision on this one, but it's the wrong decision. The community has deprived a researcher attempting to benefit Wikipedia of useful data. It's unfortunate I will not be able to participate in the development of a potentially useful tool. ~ Rob13Talk 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Why can you not do it for free? Nihlus 09:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I feel that undertaking any activity as an administrator that the community has decided is on the same level and requires the same level of disclosure as the activity undertaken by spammers and abusive paid editors is likely to damage the project. If I go through with this now, even unpaid, paid editors could still point to this discussion to show that an administrator is willing to accept pay for contributions, which is not what I was actually doing in the first place. ~ Rob13Talk 13:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I urge you to not play around with what an "edit" is; an edit is any saved change to WP, anywhere. I am sorry you feel it is dirty. If "feeling dirty" prevents disclosure, that is shooting oneself in the foot, since most scandal arises when people feel something is being hidden. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Better nomenclature? Perhaps we need to come up with better terminology for the type of research participation being discussed here. While I do think such paid participation needs disclosure, Rob et al are right that just calling it "paid editing" without trying to differentiate it from activities of (typically) COI/promotional editors is misleading and unhelpful. With a bit of brainstorming it should be possible to come up with something akin to "Wikipedians in residence", which afaik, is not treated as a scarlet letter. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I endorse that idea. It seems a shame that we could be missing out on helpful research and tools because of the paid editing problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
In my comments above I noted that we should treat this like GLAM. WP:COI says There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable.... I oppose obscuring things. Clarity is good and disclosure is good. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think participating in research (or, for that matter, acting as a liaison for a gallery, library, archive, museum, or educational institution) should be a mark of shame, but I don't think it should be a free pass, either. As I alluded to above, I think disclosing the associated research is desirable so that the context of the research, including its funding source, can be known. isaacl (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding nomenclature, I think the most straightforward description is research participant. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should treat this as usual paid editing, since you are not paid to edit any content or change any editorial behavior. So it does not make sense to add yourself to talk pages with Template:Connected contributor (paid). Obviously other paid editing provisions such as requesting edits in talk pages do not apply either. However, I think you should disclose it in your user page or talk page that you are being compensated for this and a link to a page where full details of the research and payer can be read, and a brief comment in edit summaries would help too. --MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So I too got an email about this today; however specifying no compensation. Per this diff done a few days ago, "no participants will be compensated for their participation in this study", referencing this discussion. I'm interested in participating, and with no compensation being there, there is per se no issue with paid disclosure. However some people above seem to want a disclosure even if there is no pay involved. I'm fine with putting in the edit summary of the closure something like "Close was aided by the tool Wikum, to give feedback for research", basically along the lines of Primefac's "I tested a thing for a person". Would that satisfy people? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I too consider this not to be paid editing. However, being paid for closing an RfC and discussing how one closed it can have the appearance -- and indeed in this case did gives ome peole the appearance--of possible outside influence on the closure. The same is true with being paid for an interview about WP. Many of us have done this, with researchers and reporters; I think very few have been paid for it. If someone is, I think maintaining the standard of openness expected at WP requires disclosure. I think tis factor needs to be taken into account in discussing and approving research projects. In many fields, researches can and do ethically offer to compensate people providing extensive input. Given the extraordinary willingness of WPedians to talk about the project ,it shouldn't be necessary here. But in any vase, were I again on an IRB, as I have been in the past, I would think it necessary that any reporting of the research require a statement if the research subjects have been compensated. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).
Personal sanctions - instead of topic banning what about prohibiting the use of professional literature ?[edit]
UPDATE - In this thread, I am ONLY seeking education. I already know a fair bit about ANI-DS-AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
In the event a user makes frequent mis-use of primary sources or professional/academic literature, do we already have some sort of restriction short of topic banning such folks outright? Something like a ban on using certain types of material? What do admins call this? Are there written guidelines about it? Have we ever done that sort of thing? Thanks for any help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Why should we have anything else in this case apart from a topic ban or blocks of an increasing duration? If someone can not use the sources properly they should not edit Wikipedia at least in this area.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Restrictions or topic bans can be proposed on here or WP:ANI. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a peek at the situation I'm pretty sure you're talking about and it would appear that WP:CIR applies a little bit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I hate to go that road because there's much good from this ed as well. Hence, my quest for education about options that might keep the good and prevent noise on the specific trouble. Not, repeat not asking for action right now. Just education for future reference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy, in case you talk about me, I disagree about how you frame my edits when writing, "makes frequent mis-use of primary sources or professional/academic literature". If you don't want to discuss this further do not respond, and as I asked you before please stop making up claims about my edits. prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
making up claims is not the same thing as making the occasional good faith mistake and since I am not trying to make a case here I would be glad to talk to you more about any aspect of our interaction at the proper place - our user talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought we agreed that you ask me to provide an explanation when in doubt, as you did recently at the sea level rise page. Just keep it focused on the questions at hand (without sharing your personal opinion in regards to why I edit..). prokaryotes (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
To repeat, to discuss you-and-me with me, please add a new section to the thread at my user talk, or if you prefer your own user talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the cat is out of the bag I will go ahead and comment. My view is similar to NAEG (and others above, especially User:Simonm223). First it bears repeating that there is no doubt Prokaryotes means well and is acting in good faith. But as WP:CIR says, sometimes well-meaning editors still can cause problems.
There are two main issues with P's approach. First, there's a tendency to go overboard on individual primary sources. It often seems that P sees a really neat news report about a scientific article and decides it should be in Wikipedia. But there are a couple hundred or so really neat journal articles on climate every month. So that approach doesn't scale, and besides, the findings of a given study very often are overturned or heavily modified after further work (that's what science is all about). Second, when trying to summarize an article P too often gets the findings backwards, or inside out, or orthogonal. This requires a lot of cleanup and a lot of discussion. It's exhausting given P's very energetic editing in this topic area, and I've pretty much given up and left it to NAEG to try and sort out (sorry, NAEG).
It sort of feels like I'm beating up on P and I really don't want to do that. It comes back to NAEG's point: How do we keep P's energy and enthusiasm while managing the problems that too often result? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
left it to NAEG to try and sort out (sorry, NAEG)..... Bless you, my son! I keep looking in the mirror wondering if I'm the one with the problem here. Nice to hear I'm not a complete loon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps @Prokaryotes: would be willing to accept mentorship from NAEG or somebody else with expertise on climate articles? Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
If you look at my edits at these articles here, Sea level rise (Most contributions), Global warming (7th most contribution), my point is, the amount of reverts I got on these pages, or "controversies" make up only a small fraction, and are primarily with editor NewsAndEventsGuy. Issues are usually concerning where to place something, or to large, or if this should be added at all. The editor appears to be obsessed with me, frequently makes odd remarks, why I edit, what my motive is, totally irrelevant to a typical content discussion. To get an idea read the last two sections here, or look at his talk page, where he collects data about our communications, kind of creepy if you ask me. An interaction ban would possibly the best solution.
@Boris, "P too often gets the findings backwards", can you point me to an example?
There is no CIR issue or OR, or POV issue here as has been suggested. The larger issue appears to be about how we want to present the growing bleak climate literature.
@Simonm I don't think Guy is qualified to be a mentor on climate science. Editing, guidelines, for input, yes.
Have to leave soon, will be back Sunday or Monday. prokaryotes (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Simonm223: thank you for the implicit suggestion that I might make a good tutor. That means a lot, since I do try to help people find their way when the occasion presents itself. However, in this case I agree with @Prokaryotes: that a mentoring relationship between us would make z-e-r-o difference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as the OP, would it be OK to close this thread? I only meant to learn about options here and this is turning into something else and something messy. Above Prokaryotes said they'd return in a day or two. If this thread is still open and they want to continue, it might get more tangled. Instead, please just close this, with a note that anyone who wants to file at ANI/AE about any of this is welcome to start a clean report for that purpose. If I'm on the receiving end, I'll participate, of course. Thanks for considering this closure request. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Have a great week everybody. prokaryotes (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's been over a few days since someone last posted so could a non-associated admin look at the move and the move review to close this conversation please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Range 151.0.197.64/29 has been blocked. If more edits come from a wider subset of this range, let me know and I'll block the ASN CIDR range. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be an admin issue. I would suggest that the OP refer to WP:FIRST for tips on how to create a better article. (non-admin closure) Erpertblah, blah, blah... 14:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there! To the attention of the administrators: I would get help on en.Wikipedia regarding to Alex4ff editor. It is about Draft:IKMF_International_Krav_Maga_Federation. The draft has been abdicted to refer on IKMF position, which has been declined for 2 times, because the reason for: It is not in conformity, because This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. and I would like to inform you about this issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.105.180 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the report, but I don't understand exactly what you're asking for us to do here. The draft was declined; they just need to make further changes and improvements to the page so that it can be approved the next time they submit it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I Handled the requested move over redirects --DBigXray 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
These are the correct name according to Statistical Codes of Municipalities, Communities and Quarters of Cyprus per the Statistical Service of Cyprus (2015) [21]
Done in future post such requests at WP:RMT --DBigXrayᗙ 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
article moved by Black Kite --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Pablo Morgado Blanco was previously deleted but then recreated. A request for a speedy deletion was declined by User:Ivanvector. Now after a discussion at Talk:Pablo Morgado Blanco, the same admin feels that the page must be deleted (User talk:Ivanvector#Deletion of Pablo_Morgado). But the admin is unable to do so for technical reasons. So, I would request any admin to do it on the user's behalf. RRD (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Given the AfD discussion and the talkpage discussion, I have moved the article to Draft:Pablo Morgado Blanco - the subject could be notable very soon - if not, it can be deleted later. Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resignation of Alex Shih from the Arbitration Committee[edit]
This is to inform the community that I am no longer able to serve my term as a member of the Arbitration Committee, and thereby resigning as an Arbitrator, CheckUser and Oversighter ([22]). Alex Shih (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm just sending an FYI to let you know (per the requirements listed) that I've requested temporary interface administrator rights. You're welcome to comment, support, oppose, hate, etc my request by clicking here. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Piggybacking on Oshwah's notice the I also have left a request for interface access, directly below his.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 23:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Obvious already that this won't get consensus. Equally obvious that Michael Hardy should drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since they are still going on about libel at Jimbo's talk page, I am proposing topic bans from the subjects of Ancestral Health (broadly construed), the Journal of Evolution and Health (broadly construed), as well as being restricted from commenting on other editors unless they are opening a noticeboard discussion and present evidence in the form of diffs. No 'lynch mob' comments, no accusations of bullying, no 'this attracts peopel who want to push others around' etc. And definately no accusations of libel. If they think its libel, they can contact WMF legal or otherwise take their concerns off-wiki. Its time to put this rubbish to bed, and so far polite requests, followed by less polite requests (blocks) have failed to make an impression. As this ongoing issue has nothing to do with admin tools, this can be solved by editing restrictions.
Oppose-Send it to the arbs and carve a TRM-esque restriction.∯WBGconverse 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Why waste arbs time with this crap? Its a dispute over a minor thing that one editor seems unable to drop. So restrict them from it and have done with it. ARBCOM have the ability to do the same things the community does, with the addition of removing tools. Since this is entirely unrelated to anything regarding tool-use. There is no need to drag this process out through arbcom. If editing restrictions dont work, the next logical step is indefinately blocking/banning, as *also* removing tool use wouldnt resolve anything either. ARBCOM are not a 'oh its an admin, we cant do anything' bandaid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
SupportThis diff can be approximately translated as "I didn't compare them to a lynch mob, I just said they were acting like one." I'm not even sure that a restriction is correct at this point - I think an indef block would be more appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support I've yet to see the slightest hint that Michael is an emotionally mature adult with respect to this topic. There is no question that he is a valuable editor, but his time-wasting on this topic has been extensive and is still on-going. Note that I agree with Sarek to an extent: Michael Hardy has made some invaluable contributions, but if he does not continue to do so, then his usefulness to this project is outweighed by the disruption he is causing and we should stop it with an indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 14:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Question Is this just for MH? Thanks, caknuck°needs to be running more often 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Michael Hardy has done nothing at articles/pages about Ancestral Health or the Journal of Evolution and Health warranting a topic ban. The concerns are about his general approach to/rejection of consensus, his alleged attacks on other editors, and his persistent criticism of the way ANI works. It is an issue about interaction with others and about alleged lack of suitability to be an admin, and not a content issue. As such, I see a topic ban as completely the wrong way to go about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
But what about the "commenting on other editors" restriction? Do you oppose that as well? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It'll get us nowhere trying to pick and choose the bits we like from an ill-conceived proposal - if anyone wants to address the real issue, it should be done properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I maintain that this is not a content issue, is not about Ancestral Health or the Journal of Evolution and Health specifically, and I do not support any proposal founded on the misconception that it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Do you support the idea that a restriction could be crafted on a noticeboard that would improve the situation, or do you think Arbcom has to handle it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, because I don't really understand what this is trying to achieve. If it's trying to address his suitability as an admin, then no, that can't be done here. Banning him from "commenting on other editors" generally doesn't make any sense, as that is nowhere prohibited - and it will mean he pretty much can't take part in any discussion and can not function as an admin. Specific things like " No 'lynch mob' comments, no accusations of bullying, no 'this attracts peopel who want to push others around' etc. And definately no accusations of libel" don't make sense to me either - either those things are contrary to policy or they are not, and if they are then no new restrictions are needed. This all looks to me like looking for a solution without properly identifying the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with it being a content issue. It is to do with their editing regarding those topics. If they cant edit about those topics, they cant be disruptive about it, regardless of any editing on the content. Unless there is a hidden trove of evidence somewhere (and I did check) that they have been disruptive in the same way regarding other topics, then going to arbcom for what can be resolved fairly quickly is a waste of time. What do you actually expect ARBCOM to do? Remove tools? If they remove tools and do nothing else, how exactly does that solve anything? Blocking/banning for a time? Just prolonging the problem. Everything they can do short of impacting on their tool-use can just as easily be done here, a lot quicker and with less hassle. Stick a restriction on them regarding other editors and restrict them from the above two topics and have done with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's actually about those topics at all - Michael Hardy has repeatedly said so himself, and the evidence seems to support it. It's all about his allegations of bullying, "demands for obedience", etc - it's about his apparent allegations that AN/ANI is operated by a bullying cabal. Removing the specific content disagreement that triggered this one does not address those. Imagine someone (imperfect analogy alert) who treats disagreements by getting angry and lashing out at people, and suppose this person gets into a fight over a parking disagreement - banning them from parking would not solve the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Many people suffer from road rage and have no problem keeping their temper elsewhere to use your example. But if there was any evidence they have been disruptive outside the area directly/indirectly related to that journal, no one has presented any credible examples beyond what caused all this, and frankly I am with others in suspecting that there must be some underlying issue related to that journal that has caused this. Getting worked up over 2 year old issues (and then complaining about how they were treated in relation to their behaviour over that issue) is evidence of a more personal grudge. Not some sort of general complaint about process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I did say it was an imperfect analogy. I guess we'll have to disagree, but if there is bad behaviour here then I think the correct approach is to address that behaviour, not to try to eliminate the latest specific trigger for the behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment this is all getting just a little bit silly. Suggest the people involved either take this to ArbCom - which has been identified as the appropriate venue in a lot of discussions - or just de-escalate, walk away, and let him scream into the void of Jimbo's talk page without response. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Having been an arb...if this settles down to a slow burn, then arbs looking at their role narrowly as conflict resolution might deflect to...a place like here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support, very broadly construed. No reference whatsoever to anything remotely associated with this issue or conflict or criticism of Wikipedia consensus processes. As of this very moment, Michael Hardy has made 106 posts on this subject in the past 11 days. If that isn't a record for tendentious WP:STICK editing, I don't know what is. Considering his ArbCom reprimand two years ago for this type of behavior, he is heading into an ArbCom de-sysop if he persists. This is a complete and utter time-sink and disruption that needs to stop now; the community has wasted far too much time on it already. Softlavender (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Counter-proposal: that this thread and any new threads on any page that isn't WP:ARC regarding Michael Hardy's actions/behaviour/suitability for the sysop bit be speedily closed. I don't fault OID's proposal, but we've already pretty clearly determined that there's no support for a site ban, that Hardy is unlikely to follow any limited restriction while still allowed to edit (as he seems to be treating Jimbotalk as a sort of asylum) and that any other useful sanctions can only be enacted through a case request, thus any more discussion of the subject is just further expending community time on an issue we can't resolve. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"no support for a site ban" - Yes which is why I proposed a much more leniant restriction than a site ban. Its unsurprising people do not want to use the sledgehammer for what is (in the scheme of things) low-level disruption. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll say I support your proposed topic-ban as a measured response, but not the civility restriction (I dislike civility restrictions in general). But whatever happens let's have this be the last community thread about Michael Hardy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Functionally what happens when editing restrictions are violated is that the editor gets blocked in increasing lengths. They either quickly learn to obey the restriction, or they end up with editing privileges removed completely. Either way, the dispute goes away. Which is the point of dispute resolution. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not at all qualified to support or oppose this, since this Ancestral bit falls outside of my epistemological principles, but I do want to thank Only in death does duty end for their efforts in addressing the problems posed by this editor/admin in a measured way. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support MH needs to move on, and understand that revisiting the topic (broadly construed - including his opinions of the aftermath and participants) is disruptive. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment To state the bald facts: with 265 admin actions in over 14 years: we won't be losing an admin. The ore important question is Michael Hardy the editor, and I frankly don't see the kind of egregious behaviour in articles that usually leads to TBs. Although I admit that I too have tried to avoid the—swamp?—it has turned into since the original block. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Question - So there's the topic ban and problems with discussions related to those topics. Then there's the stuff about consensus and other editors. For those of us who haven't followed this mess, what are the other examples of disruptive behavior regarding commenting on other editors, criticizing the consensus process, etc. that are unrelated to the topics such that they would tackle something other than what the topic bans already address? i.e. if all of the behavior is connected to this one ordeal, why wouldn't a topic ban from that subject area(s) be sufficient? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support although I recognize that this will only stop the current 'incident' and that some more drastic ×solution may need to be explored if similar unseemlyness occurs elsewhere. I do not see any actions which I believe ArbCom would dysysop for though I would strongly recommend he resign. After these current outbursts I do not believe anyone who has witnessed them would have the implicit confidence is his judgement required for him to be an effective administrator. Jbh Talk 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a suggestion... Whatever it is that he's done that's contrary to Wikipedia policy (bad-faith accusations against other editors, perhaps?), just warn for those actions and then block if they're repeated. Like we do all the time. And if he gets blocked and does not believe it is warranted, he can request unblock like anyone else. I really don't see the need to tailor anything specific here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose OID's proposed action and Support Ivanvector's Counter-proposal (and what Boing said). I can understand why MH feels the way he does, but what I don't understand is the response he received for expressing his views. The reception he received was like a disturbed beehive, but ironically, it may well have shined a bright light on the validity of his criticism about the broken system. MH exercised free speech in an uncensored encyclopedia on the TP of Jimbo Wales, probably hoping to draw more attention to his concerns. From what I understand of the situation, there has been a basic misunderstanding of MH's intent from when he first expressed his concerns about a potential BLP issue, and requested the blanking of a deleted article. I have no idea as to how it turned into a drama fest but it did, which is not unlike what happens on our noticeboards from time to time. Speedy close this request, and let's get back to building the encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support: as the minimal action that may be taken to deal with this user's chronic issues on this topic and apparent bad judgment. I don't see him learning from these mistakes and he's not letting go. I suspect further action will be needed at some time in the future as he seems to not understand the law of holes. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I do not regard the topic of ancestral health as important (to me personally, or to my involvement in Wikipedia). I've been very clear about that and I have repeated it several times. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
(I do attach some importance to some things I've learned only in the past couple of days about how some people think. Several have been telling me that certain things about professors who publish on "ancestral health" are obvious, and just how they reached those conclusions baffles me. That doesn't mean I regard the topic of "ancestral health" or Wikipedia's content about it as important to me. I don't.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this is at a "drop it or take it to ARBCOM" stage (with a strong preference to "drop it") for everyone, a proposal here shouldn't be necessary. Hardy's rantings at User talk:Jimbo Wales are ignorable, if he starts beating a dead horse elsewhere I might consider it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment The subject of the virtually criminal nature of this present board and its relatives is what is important in this matter. Perhaps the fact that I've identified it is what offends some people. Those who say the regime is criminal must be silenced, I guess. They've tried that in some countries as official policy, so let's try it here. Right? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael: I will say that ANI is a toxic cesspit full of drama queens and immature little shits that barely functions, and when it does, that's only due to individual admins showing up to do what needs to be done in spite of the ridiculous bullshit going on at ANI. That being said: You still treated this whole situation with a level of maturity that would have gotten my 5-year-old a timeout. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I said that certain persons are bullies. Then I declined to withdraw that accusation. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Michael Hardy's posts at Jimbo's talk page seem rather OTT but Jimbo usually makes it clear if he doesn't like what's being said there and should be left to manage this. Further escalation does not seem helpful or productive. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This too shall pass. Micheal Hardy (MH) will leave-it or everyone else should get bored. MH needs to look in the mirror, to get some understanding of why that AN discussion went off track from the get go, and others need to look in the mirror why it continued to be off-track and then worse. As for the rest, sure, 'AN is broken, etc., etc.'. . . SO, it is your job, Micheal Hardy, et al. to not make it not broken so much, and start leading by example (notWP:NOTTHEM) or just walk away, . . . walk away. We are looking for relevant guideline/policy issue discussions, stay away from personalization and irrelevant claims. (and on top of all that, this restriction makes little sense). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I don’t have a course of action to propose, but I have an analysis of the problem that might explain why we are having such trouble figuring out how to deal with this. The problem is that we have an administrator who is editing like a troll, and we can’t figure out whether to treat him as an administrator or a troll. Is “troll” too strong a word? I don’t think so. Here he suddenly decided, two years after the fact, that some comments on an AfD amounted to “libel” and should be struck. And he has pursued that objective obsessively - repeating the same arguments over and over verbatim per IDHT, refusing to accept consensus, portraying himself as a victim of “bullying”, accusing others of “demanding obedience”, going from venue to venue when consensus went against him, reporting the matter to WMF legal - and when all else failed, going to Jimbo’s page and throwing a tantrum. And continuing the tantrum even after he got what he wanted; he has now started three separate sections there, going on and on about “bullying” and “corruption” at AN, refusing to drop the stick or move on. In fact while I was drafting this comment, he was creating still another such diatribe, in the subsection immediately below this. If he weren’t an admin, wouldn’t we call this trolling? How would we respond to such an editor? Can we respond as we would to a regular editor, or does the mop give him a shield of immunity such that his actions can only be evaluated via some kind of admin court? If we can decide how to regard him - editor or administrator - we might begin to find our way to a solution. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I think that something should be done, but I'm also ambivalent about this proposal. A topic ban from 'ancestral health' wouldn't achieve anything since MH seems to have given up actually editing in that topic area (also it barely qualifies as a topic area); whilst the second part of the proposal is unfortunately too vague to be effective. What's disruptive about MH's behaviour is his stunning, pathological inability to drop the stick. I don't know if or how we can stop that. At a minimum he needs to lose access to the admin tools, but unless he's willing to do the decent thing and resign them, that has to go through ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Discussions are not disruptive, and no one has presented evidence he's disrupting article text. And seriously, Jimbo's talk page is the most useless page at Wikipedia. If that's the only place people are being bothered, then really, there is no problem worth discussing here. If he were badgering people at article talk pages, or edit warring, or something like that, we could discuss things. But Jimbo's talk page? Really? --Jayron32 18:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it forbidden to say that this regime is corrupt?[edit]
This Administrators' Noticeboard has become a forum in which the corrupt and dishonest can dominate proceedings. One of their tactics is ganging up on people who post forbidden views and disagreeing with them not by arguing and discussing, but by asserting and by agreeing with each others assertions. It is a standard practice of some governments dominated by the corrupt or by people who simply lust after power, that they forbid people to say that that is what they are. Should this noticeboard do the same? I would say no, but a number of people here today are disagreeing with that. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If WP:AN is truly corrupt, the only thing you can do about it is file a WP:ARBCOM case; that would clearly be something the community is incapable of resolving through normal processes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it forbidden? No, it is boring and useless. Get it together, now. Lead by example on this board (leading/participating in relevant discussions) and bring discussions back to the relevant issues . . . and/or go to WP:VPR, if you have the germ of the secret formula to make a new (better) process. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't see any prohibition on opining that specified Wikipedia procedures and processes are corrupt, though I don't see any practical benefit in doing so repeatedly. I would caution against extending such opinions to accusations against named individuals unless in an appropriate venue with good evidence via diffs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with discussing presumed corruption/etc, where the issues of content and behavior are too intermixed to make it an ARBCOM situation off the bat. It is better to discuss it openly to come to an understanding of why people may think that, or actually discover a problem that is too broad to recognize in a few diffs. I think though we need a better centralized place for that, as these can be longwinded discussions that go beyond the scope of what AN/ANI can resolve and should involved the whole community. --Masem (t) 18:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Discussing it openly quickly gets a gang of regulars telling you you're stupid but refusing to engage in discussion or argument. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: The refusal to argue or discuss, while issuing one's rulings and demaning compliance, usually while insulting the person who brought it up, are the way to recognize the sort I'm talking about, and when a forbidden topic is raised, they're the one's who dominate. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Which would say that 1) a centralized place with a different discussion format would be better and 2) there would need to be moderators that remain impartial to get editors to back off if they start to gang up or insult others. ARBCOM has this approach, but I would still say that when content is involved, they are not the first place you want to go (if we can separate content from behavior issues, that would help a lot to present to ARBCOM then). Such a centralized place should be clearly marked as being where tempers will likely flare, and such disruptions will not be tolerated by the moderators as to keep the discussion healthy and to some point of resolve. --Masem (t) 18:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What corruption have you evidence for? Is someone using their admin bit for personal or financial gain? If you have evidence of people who are doing that, please present it! It would be most useful to present it. Please let us know what your evidence is for that. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: If you bring up topics here that offend any of a certain type of poster, they will discuss how stupid and wrong you are while refusing to discuss or argue, and issue their rulings and tell you you're disorderly and idiotic. As soon as one of them starts this, their colleagues who don't care about the actual topic will join in to issue pronouncements while refusing to argue or discuss. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Personal gain, in this case, takes the form of getting into a position of domination of users on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I ca see where people are coming from. Just this kind of language, your total ******* hyperbole, is completely unnecessary. I mean: this is not (you may need to be reminded!) North Korea, or the Hotel California; if you want to escape the corruption, you can just leave. All this ballooning will achieve absolutely nothing. IMHO. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per discussion in the section "[title redacted] A dispute" (I was unable to properly link the section so I've simply provided the section name) and this closed discussion, there has been ongoing discussion on the content of this page and it has become an extremely charged debate. While the second discussion I provided is closed, it's just a provided example of how controversial the contents of the article are. I'm not involved in the discussion whatsoever, but a question regarding this talk page was asked at the Teahouse and this needs to be resolved in some way; I'm not sure what to specifically suggest. Thank you, Rosalina2427(talk to me) 02:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering that this white genocide hoax is gaining so much traction because certain factions in the US are attempting to use it for their political advantage, maybe AP discretionary sanctions are appropriate. What a world. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: In that case do I have to notify any administrators and/or Arbitration Committee, or will that be taken care of from this point? Rosalina2427(talk to me) 02:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I would support discretionary sanctions on that page. All of this "white genocide" talk is getting out of hand. funplussmart (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
May I know why Kaniz Almas Khan article title was protected for creation? Now, I want to make a stranded article about this title. I know that somebody make article on this title several times and deleted this for advertisement. Now, give me a change to create this article.-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: is the protecting admin, normally you would ask them directly but I believe I can fill in the blanks as to the general gist of what they would probably say: Given that you yourself just a few days ago created one of the versions of this article that was speedy deleted as advertising or promotion, you should create a draft version of this article that shows that you have corrected the issues that have repeatedly led to it being deleted, and submit it through the articles for creation project for review. If it is accepted then create-protection can be reconsidered. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Because Winhunter has been desysopped for inactivity, this case is closed pursuant to the previously adopted motion. Because the automatic desysopping occurred while Winhunter was the subject of a pending arbitration case, he may regain administrator status only by passing a new request for adminship.
For the arbitration committee, --Cameron11598(Talk) 22:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but here goes... I've recently been involved in a page move discussion and am frustrated that the vote went the wrong way, not just in my opinion, but also in fact! I am referring to the World Heritage site article, which has wrongly been renamed World Heritage Site. Here is the discussion. The consensus was not overwhelming (5 to 3) and in my opinion the discussion was closed prematurely.
My main argument was that the governing body, UNESCO, specify that when a site is added to the "World Heritage List" (upper case 'List') it becomes a "World Heritage site" (lower case 'site'). As UNESCO are the body that run the show, then surely we should be following their lead for the sake of accuracy? Those in opposition to this argument have repeatedly stated that n-grams show the upper case version to be prevalent on the internet, but surely this is just an error that has perpetuated over time and the correct version has become swamped through what can only be described as general ignorance. Surely Wikipedia should be providing accurate reference material, not just copying the error that has spread throughout the web, especially as many people would refer to Wikipedia to find out the correct term.
Further clarification: "World Heritage site" is a general term for a site that is on the "World Heritage List"; can be pluralised to "World Heritage sites". A specific site might indicate its World Heritage status in its name, in which case the upper case 'Site' is acceptable, e.g. "Namhansanseong World Heritage Site".
I'm prepared to take this to RfC, but I wondered if it was more appropriate for an admin to intervene in this case, to save me the time and trouble. I think the page move discussion was closed prematurely anyway, so I've informed the editor who closed the discussion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins, have you tried taking this to Wikipedia:Move review? There are quite a few admins patrolling that page. The actual issue itself is a content dispute and doesn't require any admin action I think. Alex Shih (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, we've started a move review now. I wasn't the only one to object to the discussion being closed prematurely. And I wasn't intentionally forum shopping, I just didn't know where to ask for advice. I'm quite new to all this and there's so much to learn. Thanks again. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All sorted, thanks for the thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should all be handled now. Regards SoWhy 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved over redirect by Fish and karate. WP:RMT handles such request. --DBigXray 17:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This belongs to WP:DRV as noted below. Capitals00 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [23]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Close is fine, warnings stand. I’ve read the previous thread and Swarm’s partication and subsequent closure does not appear to violate the involved admin policy as they were acting as an admin in both instances. Drop it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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,[24] showing lack of accountability for his actions. Swarm had been criticized for mishandling an ANI case recently in April 2018.([25] 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,[26] after I didn't replied his new messages on article's talk page[27] 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.[28]
EdJohnston handled the report first by adding that "there isn't a need for admin intervention",[29] and told NitinMlk not to term my edits as vandalism. Still, NitinMlk attempted to justify his bad understanding of "vandalism".[30]
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.[31]
Swarm ignores the above concerns and still asks for evidence when evidence had been already provided to him.[32]
NitinMlk doubles down with his spurious accusations of COI/paid editing, socking[33] and continues this harassment while GenuineArt tells him to use a proper noticeboard and GenuineArt remained WP:CIVIL throughout his each and every comment,[34][35][36][37][38] 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.[39]
I responded other day detailing the dispute but without repeating any of the points made by others,[40] to which Swarm responded and still ignored concerns about NitinMlk,[41] but I thought of letting it go.
After 32 hours, Jytdog[42] 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.[43] 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.[44] 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,[45] which I clarified to him in my next response and I encouraged him to launch a COI investigation.[46] Later Jytdog replied the comment as "Thanks for your reply."[47]
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.[48] 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,[49] 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.[50]
In place of backing up his apparently false accusations and personal attacks, Swarm closes the ANI,[51] 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 [52]Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC))+
An editor opens a report on WP:ANEW,[53] after I didn't replied his new messages on article's talk page[54] 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.[55]
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",[56] and told NitinMlk not to term my edits as vandalism. Still, NitinMlk attempted to justify his bad understanding of "vandalism".[57]
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.[58]
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.[59]
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[60] and continues this harassment while GenuineArt tells him to use a proper noticeboard and GenuineArt remained WP:CIVIL throughout his each and every comment,[61][62][63][64][65] 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.[66]
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,[67] to which Swarm responded and still ignored concerns about NitinMlk,[68] 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[69] 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.[70] 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.[71] 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,[72] which I clarified to him in my next response and I encouraged him to launch a COI investigation.[73] Later Jytdog replied the comment as "Thanks for your reply."[74]
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.[75] 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,[76] 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.[77]
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 [78] 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,[79] 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: [80]. 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)
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[81] 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.[82][83] 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.[84][85][86][87][88][89] 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)
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.
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"[90] 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,[91] 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.[92] 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.[93] 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. Jauerbackdude?/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 [94] - Accesscrawl evidently still doesn't get it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 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 [95][96] 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!: [97]. -- 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[98] 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)
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 ([99]), Accesscrawl responded with a dismissive attack ([100]). 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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."
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. GABgab 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. — xaosfluxTalk 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. Cullen328Let'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. bd2412T 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I left the user a warning.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 17:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Floquenbeam sorted out the page names. — xaosfluxTalk 18:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
You can also just manually edit the box. You kind of have to know what you're doing to do that, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I just didn't want to muck it up worse in an attempt to fix it. Appreciate the help. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is the previously expressed legal opinion of WMF counsel that only admins can have access to viewing the content of deleted revisions. If someone wants to see a specific deleted page, they should contact the deleting admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
@Floquenbeam: researchers can see the deleted history, but not the deleted text. It would be technically possible to create a new access group, but the points Iridescent would still be there - and it would need a very large showing of community need and support. — xaosfluxTalk 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
If there's a specific page he wants access to (and it's not a copyvio or otherwise unreasonable to share) he can probably find a friendly admin to email it to him. Full access is unlikely to be granted without an RfA (and while I haven't looked at his edit history, based on the above comments it would be unlikely to succeed). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. There's no valid reason for this user, who has made only 103 edits in 13 years, to view deleted pages. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I just had a look at the deleted version. There’s nothing in it worth salvaging. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Blimey, that's the longest article I've looked at with practically no useful content at all. 25K of complete pseudo-science, promotion and general drivel. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin please undelete Urban Retail Properties? It was A7'd but I feel that a WP:BEFORE was not done, as there are several inbound links suggesting that the company meets WP:CORP as the owner of several malls. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've parked it in User:TenPoundHammer/Urban Retail Properties for the minute; if I put it back in mainspace somebody may repeat the speedy, and then we'd be wheel-warring. Userfication pending improvement gives us more time to look at it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They all have all of three edits, each one spamming in reference to Dogecoin:
diff with edit note: The exchange kraken lists the cryptocurrency it currently provides a platform to buy and sell, however this excluded one currency, namely 'Dogecoin'. I have updated this and it can be easily enough verified by checking the kraken website its self. www.kraken.com (I Know you guys have it but hopefully this makes a very easy job even easier :), we here at the dogecoin community are friendly like that! Haha. Thanks
diff- restored the SEO spam I had removed from their diff above
I had given them notice of the GS earlier today. Please banninate them. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
DogeTruths came to the IRC help channel today following Jytdog's revert on Kraken (bitcoin exchange). They understood our policies requiring reliable sources. I assisted them in correcting their unsourced edit to the Kraken article to address the sourcing issue. Frankly, I bear some blame, as I should have alerted them to the community sanctions surrounding cryptocurrency. Also, I will accept a block as well (if the community feels it appropriate), as I did instruct them that it was acceptable to perform the second edit on that page with that reliable source as a reference. My reasoning was thus, the revert by Jytdog was expressing concern that it was unsourced. I feel it is a mis-characterization to call it "SEO spam". Genuine attempts were being made to directly address the concerns of other editors and learn Wikipedia. I do not feel that a block is warranted at this time. I see sourced, if perhaps a little misguided, edits by a new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I agree that we should make them aware of the situation on Wikipedia surrounding cryptocurrencies, including the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest, but I would hope that we can not be too zealous in enforcing sanctions if someone is trying to learn the ropes here. Waggie (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Waggie, we added "holding a cryptocurrency" to the COI guideline because people come from reddit and other boards where fans/holders/developers of the various cryptocurrencies hang out and they think nothing of coming here and spamming the hell out of WP as though it were reddit. Adding it to the COI guideline wasn't enough so we have put GS in place. I gave them notice of both things on their talk page immediately after their first edit. Their edits are spam. Not ambiguous.
Admins DogeTruths came here only to promote Dogecoin, which if they were successful at, would directly financially benefit them. This is not what make editing privileges freely available for. Please indef them. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think an logged enforcement is needed for this case; a simple spamublock would suffice in my opinion, in which I have done. Alex Shih (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Could someone please explain the numerous warning messages which I have received on my talk page.
I am not trolling.
I genuinely do not understand why I have received these warnings.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
IP, are you really sure you want to invite that much attention, which may, not unreasonably, include an effort to determine if this IP is connected to any previously blocked accounts? General IzationTalk 20:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If the bold and red letters and half dozen warnings to you in various talk pages, as well as direct explanations can't help you understand, I'm afraid editing Wikipedia is simply not for you. But by all means keepit up. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template editor right removed by Jauerback. Orientls (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have no plans to use the template editor right in the near future. Can some administrator please remove my account from the templateeditor group? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is not allowing me to create a page titled ஓசை[edit]
When i created and tried to publish, i got an error message saying that the word ஓசை is black listed or not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazhippokkan123 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles on the English Wikipedia should be titled as they would be referred to in English-language sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I would like to report a disruptive user, that being User:Jhartmann
He began to undo edits that I had made to the pages Communist symbolism and Anarchist symbolism with his explanation being that I was, quote, "promoting Leninism". I undid these edits because this claim was absurd, and he undid my edits and claimed that I was a random internet user named "rennschnizzel" that I had never heard of up until this point. I decided not to undo his edit for fear of starting an edit war, so I went to his talk page to discuss whatever issues he may have had. He responded by calling me a "Lunatic", "Maoist", and telling me to "fuck off".
It's obvious to me that this user is not mature enough to contribute to Wikipedia without personal or political bias. I would greatly appreciate if this user could be dealt with in whatever manner is deemed appropriate. -- DiegoAma (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2018
I'm not sure if that's a sickle or a WP:BOOMERANG I see. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the disputed image is used by anyone other than DiegoAma. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if there are no notable organizations that use this symbol, then it certainly does not belong. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media[edit]
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is going to happen here. Nothing good, certainly. And there is definitely nothing requiring administrative action. A note that Power~enwiki's closure was entirely appropriate and did not need to be undone. Fish+Karate 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My question is not for me specific, it is also in general: why would I not be allowed to see the Deleted Pages? We Delete Pages to make sure Wikipedia is high-quality. So for the "outside world" the Deleted Pages might be confusing, and giving a bad impression. Also, Deleting would loose its purpose if Google indexed the pages and google-users would find such Pages. On the other hand, Deleted Pages were made by my fellow-wikipedians and might even contain some (be it not enough) quality. So why would I, as an experienced wiki-editor, not be allowed to view them? Asking an admin really is a big hurdle for me. The page is usually not that special, my curiosity not so big, my editing-time limited, so I am not going to request pages very often to save time for both me and the admins. But is is a shame.
I would really like to know: which grand purpose is served by denying me access? ==>
Any User with an account should be granted access to all Delete Pages, on request.
Thank you very much for this helpful information for me, Alex Shih !! --Mick2 (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That group includes the active delete permissions as well as viewing. There is a WMF researcher group and a local researcher group with some access to deleted revisions, but that access is typically restricted to people elected by the community to avoid liability concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't delete material only "to make sure Wikipedia is high-quality". As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that deleted content can not be viewed by anyone who has not passed a selection process on a par with WP:RFA. That's largely for legal reasons, as deleted content includes copyright violations, defamation, etc, and material deleted on legal grounds can not be made available to everyone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Boing! said Zebedee, how could I apply for such a selection process? on a par with WP:RFA --Mick2 (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mick2, you have made 74 article-space edits over the course of 13 years. You are not, by any remote stretch of the imagination, "an experienced wiki-editor". Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's one year more than you, then! ;) ... It is not my edits which are at stake. It's my understanding of Wikipedia as a whole, it's my understanding that any human being on this planet, Stalin or Trump or Putin even, could become wiki-editor and put content on Wikipedia ... and Wikipedia can only be liable for the stuff we keep, not the deleted stuff. On the other hand, for freedom of expression and freedom of collaboration, viewing that material would be beneficial. --Mick2 (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Mick2, it's not going to happen. You are not getting access to deleted material - it is as simple as that. Please just accept it and stop wasting your/our time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This topic can be closed. I am reviewing the stuff Alex posted, much obliged. --Mick2 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
For all clarity, I accepted the answer that editors cannot view Deleted Pages. I even contacted the person who gave a very sound reason for it in 2008, now. Maybe there are more possibilities. The stuff Alex gave me is quite clear, I had been unaware of it, and the rest of you might be wasting your time at the moment, chasing your own thoughts, with have nothing to do with me or with wikipedia as such :) This topic can be closed, as far as I'm concerned, and for the stuff below I would suggest another caption. I will not request access to All Deleted Pages again. I understand now. Am I clear? --Mick2 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I even contacted the person who gave a very sound reason for it in 2008, now.
In another words you asked this same question and were given an answer ten years ago and decided to -- twice! -- waste everyone's time asking again?
This topic can be closed, as far as I'm concerned
Too late. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I hate to resurrect this thread but after the user got told the second time that they're not going to get access to deleted pages, they posted this to their talk page. Based on that I believe further WP:NOTHERE discussions should occur as we appear to have a WP:RGW incident here. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair point, Hasteur. I think they should get probably one more warning though, although wouldn't oppose to blocking straight away. Alex Shih (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Then I would definitely want further discussion. Right now, we would be blocking somebody who has just requested adoption, and, although it is possible that their latest request is an attempt to RGW, it is also the case that, on its merits, its not that different a position to what a myriad of a myriad of our userboxes say! "This user hates vandals", "this user is against paid editing", etc. Somebody might even question the—wisdom?—of blocking someone for saying (rather floridly, admittedly) they want to uphold the terms of use... :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, if it emerges that this latest talk-page post is another manoeuvre in the "campaign" for seeing deleted edits, then I would be the first to second a block. On the grounds that having agreed here that they understand the issue, that it is an issue, and then going off and carrying on with the same blatant behaviour is either deliberate trolling or demonstrating such an inability to understand what they have been trolled that they clearly lack the most basic qualities we require. On the other hand: Looking at that post, I can't see an immediate connection between the above thread and what they have posted. To me, rather (unless I have missed something?), it looks unrelated. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
On the other other hand, I'm not particularly keen on the remark about wikilawyering and becoming an admin; that does lean towards implying that the problem as they see it is with admins (coincidentally, perhaps, also the same user group who primarily see deleted material...?) who then oppress new users... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed it, but my post that started this re-open is the extended discussion about the suitability. Please look back and see that I never said anything about blocking, only that we should discuss it instead of letting the user "hat collect" to achieve their goal. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering their very narrow focus on fringe topics, this is a very valid concern. Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Mick2, as regards why would I not be allowed to see the Deleted Pages?, this was answered in detail in your previous thread and you asking repeatedly isn't going to change the answer. Since this is a decision taken by WMF legal (here's Mike Godwin explaining why), we couldn't grant you this right even in the unlikely event that we wanted to. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you like a reply from me on RGW, or shall we close this? --Mick2 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to understand why you made such a "Righting Great Wrongs" post to your talk page. Taken in totality of the 2 threads about wanting to elbow your way into Administration and get access to deleted topics it bears discussing. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Also this lends creedance that you're not here to build a encyclopedia, but instead to further an external agenda. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I see no grounds for a block here, certainly not based on what Mick2 might be thinking based on a few things they've said - surely we're not blocking for thoughtcrime yet? If Mick2 does anything disruptive to the encyclopedia in the future, then sure, let's consider sanctions then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If he would end his campaign of repeated absurd requests, complaints, and claims, then he could disappear into the sunset. Right now he's being pretty disruptive, and talking out of both sides of his mouth. I think Iridescent summed it up pretty well on Alex Shih's talkpage: User talk:Alex Shih#S.O.S.. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good summary. But Mick2 appears to have (finally) accepted that viewing deleted content is not possible, and we can't tell if that problematic campaign has really ended without allowing some time. That leaves a couple of bizarre (and incomprehensible to me) comments, but I don't see those are causing any disruption. Mick2 has seen the community response and does seem to appreciate that that response is negative, so let's give them a chance to make positive contributions now. I really don't see any need for a block or other sanction at this point, as I can't see what it would be preventing (other than "something we can't identify yet but which Mick2 might be up to"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee, on doing a bit of digging it looks like the bizarre posts are an artefact of Mick2 believing this video. If, as he says, I am not American, so American culture is rather alien to me, I can see it being an easy mistake to make. Unless you're familiar with the alt-right fringe in general and Sinclair Broadcast Group's—um—'unusual' world view in particular, Sharyl Attkisson appears at first glance to be a legitimate and neutral journalist; likewise, you and I know that Mike Wood and Greg Kohs are not in fact "two Wikipedia insiders who have been hounded off Wikipedia by malign agents" but a pair of disgruntled blocked spammers (Morning277 and Thekohser), but if you're unfamilar with the background (and the irony of the fact that their ejection is actually evidence that Wikipedia does have mechanisms for keeping the "corporate and special interest fake grass roots" away from editing) they both know enough of the wikispeak jargon to sound plausible. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent, hmm, yes, that was, erm, entertaining. Even if you don't know who Mike Wood and Greg Kohs are, you'd surely be suspicious about two admitted paid editors being used as champions of neutrality, wouldn't you? But I suppose many of those not familiar with the self-parody that is US alt-right culture probably just take it at face value and might think it's journalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and there's the obvious connection with that thing talking about seeing what's been deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If what Iridescent says is true, and this request stems from watching that video, then this "experienced wiki-editor" is mistaking/confusing reverts and normal editing deletions versus administrative page deletions. So much for being "experienced" (and "not hav[ing] time to become an Admin myself"). Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Request closure I NAC-ed this but it was reverted. There's no need for this to be open. The only possible outcome of this remaining open is to entrap an inexperienced editor to continue to participate in a thread that will not be of any benefit to them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to entrap anybody to continue to participate in this thread, so how in the world is that the "only possible outcome of this remaining open"? Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I closed it once and it was reopened, so I won't close it again. But somebody should, as there's surely not going to be any admin action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The question is: Can major layout changes be implemented to a Featured List based on the consensus of only two supporting editors, with the changes themselves based only on a guideline?
MOS:TVPLOT, the guideline in question, states that for television series' season articles, an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. This is not a policy, and suggests "should not" rather than "cannot". Radiphus proposed a merger proposal of the prose content in each season article to List of Game of Thrones episodes, the Featured List in question, on the Episode List's talk page. He received the support of two editors, and later deemed this enough to close the merger discussion himself with the result of a consensus rather than waiting for either further opinions or the discussion to be closed by an uninvolved editor.
Should such a discussion have been advertised elsewhere, such as WP:VPPOL, WT:TV and/or WT:MOSTV? As can be seen, after the discussion was started, no advertising was made beside the use of merger templates on the article. Is the consensus from two supporting editors enough to make such a change to a Featured List? -- AlexTW 06:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
As i explained in the VPPOL discussion, all four steps of WP:MERGEPROP were followed carefully. There is no distinction between normal, good or featured articles when closing a discussion and advertising the proposal elsewhere is not required. In this case, it would have been unnecessary as List of Game of Thrones episodes is in the watchlist of 235 users, and each season article is in the watchlist of 90 users. Furthermore, the season articles, where the merger templates were added to notify readers of the proposal, received a total of 114,183 views, while the discussion was open. Wikipedia is not a democracy, where voter turnout is a concern. The discussion was based on arguements, and if anyone did not agree with the proposal or something a participant said, they had the opportunity to object for more than a week. One month later, no other user joined Alex in his previous attempts to overturn the consensus reached in the proposal. When asked by another editor in the VPPOL discussion if he has any objections to the actual changes he did not respond. He has stated that the LoE page is in his watchlist, but he did not take part in the discussion of the merger proposal. It is possible that with him participating in the process of editorial decision making, consent to merge may not have been unanimous. He did not do that, so after one week had elapsed with no discussion and no objections, the discussion was closed per WP:MERGECLOSE. - Radiphus (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
How is any of this issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest, not a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator)? Admin's opinions count for no more in a content dispute than those of anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe Alex should take the opportunity to request a review of the closure (by stating so in his post) and cease his forum shopping. - Radiphus (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No advertising was made, it was kept between a tight huddle of a few editors, and the discussion was closed by the opener. That's not in any way a discussion of good faith, it's almost as if it were done deliberately so that their proposal would pass without distraction or dispute... If nobody agreed with my dispute, then that makes it even clearer that barely anybody is watching the talk page (having it on your watchlist isn't the same as paying attention to it), something Radiphus clearly knew (and still does) and took advantage of. The reason I didn't respond to the VPPOL discussion was because I received no ping from the discussion, and thus completely forgot about it; it's only come to my attention again because of the new thread for the continuation of this "merger". (Nor does the editor seem to understand his false accusations of "forum shopping".) -- AlexTW 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
As for this discussion, it's both a request to review the closure as detailed at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard.), and a request to review the actions of the editor involved. If that needs to move to WP:ANI, I can easily move it there if I get a go-ahead. -- AlexTW 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I acknowledge your personal attack with accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, but i will ignore it as i have already expressed my feelings about you making Wikipedia an ugly environment to work in. - Radiphus (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
MOS is best practice that should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Since no one presented a good reason not to at the merge discussions and the consensus (albeit limited in editor participation) was clear, I cant see any issue with the outcome. Not every discussion needs a formal close by an uninvolved editor. And the definition of contentious is not 'I don't like it'. If you want to challenge the close, challenge the close. But closure challenges are not a forum for relitigating. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:In ictu oculi has had some troubling editing issues recently, which for me have undermined the confidence in their edits sufficiently to propose the removal of some userrights, i.e. "pending changes reviewer", "autopatrolled", and "new page reviewer". I don't think "extended confirmed" is a problem, and "page mover" is not really related to my concerns.
On 5 September, I deleted an article they had recently created as a copyright violation[103]. It turned out to be an unattributed copy-paste from another enwiki article, a problem they had been warned about twice in 2017 as well by User:Diannaa.
Then their article Tal Vez (Marta Sánchez song) was nominated for deletion. This article was created by In ictu oculi with only one, unreliable source (a Russian tribute page for an artist), and when researching the subject, it looked to me as if most of the contents of the article were completely wrong (as in, claiming that it is a single which reached #7 on the US Latin chart when it wasn't ever a regular single in the first place, only a very limited promo release). Okay, errors can be made, but what happened then meant that I lost all trust in In ictu oculi to use these user rights.
They opposed deletion of the article because it "is confirmed by es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez", questioned "what Spanish-language 90's chart books did you consult?" without having consulted any themselves (at creation or now), and added a totally unreliable source to the article and quoted it in the AfD to support the keeping of the article ([104] added a link to Prezi, a site of user-generated slideshows, which in this case used a machine translated version of our own article on Marta Sanchez, making it doubly unreliable).
An editor who creates an article based on unreliable sources, supports retention of such an article because it is supported by another Wikipedia language, and uncritically adds another totally unreliable source to defend the article (and at the same time ignores the evidence presented in the AfD that the information really is completely false), and just last week failed to adhere to our basic attribution standards), is not someone who can in good faith be trusted to patrol new articles and check for copyvios, sourcing problems, hoaxes, ... Fram (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Autoreviewer should obviously be revoked from someone who creates unattributed copy paste articles, or thinks that an es (or any) wikipedia page "verifies" something in an article. Many of their articles (example) seem non-notable. So support removal of autoreviewer as their articles need patrolling for notability verifiability etc, and new page reviewer on the same basis, not that per logs they have used the right much (and pending changes reviewer too I suppose). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Everyone, I ask for some consideration that we all make mistakes, I do not create unattributed copy paste articles, nor indeed copy-paste break out articles, and no I do not think that Spanish wikipedia is a reliable source:
Yes (1) Around 1 September 2018 I created a break out article for The Cathedral (Honchar novel) and including two sentences from the author article into the book article without sufficiently re-wording it, re-editing it. Yes guilty. I left my PC and didn't come back in time.
Yes (2) On 2 December 2016 I created an article on a Spanish song including the chart information from es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez#Sencillos in good faith I believe, but yes it may be that the Spanish discography is incorrect. I have apologized already for defending the article at AfD, pressed to find evidence to support what was evident in Spanish wikipedia I did not have time to do a proper job, and in addition I was feeling somewhat flustered by the approach taken. But these are two edits. The edits as far back as 2017 I'd have to investigate but habitually I do not copy-paste break articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oppose. To be fair, they apologised for the copyvio and gave a reasonable explanation for why it was an honest mistake. Having several AfD nominations on their talk page is potentially a red flag as far as autopatrolled is concerned, but considering they've created over 8,000 articles, their 'error rate' is actually minuscule. I don't think adding ~20 pages a week to the NPP queue for the sake of catching these odd mistakes would be a net benefit to the project. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1 or two sentence stubs or dabs take very little time to patrol (and something like 60% of their creations are dabs and the remaining are stubs), and a good portion of the actual articles they create don't seem notable and/or need redirecting. Overall I think patrolling wold be a benefit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I'm not saying NPP would buckle under the pressure, it just seems like IIO is a conscientious editor overall and this is an overreaction to a small number of mistakes. Notability being somewhat subjective, I'd want to see some of those articles actually go through AfD and be deleted, before agreeing that they were grounds for them losing autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
These are kind of old mistakes. I hesitate to do more than give a strong warning for an article created in 2016. I'm not saying give a free pass, but this isn't an ongoing issue that I can see, and considering the total volume of edits, it is a small error percentage. I would say In ictu oculi needs to be on notice as this is exactly the kind of mistakes that can lead to a loss of bits, not as a sanction, but as protection for the encyclopedia. You really need to pay better attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Accepted, sorry. Particularly as I can read Spanish so could and should have not taken the es.wikipedia numbers as gospel. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Dennis, if the problem was just the 2016 creation, I wouldn't have been here as well. However, their edits at the AfD and at the article from this week are what caused the request. If the reaction had been an "oops, no idea what I did there, seems rather stupid in hindsight", then nothing further would have happened. But when the reaction to a poor creation is to make things worse (by defending the veracity of the article and adding another unreliable source to support it), then it doesn't seem as if any one-off error is the cause of the problem, but an underlying and continuing lack of care or knowledge about what constitutes reliability, how to check sources, and so on. Doesn't mean that a warning may not be sufficient this time, but it is not al "old mistake", it is a current one. Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I oversimplifed in my reply for the sake of brevity, but I understand your point. I think their attitude now, after their recent problematic edits, on the old article, are enough that I think they get the point. In ictu oculi has been around a while, which means they should know how things work but they are still human and screw up. Since they are not being defiant and are accepting responsibility, I think the warning is still the best solution. If this becomes a pattern, then that is a different situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removal of PCR, this is primarily an antivandlism tool and there are no indications that it has been abused. — xaosfluxTalk 15:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think a warning (they already even get that now) will suffice here as they really understand the problem. I am perturbed on the fact that they understand Spanish and went ahead to copy unverified info from eswiki, it's serious issue of course, but they tendered a sincere apology on that and have been good all this while; so what else can we do. In all I don't see a recurring pattern that may warrant removal of all these rights. –Ammarpad (talk)
Oppose removal per Joe. Anyone creating content prolifically will eventually make a small mistake or two. That aside, copyright paranoia should be avoided. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, this issue is more about In ictu oculi's activities around page titling and moves than anything. As I said in the ANI discussion last year, In ictu does have something of a pattern of creating stubs or making edits to justify moving another article that has the same title. In most cases, this is perfectly fine, but in a number of cases, the stubs he creates are poorly cited, contain copyvio, or are just plain wrong. Here are a few I've noticed from the last several years:
July 2014: In ictu repeatedly introduced changes stating that the album Best & USA was titled "Best II", initially with no sources,[105][106] then with questionable sources.[107] This was to justify their RM of the "Best II" dab page to Best II.[108] They argued about it on talk, citing the Korean Wikipedia article. As it turned out, the album was not called "Best II", but one of its two discs was released under that name.
March 2016: In ictu created a stub at Misfortune (Chekhov story).[109] This was to justify their RM to move the "Misfortune" dab page to Misfortune.[110] Having read the story, I knew that it's known as A Misfortune in English, so I moved the article and expanded it with sources.[111] In ictu reverted the move without comment,[112] and did not respond to talk page comments.
November-December 2015, & March 2016: In ictu created an article on a supposed Leo Tolstoy work at Toil (Tolstoy book), based on out-of-date sources.[113] This supported their RM of another article called "Toil" to Toil (album).[114] Later I discovered that this work was not titled "Toil" and is not by Tolstoy: the subject is The Triumph of the Farmer or Industry and Parasitism by Timofei Bondarev. I moved the article and rewrote with current sources. Amid another RM at Toil,[115] In ictu used technical move to move it back to the demonstrably incorrect title.[116] In the ensuing RM, In ictu acknowledged that the title was wrong and that their objection was tied only to wanting to see the Toil article moved.[117]
December 2016 & September 2018: In ictu created Tal Vez (Marta Sánchez song) with an unreliable source, presumably to support moving Tal Vez (song) by Ricky Martin.[121] They expanded the former with more unreliable sources[122] amid an RM to move the latter[123]
All this is to say that, in my opinion, the real issue here isn't so much about page creation as it is to article disambiguation and moves. In ictu has strong opinions about titles and has a habit of making stubs and changes to support their preferences, and sometimes these have problems. But while I've been at odds with In ictu, I've never known them to be deliberately misleading or lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, just sometimes careless and hard-headed when trying to move articles around.
At this stage, I don't think removal of rights is necessary. I just don't see how it would fix the problem, and it runs the risk of alienating a good editor who already seems to understand what went wrong. In ictu, I'd suggest that you don't focus on disambiguation so much, and be much more careful with the material and articles you add. And if someone brings an issue to you, don't dig your heels in, but step back and seriously consider whether you're wrong. If that sounds doable, I think we can consider the thread closed.--Cúchullaint/c 18:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Cuchullain, okay thank you for that which seems balanced. Really. No, I 100% absolutely shouldn't have had a quick kneejerk reaction on the AfD Spanish song. I was away from desk, quickly went to the Spanish page, didn't pay attention that it was the song above the one under discussion which was sourced (and that the three country entries for the AfD song were unsourced) and I reacted foolishly and quickly assuming that chart info in a Spanish-language singer's discography wouldn't be fake. Wrong, wrong. But regarding creating new articles, as I browse Wikipedia, and including subjects raised by move discussions, I see gaps to be filled and if the "X is" test in books indicates that there are sources I sometimes fill them. I hope that stub tags and expand German/etc tags will encourage other editors to expand, but the nature of neglected subjects is inevitably such that other editors don't, why should they. Having said that I did recognize your comments last year to take more care and have been trying to. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with your responses. Hopefully we can chalk this up to a learning experience and consider the matter closed.--Cúchullaint/c 20:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ooh! I haven't done any of those in a while. I'll clear some. :-) Katietalk 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie and Anthony Appleyard: a lot of these appear not to actually need histmerges because they were created by the same author in draft and/or mainspace, got draftified, and then got recreated by the same person (i.e. attribution is fine). Histmerges in these cases create semi-mangled page histories like at 2018–19 Southland Conference men's basketball season when they aren't required. Redirecting would likely be the best option here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is back under control. Many didn't require a history merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like my userpage to be created. User:69.130.153.83 69.130.153.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This is pointless for a dynamic address, or a vandal. It's not going to happen. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, you want a user page, register. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think all y'all should be more welcoming. Hey, IP, I suggest you start by pasting this code on your user page. All the cool kids have it. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Cullen328, those who know me know I was there during the lean years. These fat years, yeah they feel pretty good. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is likely the same spambot similar to the one back in January, see [126]. I am not familiar with filters, pinging zzuuzz. Alex Shih (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I blocked a handful of them earlier with different numbers - they're obviously just spam usernames. The last attack created something like 1,000 accounts per hour, so I don't think we're in the same ballpark. It's worth keeping an eye on the account creation log though. Filter 895 stands ready. -- zzuuzz(talk) 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih and Drmies: Google Translate translates them into English as "Jinan Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Jinan Office Diploma", "Fuzhou Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Fuzhou Office Diploma". "Hefei Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Hefei Office Diploma". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Having looked at this a bit more, it seems likely that in the past few hours most accounts containing Chinese characters created on this wiki - and there's a definite increase in them - were created by the same entity. There seems to be three solutions: 1) ignore it 2) throw around a lot of huge range blocks, or 3) target the filter at the creation of Chinese usernames. I've done the latter, as a temporary measure. Filter 895 - feel free to disable. -- zzuuzz(talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this. I applied for blacklist at meta, but probably not going to help much. Alex Shih (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: the blacklist was updated for this. — xaosfluxTalk 15:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I had request those spam accounts for global lock. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Question — how would we distinguish between the creation of completely new Chinese usernames and the creation of a local username by someone who's already registered it at a different project? After all, WP:SUL doesn't create an account at every project simultaneously: it creates an account in the global database and automatically creates an account at a wiki if you visit it while logged in, but only when you visit it. I've presumably never visited the Volapük Wikivoyage (if it exists), so I don't think I have an account there; and probably a lot of people who have previously registered Chinese usernames at Chinese-language projects come here later and have accounts created automatically. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, what Xaosflux said. This question however is probably not applicable to the current situation, where they are obviously spam accounts (I am not sure if it's as obvious to non-native Chinese speakers). Alex Shih (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No, no, I'm sorry: I wasn't clear in my question. I'm meaning how do we distinguish from a technical perspective? I'm a human, so I can see that it was automatically created (and you're a human sinophone, so you can see that this is a spammy and unrealistic username), but how is a filter supposed to tell the difference? Can the filter read the account creation log and see that it was automatically created for someone from another project or that it was a totally new creation, or can it merely observe that someone took an action that should result in the creation of a new account? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: it may require some testing, but from the abuse filter point of view, autocreateaccount and createaccount are separate values that may be in the (action) variable. — xaosfluxTalk 00:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, in that case it's a lot simpler than I had imagined. Thank you for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that you can locally utilise (( action == 'createaccount') | (action == 'autocreateaccount' )) in a filter to prevent things. I know that something similar is used at meta to stop things happening at login.WMF; or we can utilise m:title blacklist. First is logged, second is not. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst and Xaosflux: They are now back again with the username telephone numbers "186-7275-9878" when I visited the report for global lock at meta:SRG, have you all added the text into the meta:Title blacklist? SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I would be suggesting that the ability to block these number patterns is something that can be managed by abuse filters; or if we have a global problem then we should be looking at advanced regex for title blacklist. For an advanced regex, as they are generic, and that can be a problem for file uploads, or possibly random non-encyclopaedic pages, I would think that it should be an RFC type submission on that page that we can at least note to other wikis for their involvement. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@SA 13 Bro: as far as 'they are back' - and doing what? Just registering SUL accounts, or making edits? — xaosfluxTalk 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Also I added '.*186.?7275.?9878.*' to the meta tbl. — xaosfluxTalk 05:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).
Move has been reverted. GiantSnowman 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you sure? If you don't understand the situation, please do not comment here.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The article was correctly at Typhoon Mangkhut following a closed requested move. It was moved again, against the outcome of the RM discussion. I've moved it back and move-protected the article. Fish+Karate 11:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(I was also notified on my usertalk) How does it happen that you saw that upwork page; it's apparenty restricted to those with an account. Please email me from my user talk page; or email arb com at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In either case your identity will be considered confidential, but I do not like to proceed upon anonymous accusations where I cannot see the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: The apparently identical article appears at German Wikipedia and possibly others, if that assists in investigation. I also corrected false song titles, which were modified to include Famoe's name. I consider that a significant indication of promotionalism. Alsee (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The first edit by the account, creating the entire article at once, has the edit summary We just added a Biography & Discograpgy Profile with all links for the Record Artist Famoe that Charted in several Countries. The account is being operated by, or on behalf of, multiple individuals. This is a violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy. I have posted this issue on the account's talk page, but an administrator may want to follow up on this.
They have added a userpage COI notice[127], but no declaration of paid editing. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites the community to comment on candidates for appointment as functionaries. Comments may be posted on the candidates' subpages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org through September 29.
This should be a very easy challenge. The close did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion and it closed the section shortly after the section was created. It was simply nothing more than a WP:Supervote for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for the purpose of stifling discussion. Not even a citation to any policy was given for the close. How much easier of a challenge to a close can you get? -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like you got the answer you deserved. It's not that you can't challenge the ongoing RfC because the question is not neutrally-worded, but the way you went about it is not appropriate. I might also point out that challenging an RfC that has already attracted so many votes and so much discussion is not going to be greeted with joy by the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
So what is the appropriate way if not to seek consensus on a solution? I'm aware that with so many votes and discussion that some people may feel for that reason they do not wish to go through the effort of starting over. But people should make the claim, and if there is consensus on that we can resolve it that way. But an early close (after one other !vote), is not an appropriate close. -Obsidi (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I should also note, I asked at WP:Help desk what is the appropriate way to handle this and the only response I have received so far is I would strike (<del>...</del>) the original request and replace it with a more neutral one, or even close it and open a fresh one if the statement is way off. But these solutions may be controversial, and I’m also very eager to see what other editors recommend. Which, in my opinion, would generate even more controversy than what I did. Is that the appropriate way to handle this instead? I somehow think we would be right back here for a close review... -Obsidi (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, the first step in challenging a close is to contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Also note that a request for review at Administrators Noticeboard is supposed to include a link to the discussion with the closing editor. After examining the closer's talk page and the challenge here, it appears that you have done neither. However shutting down your hasty and malformed challenge, to have you go chat with the closer and then re-open this challenge, would be a waste of time.
Regarding the closure: I wouldn't have closed it so quickly, but only because letting a few more rejections pile up there would have been less nuisance than wasting time on it here. It can be difficult to foresee which doomed proposals need a few more opposes piled on for the most efficient and quiet burial. We only kill and restart a heavily-participated in-progress RFC when it is egregiously malformed and result itself is credibly in doubt. I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect you have enough clue to see where community consensus lies on the issue. Any attempt to kill and restart the RFC would be a time-wasting delay of the inevitable. I suggest you voluntarily withdraw the challenge. Otherwise I:
Endorse close as unfortunately swift, but accurate. Alsee (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close it's a perfectly reasonable close of an unreasonable motion. I am going to list the discussion on WP:CENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, this is the kind of facepalm-worthy obstructionism (both the request to close and invalidate a massive and extensive RfC basically on the grounds that you don't like it, and now the challenge of the excellent close of that request) that makes people examine your contribs to see what other kinds of wackiness you might be up to. For instance, you seem to be majorly obsessed with climate-change denial. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The basis was not WP:IDLI, it was based on policy, specifically that the RfC question should be neutrally worded. Do you disagree that is WP policy? This has nothing to do with climate change at all, neither in the question, nor in the proposal, nor in the close. If you wish to discuss unrelated topics I would be happy to do so, but this is not the proper forum. -Obsidi (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it being valid for an involved user to make a separate motion to close an RfC (or any discussion) in their favor, for a procedural reason. The given procedural complaint is not a valid reason to close an RfC, although WP:RfC#Suggestions for respondingdoes address this situation: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." That seems to pretty unequivocally invalidate your procedural motion, which in turn would render the closer's assessment of "Quasi-dubious process wonkery" to be dead on. Given all that, running to AN and challenging the close, after the uninvolved closer told you to "move on", and when you have no procedural grounds to stand on in either your original proposal, or your close challenge incredibly WP:POINTy. I will repeat the closer's advice: move on. You're standing in the path of a boomerang. 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪𝒳 06:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, at least you finally presented me with a policy based rational. Specifically the last line there. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.. As that is the case, I will withdraw my challenge. I would request that be added to the closing statement for further clarification to those that read the close. -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I would note that one of the criteria in Ending RfCs is The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. Although it doesn't say if that is consensus of the RfC participants or if it means all of the participants. -Obsidi (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to clarify my statement. If it is the consensus here that per policy at WP:RfC#Suggestions for responding, that even with consensus for my proposal it would not be appropriate to close the RfC, then I would accept that as a valid policy close to the challenged section. I would merely ask that policy be cited in the close so that people know exactly what policy the close is based upon. But I am not sure that is the actual policy, because one of the specifically cited ways to close an RfC in Ending RfCs is: The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. That is all my proposal was trying to do. Gain consensus by the RfC participants that this RfC should be ended, and a new one started. As such, I believe such a proposal is allowed by Ending RfCs. If I am mistaken about that (and the consensus here is that an RfC cannot be ended in such a way), all I would ask is that the closing statement cite that policy.-Obsidi (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close- The motion was obstructionist nonsense, and I commend the closer for acting swiftly and sensibly. ReykYO! 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the RfC is non-neutrally worded. Is the descriptive " partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy" inaccurate? Are there exculpatory facts that were not mentioned? I've seen two editors (both with a reputation for not-exactly-moderately-right-wing opinions) complain about this, but no-one has done more than simply assert that the wording is non-neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I'll play devils advocate and try to answer your question: I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Furthermore the listing of the RFC, and feedback-request-service advertisement of the RFC, contained that rationale. Non-neutral RFC advertisement constitutes canvassing, and anyone who arrived via advertisement was therefore canvassed. I believe there is particular concern that the RFC says Breitbart "admits to pushing fake news", sourced to an AmericanConservative article using essentially those words in the title. However it does not appear that Brietbart's editor used the words "fake news". It is debatable whether the behavior-admitted-in-that-article is technically "fake news" or whether it's merely grossly-immoral, psychopathic, and utter violation of any standard of journalism. Therefore we need to invalidate the RFC and permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source. (Because if this RFC goes away, my imagination sees a future where no one opens a new RFC on the same question.) Taking off my devil's advocate hat, if this were the standard for invalidating an RFC then half the RFC's I've closed would have been invalid. And when *my* imagination sees a future with no replacement RFC, it involves a rather large asteroid saying hello to the planet. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to correct one thing said, my proposal explicitly proposed that "a new RfC with a neutral worded question concerning Breitbart be started." So it is NOT true that under my proposal we would need to "permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source." I would be happy to personally open such a neutrally worded RfC if I was allowed to do so by consensus, specifically the one that was proposed in the discussion: "Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same way as WP:DAILYMAIL?" I agree that resolving a RfC consensus on that question is important. -Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Yeah, that's pretty much what's been said already. I already pointed out that WP:NPOV directly contradicts that, too. If one side is supported by policy that doesn't mean admitting it is a POV push.
I also agree with you about the debatability of the source linked, but I think that very debatability cuts both ways: If you can't cite the source as a verified fact, you also can't characterize the bit mentioning it in the question as deceptive, which leads back to WP:NPOV again.
All in all, I think it's pretty clear that some editors want Breitbart to be taken seriously (though others merely fear the precedent being set by treating other sources like the Daily Mail), and I think that, right there, is one of the weaknesses of the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like admin feedback on how a backlog this big possibly built up without anyone knowing?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I just clicked on File:DESFINA.jpg at the top of the list. It looks like the only issue there is that the author didn't specify "own work," which is (for better or worse) the default and what is presumed (again, for better or worse) when someone declares that they can license the image in a particular way. Is there a reason to assume the uploader is not the source? A reverse google image search does not return hits predating the upload and it certainly looks like an amateur snapshot (i.e. there's more reason to doubt the uploader of what looks like an obvious publicity shot). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that the image was taken with a Fujifilm FinePix A series, which pretty much guarantees that it is not a professional photograph. Since it was not previously published before being uploaded, there can be absolutely no reasonable doubt that this is the work of the uploader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I was told previously not to assume own work unless there was something more obvious to indicate a connection. Hence no obvious indicated source = tag it, and let an admin make the call on whether it was in fact own work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I also wrote {{img-unclaimed}} and {{img-claimed}}, and these could be used more widely, if someone was able to do the legwork in getting tools to implement them in TWINKLE with a suitable notification to users. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If the image has the original meta data, and you cannot identify any earlier images online through an image search, then you should probably not be tagging these for deletion, especially ones which are of a quality or composition that is consistent with own work. That's not doing very much other than saying "Dear admin, please check the meta data, see if you can find an older version via image search, and check if the quality and composition are consistent with own work." If these should all be blanket tagged for deletion for review by an admin, then we can probably have a bot do it, but you don't need the toolkit to manually check these indications that it most likely belonged to the uploader to begin with. GMGtalk 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The query I linked currently had a 20,000 image backlog. Most of them probably ARE own work, but the images tagged so far had practically no information on them other than a non-self style license tag. I will stop tagging for now, so that there can be a fuller discussion. (I'd very strongly recommend an RFC).
If in the meantime any admins wants to review the currently placed F4 ( re-tagging them as {{img-unclaimed}} or even {{img-claimed}} would be my recomendation), it would be appreciated, as the query drops images with those tags out of it's results.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If an assumed self/own work is the default for certain licenses ( and I'm not exactly comfortable with that given various advice I was given in the past off wiki.) , then can I have a link to where that is documented clearly in policy?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00: It's not explicit in policy anywhere; it's just a thick layer of common sense and critical evaluation, especially considering that the current upload wizard wasn't implemented until 2012. The original meta data plus no previous online versions means there's virtually nothing we can do on our end to say it isn't own work, and very little anyone else can do to say contrary either. If it fails either of those tests, then delete away. If someone challenges it, then err on the side of them being right and delete it regardless. If it has some other meta data, like meta data from Photoshop or from a scanner, original meta data from a photo of a non-pre-1923 2D work, or original meta data plus a photo obviously uploaded by the subject of the photo, then err on the side of delete, at least in my opinion, without any compelling reason to think otherwise in some particular case. GMGtalk 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
So. where do we go from here? Some recommendations:
That there is ONE consistent position on this.
Document the reasoning you expressed above as actual policy, as opposed to undocumented guidelines.
A suitably worded, {{tl:img-unclaimed}} and a suitably worded user notification is added to TWINKLE.# There is a central notice reminder about the need for media sourcing to be appropriately indicated.
After a suitable RFC, the 'implied' sourcing/own work policy is sunseted. I.E have a policy (given the upload wizard) that media uploaded after Jan 1st 2019 all media must be appropriately sourced (or marked as Own work ) at upload.
There's a site-wide effort to add full {{information}} to all othewrise freely licensed media. When I was doing this, I seemed at times to be the only user (on this and my alternate account) doing it.
ShakespeareFan00, just a reminder — we didn't require sources for the first several years this site existed (I can look up the precise date if you want), so the earliest images need to be grandfathered because they were compliant with policy when uploaded. You probably know this already, so this comment is more for casual readers than for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes... sometime around 2006(?) was when sourcing was made more enforcable IIRC, this was something I've tried to take into account when tagging images. I've tended to take images that old to FFD, or use {{bsr}}, {{img-unclaimed}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've stared replacing the F4 tags (which are contested) with {{img-unclaimed}} which isn't. I still think this is merely postponing the problem, but may as well at least attempt to give a longer period than 7 days to rescue the images that can be.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Problem is, clicking through some of these, many of them are so old that any waiting period is essentially the same as no waiting period. If someone hasn't edited in five years, the chances of them fixing the issue in seven days or 30 days is still pretty much nil. GMGtalk 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Could someone else help me with a delete-and-move? I'm trying to move E.C. Stoner to E. C. Stoner (which requires the deletion of the current version of the target page) with a rationale of Per request of User:Etzedek24, who moved the article to this title a few weeks ago, but somehow I can't do the deletion. Whenever I hit "delete" during this process, I get a "page not found" error — not an HTTP 400 or 404, but a message that my computer's having trouble loading the page, as if my network fails when I try to delete, even though I'm otherwise not having network issues. Could someone else do the deletion and move the page? You'll have to delete the target's talk page and move the article's talk page there, as well as moving the article itself. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the target page, Vanamonde93 moved the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I guess it's one of those weird quirky things that happens sometimes, where the computer's just throwing a little temper tantrum :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
My money would be on a problem on Wikipedia's end, rather than your computer, but yeah, these inexplicable things happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing a temporary problem on my end because of the error message, which was along the lines of "Cannot connect to this page", and because I'm mostly having normal operation otherwise; if it were a server problem I'd expect it to persist, but I've just deleted Draft:Fawn-napping (sounds like kidnapping baby deer) and Draft:Jaiden Animations without any surprises. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @Nyttend: Done: seemed to work fine for me (I was not prompted for deletion, though). I wonder if some tech-minded folks could help figure out what the issue was. (Added post EC) perhaps the deletion as a separate action did the trick? I wonder why? Vanamonde (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not it; I didn't feel like clicking the "yes, delete this page" box, so I tried to delete first. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
MaranoFan has been unblocked as the result of this discussion. While Wikipedia is not a therapy, the community in general have been extending rope to editors that are willing to reflect on their past poor editing behaviour. The original unblock rationale has been criticised as not being comprehensive, as it did not cover the history of feuding with other editors; however the subsequent response covers them adequately, and includes a self-imposed interaction ban with those editors whom MaranoFan have feuded with, in addition to willingness to restrain from excessive reverting. Both of these voluntary restrictions will not be logged but being written here for the record, and should be swiftly implemented as mandatory restriction if it is not being followed through. One-account restriction has also been proposed as part of the unblock conditions; as the length of the restriction has not been discussed thoroughly, it will be tentatively indefinite until MaranoFan are able to demonstrate good editing history after being unblocked, to convince the community to lift the restriction altogether. For the time being, the one-account restriction should be a formal restriction and has been logged here. Alex Shih (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. [129] 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)
Support unblock - per WP:ROPE, WP:SO, WP:TIMESERVED, etc, and per Softlavender's endorsement, which is more than enough for me. I don't see the need to retroactively pile on other block reasons or unblock conditions in order to make the user jump through hoops to get unblocked. Conditional editing restrictions aren't needed. If they cause "disruption", they get re-indeffed. Straightforward WP:ROPE, simple as that. Stick it on WP:ER/UC, like we did with UpsandDowns. Swarm♠ 20:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. 5 albert square says it better than I could, but in short, at this point, I feel like they wouldn't disrupt the wiki if they were unblocked, which is the whole point of any block, and that they would instead help improve the encyclopedia. It's been many months since they've caused any disruption or performed sockpuppetry, and they've shown that they can edit constructively - let's give them another chance.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose "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." If that is how you display the assumption of good faith, then we really don't need it.
"since the alleged feuds": Use of "alleged" is underestimation and misleading.
The unblock is not convincing and failure to compromise with the proposed restrictions seems to be telling that MaranoFan is going to continue their behavior for which they were blocked. GenuineArt (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Reply from MaranoFan on his talk page copied below:--5 albert square (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@GenuineArt:: I apologize for not being able to word myself correctly in my previous response. I want to use less buzz words like "swear" and "promise" and demonstrate my changed conduct with my behaviour. Being off Wikipedia for so long made me forget how these requests should be worded. I just want people to know what a tremendous loss keeping me blocked is doing. I used the word "alleged" with regard to my feuds because they were being projected as a one-sided thing by my blocking admin when the two users I had a feud with did malicious things to me like Want my good articles delisted, nominated articles I created for deletion etc. to provoke me. However, the time I spent blocked gave me enough time to realize how I contributed in the occurrence of those situations and how I can better avoid it in the future. I'm highly apologetic about the past and do not wish to continue on that same path. And when it comes to sockpuppetry (Which was the only reason provided when I was being blocked), It was actually a failed attempt at a legitimate account and the real sockpuppets came after a permanent block (It was highly disruptive on my part and I won't repeat it.) I just don't know what else to say anymore, I'm responsible for almost every good article listed here as well as the creation of the Wikiproject. Just please give me enough WP:ROPE to prove that I'm a changed person through my behaviour after being unblocked. I wanted to give you more insight into the situation, its totally your choice if you still want to vote to keep me blocked :/. Link to discussion--MaranoFan (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock with a one-account restriction (and I don't think we need more restrictions than that - she knows what the deal is). It's been nearly two years and it sounds like MaranoFan has used some of that time for reflection, and I'm big on giving well-meaning people fresh chances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose unblock per long history of socking, deceit, and overreactions as well as everything Floquenbeam stated. This user has already been given multiple chances in the past and abused them. I'm very pessimistic things will be any better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS You have a response that I have copied from MaranoFan's talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think me creating dupe accounts should be considered as being given second chances by Wikipedia. This is the first time a discussion is being had to get me unblocked in the last two years. Its really not a foreign concept that a 15 year old matures a lot when she turns 17. When I say i have changed and do not want to feud with anyone or make sock-puppets, I mean it and words are the only way I can demonstrate it now under this infinite block. Wikipedia has its own pages describing this situation in forms of WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Basically, you all should have good faith in me and please give me a final chance since I specifically held out hope for the standard offer in the last six months. Its my final hope of coming back to Wikipedia. You've reviewed countless good articles I worked on [130] [[131], You have an idea of my intentions. I was a little short-tempered two years ago and held things against users too fast, but now I plan on taking things people say at face value and actually learning from them. Thats how you know it will be different this time. A whole wikiproject completely died when I was kicked out.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
By chances, I was referring to how you'd promise to stop certain bad behaviors only to resume them later on, and your history of sockpuppetry makes me even less inclined to trust you. I simply can't trust you after all that no matter how much time has passed. What you've said is too little and too late to change my mind here. Your bad history unfortunately outweighs your good on this site. Saying I reviewed "countless" good articles you worked on is blatantly exaggerating and you know it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I am fairly neutral about MaranoFan, having observed from a distance a number of things go down. Since I was very brief up above, I'd like to elaborate a little: (1) I do not believe she started out being a battleground-y editor. There were several editors (who shall go nameless) that were relentlessly pursuing her and her contributions, and since they were far older and far more experienced they knew how to wiki-lawyer and meatpuppet their way to success while bullying her. By the end they pretty much knew how to push her buttons to get her to act out. (2) As many of us know, she has contributed fine work and valuable articles and edits. (3) Although I know Wikipedia isn't therapy, I feel bad depriving someone who so sincerely wants to contribute to Wikipedia in the area of her expertise, and it's been two long years since she was blocked. (4) I really really hate sockpuppeting, and I'm astonished when good editors do it, but part of it seems to be a maturity thing, and when someone is upfront and admits that yes they were sockpuppeting, even yet again, I feel better about it than when they twist themselves into a pretzel in denial and then still get found out (I'm thinking of one good music-article contributor who shall go nameless). I didn't know MaranoFan was only 15 or less then but that does explain the maturity part. She's now a young adult. (5) It seems to me she just wants to quietly do articles related to Meghan Trainor, and contribute to the encyclopedia. (6) I'm with Fish+Karate: I see no harm in giving her one last chance, as a young adult, to fulfill her desire to contribute her knowledge to the encyclopedia. She knows it's her last chance. If she blows it, she's out. Not too hard to grasp, and not too much of a risk to take, considering she has grown two years by now. I think it's a risk worth taking. That's my personal take, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support per Fish and Swarm. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Support IIRC I ran across this user when going down a SPI rabbit hole a while back. I think that unblockign would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, and if they have shown deceit int his penetance we will know very quickly and how to deal with it. Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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
Support unblock with a one-account restriction for one year I think it is important that if we have a one-account restriction that it be time limited (although yes, I know they could ask later for it to be lifted if we don't). I don't see a history of sockpuppetry, and the standard offer should be accepted. I don't think people even should have to admit that they did what they were accused of (claiming that that believed they were following the alt-account policy is ok, not that we have to believe them), all they have to acknowledge is that they will not do it again. And that appears to be the case here. -Obsidi (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unintentional discussion-forking; right as Winkelvi was starting this thread, someone else was starting another one at ANI; please continue discussion at WP:ANI#Interaction ban violation?. If it's better to close that and un-close this, please do, and there's no need to inform me. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because I have edited Meghan Trainor articles numerous times over the last few years, I noticed three glaring edits on my watchlist earlier today that occurred not long after MaranoFan was unblocked: [132]"Restored my additions to the article now that I am officially unblocked."[133]"Restoring contributions after unblock"[134]"Restoring my additions after being unblocked". From the edit summaries, it appears that no thought was given to the fact that the article has been stable for months and months or that MF's edits from before might conflict with what is already there, just that her edits are reinstated. I suppose this could also fit into WP:OWN? When those edits were reverted, I left a message on MF's talk page as a way to say, "slow down, be mindful, and don't screw this up for yourself": [135]. MF went to Drmies' talk page rather than any of the article talk pages, as was suggested: [136] There, I asked MF again to take a breath and to slow down, to use the article talk page rather than make enormous reverts. Several veteran editors said the same. What did MF do? In spite of what others told her to do and what she said she would do, she chose to revert it all back without discussion or giving any reason other than WP:BOLD to restore her preferred version. [137][138] My questions are: Why is MF not improving upon what's there rather than just reverting back to the version she wrote before she was blocked and then indeffed for socking? Why is she going against standard procedure (and what veteran editors told her to do) and reverting back to her preferred version without allowing for discussion or even taking part in discussion on the article talk page? Why is she citing WP:BOLD and at the same time ignoring the WP:BRD cycle? Why is she going right back to the behavior she said she wouldn't engage in and several editors warned her right after she engaged in it to not partake in? Pinging admins who commented above: Floquenbeam, 5 albert square, Fish and karate, Ivanvector, Bbb23, Swarm, Boing! said Zebedee-- ψλ ● ✉✓ 01:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Winkelvi, I'm too lazy to start clicking around. Are you saying they reverted you after that brief conversation on my talk page? If so, that is not good. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, the answer is yes, at two different articles. No attempt to discuss anything, at all. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 01:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
MaranoFan, wtf? Are you trying to get indef-blocked? Drmies (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
My edits were removed with an edit summary that explained nothing about the actual content, I restored them as their removal was a clear restoration of WP:BOLD. @Drmies: Also, the user was visiting Meghan Trainor articles for the first time in two years purposely to start drama with me. He wants to see me blocked, go and check my actual edits and there’s nothing wrong with them. I gave a proper cited edited summary for restoring them and there was even a talk page discussion between me and Another Believer that agreed my edits were non-controversial. I’m maintaining an interaction ban with the above user but here they are talking about me again. I just restored my edits because you told me to focus on the content and not the user doing the reverts. This discussion does not need to be resurrected as of yet because my edits were not harmful in any way. I just restored 6,000 characters worth of content that was removed with the summary of WP:EVADE but it’s validly sources.—MaranoFan (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Also note that said user is desperate to get me blocked by tagging everyone who supported my unblock.—MaranoFan (talk)
Incorrect: Fish+Karate supported your unblock request. "I just restored my edits because you told me to focus on the content" is cray--I was obviously talking about how to have talk page discussions given the unblock condition, so no, you can't put that on me or my words. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding content the first time is okay, but adding it back second time without consensus is a problem. Also don't blame other people for your editwaring. You are currently digging yourself a hole, and I suggest you stop digging. Afootpluto (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm here because I was pinged. I'm not surprised by what's happening. I opposed the unblock and would support a reblock. To quote Swarm: "If they cause 'disruption', they get re-indeffed. Straightforward WP:ROPE, simple as that." I must confess it took a much shorter time than I thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(non-admin closure) I'm BOLD-ly attempting to close this again. There's a consensus that the block was reasonable, and that any admin should feel free to unblock if the issues that caused the block have been sufficiently addressed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SarekOfVulcan has blocked Michael Hardy(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who has been on a mission for some time in respect of what he insists are libellous comments about some academics. We probably ought to consider and review this, given that Michael Hardy is a long-standing and prolific user and an administrator.
For the avoidance of doubt, I support the block, Michael Hardy's behaviour has been bizarre and obsessive for some weeks now, but indef blocks of admins are not common I think. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I support the block, and I am sure some discussions are underway. But I think it's a good precedent to make this community endorsed; when an editor (that happens to be an administrator) has consistently and persistently failed to adhere to expected standards of acceptable conduct for all editors, and continues to cause disruption across different pages and combatively accusing other editors, there should not be any exemption in this case when it comes to blocking policy, as the purpose is to prevent damage and should be within the capacity of an uninvolved administrator that are reasonably informed of the context (although I am not sure if SarekOfVulcan is uninvolved here, since they have participated in that extensive discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. But that's why we are here to discuss). And it probably shouldn't matter if it doesn't fall under any WP:DSTOPICS if this ever comes up. Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm more sad than anything else to see this, as I had opposed any sanctions and had thought just letting him blow off a little steam would be fine. But these repeated attacks are unacceptable, including blatant falsifications of what other people have said or done - for example, the totally unsupported (and as far as I can see, false) assertion of "a dozen-or-so Wikipedian who told me I was stupid or dishonest or otherwise deeply flawed because I couldn't see that such a conference is a scam." And this is all after he got what he wanted with the offending AFD blanked. It had to stop, and if he wouldn't stop voluntarily then yes, he had to be stopped. I must, reluctantly, support the block - but I'd really like to see such a prolific contributor back to doing what he does best as soon as possible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not have any opinion on the situation and the validity of the block, and I did not look deeply in the situation, but I am not happy with a de-facto desysop by blocking indef. Probably after this discussion, if the block stands, someone would need to file an arbitration case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
May be just expanding on it, a bit more, without any relation to actual Sarek's block. I guess it is more difficult to gain a consensus to overturn an indefblock than to not get a lose the mop in a desysop case. If the block is in a grey area - it could have been a block, or it could have been no block - there will be no consensus formed to overturn it, but the arbcom could have dismissed the case or just issue a warning. This could open a de-facto desysop route which was not really the idea of the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this as a de-facto desysop at all, just as a block to stop an editor from continuing their attacks on others long after it's been time to drop the issue. Are you really objecting to the block because he's an admin and implying he should be above being blocked because of it? (I doubt you are, but I honestly don't get the desysop thing, so I'm just asking). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not desysopping, it's an indef block like how all other users are blocked. He can appeal it on his talkpage, the same way other people are appealing. This is true and invalidates your hypothesis unless if you want say there's esoteric clause in WP:BLOCK which states that "Administrators cannot be indefinitely blocked whatever they do, they can only be blocked on limited basis because they're administrators". –Ammarpad (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. He can be indef blocked for as long as it takes to agree an unblock, and when unblocked he'll still be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No, my point is not that we can not block admins. My point is if he remains indefblocked after the transient period (community discussion + unblock requests), the situation is not normal, and the arbcom must be asked to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
How is it not normal? A block is a block; admin status is irrelevant to this. If we were blocking to prevent MH's use of the admin tools, with preventing his editing at all considered an unfortunate side effect, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case here. (Also, that would be silly, since IIRC blocking doesn't prevent someone from using admin tools.) One can certainly take this to Arbcom if one wants, but there's no reason they have to be consulted. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Re: "if he remains indefblocked after the transient period ... the arbcom must be asked to have a look" - Why? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Because if he is indefblocked, he can not make admin actions, and users who can not make admin actions get desysopped. Though I realize now that if he remains indefblocked he gets desysopped for inactivity after a year anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No, this is also incorrect, since he is able to read deleted material, for example. I still find it odd - if someone behaves so badly that they need to be indefblocked, than for me it means they have behavioral issues preventing them to be an admin - but I will not file an arbcom case, it is not a matter of life and death to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Re: "users who can not make admin actions get desysopped" - I've never seen that happen, do you have an example? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not think we had so many admins who were blocked indef long-term, but isn't the whole point of the inactivity desysopping policy exactly this?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you only mean inactivity desysopping? That's nothing to do with Arbcom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems there are several avenues short of indef, let alone community indef, so oppose - it's just not in Wikipedia's interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Adding that the diffs now provided are incredibly weak for indef, considering the original complaint for supression/deletion was also rejected for being vague or opinion, Hardy's statements are equally vague or opinion. Moreover, this process is fundamentally unfair, Hardy has not appealed here -- I think there is actually a rule somewhere you cannot appeal for someone-else, and regardless it should be followed here on the basis of simple justice, so move to strong oppose.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose what, exactly? Nothing's been proposed to support or oppose here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it not clear? If not, I strongly oppose your poor use of admin tools and admin discretion, here, especially given your past interaction, and the process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, watch his talkpage. As I said there, as soon as he can convince one other admin the attacks will stop, I wouldn't object to an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
As we're reviewing the block here, could some diffs of the problematic edits which led to the block be provided? Fish+Karate 12:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The diff that convinced me a personal attacks block was necessary in this case is here -- by people who were contemptuous of any discussion or argument with me, and who appear to have motives unrelated to the merits or demerits of what I said. Going back a bit in the same discussion, we have this -- There have been numerous factually incorrect statements by people who I think are gaslighting me because I've gone against their agenda. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just had a look through the original post at AN, and MH is correct that there were a number of very unhelpful comments there:
In my opinion Michael Hardy is massively wasting the community's time here, and considering his former related reprimand by the Arbitration Committee may warrant a WP:BOOMERANG for this time-sink, or even a WP:CIR block/ban for just not getting it
Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed?
Does this ex-admin have nothing better to do with their time?.
This seems to be the cause of his later actions, but when you are at noticeboard with a less than stellar case, these types of comments are common and have to be ignored. Everyone knows the noticeboards are unpleasant, but there's not much we can do about it as long as comments from the community are welcome. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to also endorse the block as a means of halting disruption, which is what blocks are for, irrespective of the blocked editor being an administrator. Repeating my comment from one of the many discussions about this: "I propose leaving the AfD courtesy blanked (not suppressed), and leaving Michael Hardy alone about it. If he wants to continue making a big deal about it, we can burn that bridge when we come to it." And here we are, 3 weeks later, standing across a thoroughly smoldering bridge. If there's an underlying point that MH was trying to make, he hasn't made a very clear case of it and apparently is unable to do so without attacking people. @JzG: you seem to have been following this more carefully than most, would you be able to summarize what the issue is? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Told you so. Frankly this has had numerous chances to nip this, but as the subject is an admin the special treatment they have recieved has prolonged it to their detriment. A normal editor would have been under a number of sanctions by now or have been indeffed ages ago. (support block btw) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I final-warned Michael Hardy to stop calling editors bullies and liars a short time ago - to be fair he did strike his comment. Since then I have had a number of emails from Hardy asking for "clarification" on the issue of the AfD and the surrounding events. I tried to respond to them in a polite manner - though I said at one point "All of the answers to your questions should be obvious to someone who is an admin" - because frankly, they should have been. However Hardy became more and more argumentative each time I responded, to the point that I eventually gave up answering. From the looks of Hardy's talkpage, @Alex Shih:has had the same problem. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have as well. The theme is constant and boils down to MH insisting that any version of the facts and events other than his own is malfeasance. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made it clear to him that if there are any more unwanted emails, I'll remove email access for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with the block. I do wish User:JzG had not been brought it here without Michael's request, because now any admin reviewing any future unblock request is going to be hobbled by a "community consensus" about the block; i.e. a reviewing admin would have to get a new consensus here for any unblock conditions. That's needlessly bureaucratic, and makes it harder to de-escalate. If I've misunderstood our current process, and an admin could work out unblock conditions without having to get consensus for it here, then it would be valuable (at least to me) if the closing admin for this section specifically said that in the close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should look at this as a community block or ban, I do think we can't go around indef blocking admins with huge edit histories without at least some discussion. I brought it here for awareness and debate, not bannination. Guy (Help!)14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I should rephrase; I don't have a problem with bringing it here if it doesn't imply needing community consensus before an unblock with conditions. I just thought that's how we rolled now. I'll be thrilled to know I'm wrong about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there are two different things. One is deciding that an unblock request should be handled by community discussion and bringing it here, in which case a Decline effectively makes it a community block. The other is just asking for second opinions on an admin block, which is something we often do, and I don't think that turns it into a community block - my support for the block is certainly not meant as a support for a community block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:, I saw that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If I am reading WP:CBAN correctly, if a block is endorsed by the community it is an automatic CBAN. Afootpluto (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
As I read it, "due consideration" is required. This discussion isn't primarily about whether he should stay blocked, it's about whether I was incorrect to block him in the first place, so there's hasn't been due consideration of keeping the block in place indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If I am correct the requirements for the discussion to have been duly considered is wait 24 hours. I personally think if the community says it is a good block, I think that should be treated as an endorsed block. I personally think the banning policy should be more clear, because this isn't the first time that people debated about this. Afootpluto (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
After these latest instances of WP:PRAM - although I don't think that I would have indeffed - I cannot oppose this block. The behavioral problems have continued unabated. GABgab 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
While this sanction is not one I would have personally imposed, I could see it coming from a mile away, and I cannot argue that it was outside admin discretion. All MH needs to do is to undertake to drop the stick and move on. It's not complicated. Vanamonde (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw the title of this thread and thought "Is this still going on?". It is, and after looking at the diffs, particularly the one SoV has provided above, this is clearly disruptive and the block is a good one. The fact that they are an admin has nothing to do with this. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Which one? 'I think people are gaslighting me' - just the insipid stuff people say all the time on the Pedia, or "Unreleated to the merits or demerits of what I said", well per the diffs already provided, in the original discussion, they did actually not address merits but made comments on him, so yes that suggests a motive unrelated to merits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't be, but I was actually shocked to see that MH is still acting out like this. I'm sure people will complain bitterly about this comment, but it is quite clear that this is nothing but an unending temper tantrum, and we all have better things to do here than put up with it. So I endorse the block, for what it's worth. As to the question of whether this discussion would hinder any admin working out conditions for an unblock, I ask you: what conditions other than "drop it, entirely and move on with your life" would be reasonable unblock conditions? I then ask you: what are the odds that MH would agree to those conditions? This discussion is not a hinderance, because the only way MH will be realistically unblocked will be if an admin decides to simply ignore the entire reason for the block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 15:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, as every parent knows, ignoring is often the right way to go. The most recent discussion, could/should just have been ignored until it was archived, as in 'who cares'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
We already tried to ignore it for a couple of weeks and it didn't help. Afootpluto (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course it helped, nothing happened until the 'we' stopped ignoring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it did. He was emailing people, making demands. Ignoring someone only works if they will let you ignore them: MH pretty clearly wants to keep demanding until he gets an answer he likes. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, no. You don't want an e-mail, you ignore it, or respond 'don't email, me'. At the very least. "Blah, I have nothing more to say.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. When a user continues determinedly trying to engage in an argument they lost a long time ago, they end up blocked. That is how it goes. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't want an e-mail, you ignore it So, you are saying that we should have just let him keep going indefinitely. I don't think that's helpful to the project at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No. People are allowed to have all kinds of opinions, even Micheal Hardy. You don't like his argument fine, then don't engage it, and if you do, just stop when you are done. People have open e-mail because they invite e-mail, and if someone e-mails you but you don't want them to, you tell them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Close? So it seems clear that:
while support for the indef block isn't unanimous, it trends significantly towards supporting a block of some length, or at least not opposing the block
combining the people who oppose the block with those who explicitly state that it shouldn't be considered a CBAN, this isn't a community-sanctioned defacto ban, just a community endorsement of the block
if this discussion doesn't last 24 hours, then even a harsh reading of WP:CBAN couldn't consider this a community ban, and any admin can unblock when convinced the problematic behavior has been addressed
I think all the feedback that was needed has been given, and further discussion will only serve to escalate bad feelings, so
I'd encourage an uninvolved admin to close this soon, and
if one or more people who want to talk MH down can engage with him on his talk page, perhaps this can be resolved in the relatively near future.
I'm normally one of the first editors who would take issue with #2 being in conflict with the second and third bullets of CBAN, but this is an unusual case and I for one fully endorse this proposed close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've undone the close above this line, as it seems from the discussion below that the matter is not resolved. This is not an objection to the close (see my comment directly above this line) but a matter of procedure. @Abecedare: courtesy ping. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Not yet in support I have observed Michael Hardy's considerable contributions to this encyclopedia over the years. I'm also aware that there have been some concerns about behavior more recently, but apparently haven't followed this as closely as others. I see a lot of words on this page but relatively few diffs. I see several people weighing in before the first if was supplied which I don't mention as a criticism, but is likely evidence that others are paying closer attention to the back story than I have done. In my opinion, action as substantial as this deserves a more formal summary of events. I thank BsZ For providing some links, but my oversimplified summary is at the first of the three links goes to a request for a page planking which was turned down the second of which goes to a rant (strongly suggesting there's some gaps which need filling), In the third of which goes to another rant purportedly containing attacks on editors but I haven't tracked them down yet. Does anyone else agree that an indefinite block of an editor with almost 200,000 edits deserves a little more detail? (And pushing for a close about eight hours after this was opened seems a tad premature)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So if this isn't the place for a summary of the problems, is there some other place?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This section of his talkpage (since removed), which contains two final warnings from admins, is also useful. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sphilbrik: Micheal Hardy brought a complaint here, and he was attacked with ad hominem when he did so, when people could have just expalined why they disagreed with his contentions and even critqued his language - and it spiraled. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a fair point. Michael, for some reason, received an unduly hostile reception at AN, with several editors displaying a high level of animosity in response to what should have been an uncontentious thread. As for the editors who just said they "didn't see the need" for his request, he responded to them, attempting to directly refute them, and none of them replied. No one engaged in discussion. He then posted a followup statement, pinging all the editors involved, outlining what his specific points were, correctly pointing out that none of his arguments had been refuted or even argued against, and asked for arguments to substantiate the opposition he was receiving. At this point, the thread was immediately proposed to be closed as a "waste of time" and it was closed per "more heat than light" by the closing admin. In spite of the fact that nobody had seen fit to present reasons to oppose his argument that the AfD should be blanked, everybody lost their minds when he ignored the "no consensus" in that thread, in which his complaint itself wasn't actually even discussed, and people started accusing him of being some sort of rogue admin who willfully ignores community consensus, with calls for a summary desysops and bans. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw people so worked up over an editor, which is bizarre, because he's an admin with hundreds of thousands of edits, and his great offense was essentially caring about something that nobody else cares about. I can't say I can blame Michael Hardy for perceiving his treatment as completely irrational, and being suspicious of the underlying motives. I think I certainly would be, if it were me. That said, the people involved aren't some vague political operatives, they're regular, highly established, trusted editors in good standing, all of whom I recognize, and his thread wasn't some coordinated hit, it was just some annoyed denizens of the drama boards being a little snippy. MH was being overly-paranoid, and admins were right to tell him to knock it off and move on—he got what he wanted, after all. Nothing further needed to come from it. The drama died down, everyone moved on, but apparently Hardy remained fixated on the original AN thread, to the point that he's willing to breach warnings and advice so that he could demand the identities of the editors who opposed him. His suspicions are probably genuine, and, as I said, I think they're understandable. But they're not reasonable. Refusing to move on because AN was mean to you, that's unreasonable. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪𝔛 21:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to summarize. It is bizarre. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Good block - overdue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Bad block It is not unusual for veteran editors to obsess about some issue and then keep returning to it and sounding off. Common examples include RfA reform; paid editing; and errors on the main page. Pages like the village pump and Jimbo's talk page have huge amounts of this stuff but nobody is forced to read it. Blocking such a veteran editor for this reason is disruptive because it prevents them from doing other useful work. For example, the broad topic mathematical practice is currently under discussion. Michael Hardy has previously edited this and, as a member of the mathematics projects, should be able to have a say in the matter. Silencing them completely because of an unrelated issue seems too draconian and disproportionate. Treating contributors in this way will tend to have a chilling effect which will do serious damage to the project. Andrew D. (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a significant difference between sounding off about things like "RfA reform; paid editing; and errors on the main page" and repeatedly making attacks/accusations against other specific editors and their motives. Having said that, I want to see him back as soon as possible, and all he needs to do is agree to drop the personal attacks/accusations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the close to nuclear option has already been deployed, so there may be no going back, but those with the block button should they ever discuss it with him in the future, may do well to acknowledge directly to him its origin as detailed above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I do hope that any unblock will be accompanied by a de-sysop or relinquishment of any userrights that give this editor admin powers. he has demonstrated that he is unfit to use them. Thank goodness he didn't involve himself with the other Hitchens brother recently. Concurrently, a Topic Ban from all Dramahboards would also protect him. lesser conditions for unblock would not be acceptable. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 11:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Desysopping is outside of the remit of administrators. Fish+Karate 12:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Then an opportunity exists for the editor to improve the project himself, or for the Admin corps to step up to the plate, to use a merkian expression. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 12:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Very very bad blockPaul August☎ 11:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Support block Michael Hardy's on-wiki behavior has grown increasingly disruptive, he was directly warned to stop the problematic behavior, and he pressed forward anyways. If, at any time, he agrees to stop, he could be unblocked. But for the time being, evidence is clear that a) he was being disruptive b) he was told why what he was doing was disruptive and c) he gave every indication that he intends to continue to be disruptive. This is a perfectly legitimate block, and by-the-book. I see no reason to overturn it. --Jayron32 11:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This whole thread moved too fast for me to read through everything prior to its absurdly quick closure, but I have now, and am satisfied the block was appropriate. Tilting at windmills is not a constructive approach, and an indefinite block does not mean "You are banned forever", it can mean "Please stop editing until you calm down". Michael has been a very valued administrator and this whole thing is a shame. Fish+Karate 12:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I personally think someone should bring this to WP:ARC. Because I have a feeling this will end up there eventually, so why not just end this now instead of just dragging it on. Afootpluto (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Because right now it's being handled by the community and there's no case being made for a desysop, so it would be rejected. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, the main valid reason for a desysop is the abuse of admin tools. As bizarre and disruptive as Michael Hardy's behavior has been recently (throwing around wild accusations of corruption, making broad statements accusing people of bad faith without evidence, demanding investigations, etc.) none of it has involved misuse of his tools. There have been times when someone has been desysoped for other reasons, but those have usually ALWAYS been controversial (and I generally disagree with every one of those); in general it doesn't happen unless someone is misusing the tools. If they are not, blocks for unrelated reasons are not grounds for a desysop. --Jayron32 18:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There is also WP:ADMINCOND. The failure to drop the stick might reasonably be construed as sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia, which is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable block IMO. I'd support an unblock if MH would agree to stop raising the issue in question and to stop attacking other editors. It doesn't look like that's happening though [139]. Hut 8.5 18:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good block - They should've moved on the moment the last ANI discussion was closed but instead they're carried on and on and on, Long overdue. –Davey2010Talk 18:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose block. I would say it is a close call, but on balance I would be against this block. He brought an issue to AN, was treated fairly badly, and got angry about it. The problems he is discussing are generalized, and more a problem with the process of AN than some specific editor. I can understand his frustration, even if I don't agree with it. You are allowed to accuse others, if you bring evidence to the appropriate forum. But when your problem is with what happens at AN, what is the appropriate forum? The appropriate forum, in this case, I would suggest in an WP:Appeals to Jimbo. Everyone knows that Jimbo isn't going to do anything, but expressing your frustrations with the system of WP is appropriate there including what happens in AN. He should be told to stop identifying specific editors, but I don't have a problem with him generally describing his frustrations with the system of AN in an WP:Appeals to Jimbo. The WP:Village pump section he started was inappropriate, and should be ended as it is not the proper forum for such complaints, but an WP:Appeals to Jimbo is. -Obsidi (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is, that he did not bring up one thing one time and then get banhammered for that. If it were, I would have opposed vehemently. He raised several issues, such as what he calls "corruption". Several people calmly asked for evidence of the problem. He berated them and accused them of being in on it. This bizarre, bad-faith paranoid behavior didn't happen once. It happened repeatedly for several months, and the community at large has gotten kind of worn out by it. It isn't, as you have characterized it, that he raised a simple issue and was attacked. It is that he raised an issue, people responded, in many cases trying to draw out his concerns or whatnot, and he attacked them. It was also not an isolated incident, rather a growing problem that has infected every discussion he starts. He's thrown about these wild, paranoid, general accusations and when asked to elaborate or present evidence, simply attacks the messenger and accuses them of being in on it. This has spread to multiple forums, and become his sole raison d'etre here at Wikipedia. He's no longer interested in doing good work, just going off on this bizarre crusade. --Jayron32 18:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Outside of the Village pump (which was bad), Jimbo Talk and his own talk page (given he is blocked), I haven't seen that. Either way, he should be clearly told where the appropriate forum for the issue he wishes to discuss is, and if he continues to discuss it in other areas after being unblocked, then I would support a further block. But for now I don't see that being a likely problem if he is unblocked. -Obsidi (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you're still missing the point. He was not told the first time he ever made his problems known to stop. He was told after a long pattern of casting aspersions without evidence. He has never stopped that. If RECENTLY people have grown weary of the long pattern of behavior and told him to just stop all together, that's the reason. When he started this pattern, if he had presented diffs and explanations of specific problems he wanted addressed, we would have never gotten here. He didn't do that. After months on making it clear he had no intention of doing that, he was wisely told to stop, because it was clear he wasn't going to be presenting evidence of his accusations. At this point in the story, there is no venue for him to continue this, or "vent". There is either "present evidence of the accusations you keep making" or "stop making those accusations.". He chose neither of those options. Repeatedly. --Jayron32 23:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The question isn't what he did in the past (blocks are not punishment), but what he will do in the future. I think the likelihood of repetition is low if he is directed to a location where he can vent his frustration in a constructive manner. -Obsidi (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You might notice that the last part of my sentence uses the present tense. This is intentional. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that Michael is still casting aspersions against named editors [140] even after his block, I would be intrigued to know what location you would suggest. I did suggest in my email exchange with him that if he had specific complaints about the behaviour of other editors, then ANI would be the page to place those claims, to which he replied that ANI was a "fraud". I am somewhat at a loss to suggest further venues, especially if he is going to continue his behaviour against other editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Black Kite I put a couple diffs on MH's talk page that seem to be the cause of some of his concerns. It is not hard to find more aspersions against him at Jimbo's page, and other locations. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I totally understand Michael's concerns (it would be difficult not to, given the aforementioned email exchange) but in the end, if he is going to carry on calling named editors "liars", "bullies", and making up completely fictional stories about what they have said about him "All six had personally attacked me, calling me mentally deranged or retarded" then there's little we can do about that. Michael simply needs to disengage from the whole of this issue, now and permanently. If he promises to do that, then I don't see an issue in him being unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The original discussion was corruption of AN process - that's been laid out above. And yes, Micheal Hardy did raise a rather simple issue, and yes he was attacked, that's also been laid out above. And that claim about Micheal Hardy "no longer interested in doing good work" seems belied by what looks to be hundreds of edits in September to articles. Why even say such a thing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was wrong to say that.--Jayron32 23:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good block MH was given plenty of time to stop the IDHT behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed again. It seems that the only extant place for discussion about this editor is at his own talk page. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
Support adding Yes, Please add it in the immediate request. Even I had to make such requests and then due to the delay, had to post on an admins talk page to get this handled. A speedy reply to requests in this category are expected. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That is a sensible idea I think. I have added RD1 backlog to the immediate requests section in the admin dashboard ([141]). How does it look? Alex Shih (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it intentional that the category is not linked from Wikipedia:Revision deletion? (Or at least, if it is, I could not easily find a link).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that we are back ro 13 requests. I will do a couple, but I now do not have time to take care of all 13.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to, Ymblanter. Someone else will eventually take care of them, there is no rush. These maintenance tasks are better done silently in the background. A potential RfA candidate that does wonderful work in combating copyvio is coming up soon, so fingers crossed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 is indefinitely site banned per a unanimous consensus. (Swarm ♠ talk) 02:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kingdamian1(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has engaged in disruptive editing after numerous warnings, as can be seen on his user talk page. Kingdamian1 claims to be a productive editor, but much of his mainspace work has resulted in reversion, talk page discussions, and deletion discussions. Being an imperfect newbie is not in itself a good reason to ban someone, but the user has a history of making uncivil, harassing, or otherwise strange comments directed towards other users, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, and this list is not exhaustive. He brings drama from other sites (specifically, Conservapedia and RationalWiki) into Wikipedia. He posted a threat directed at me, which resulted in his initial oversight block, and after begging to be unblocked, he was finally given a second chance (which I adamantly opposed as I believed he needed more time away from the site), and that second chance only led to more disruption, including copyright violations on his user page, a chess game on his user page in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and edit warring. Since his latest block, he has posted three unblock requests, all of which only minimize his own responsibility and, frankly, only serve to disrupt. I propose this site ban because I believe this user it not here to build an encyclopedia and he will just continue to beg to be unblocked until either a sympathetic admin gives him yet another chance (which I believe would be a mistake just like the last time), or he is banned either through a community ban or through ArbCom. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
An involved support; I note that Callanecc has already indeffed this user. I'm not strongly opposed to an unblock that included a TBAN from American Politics, but don't feel that the user has the temperament/maturity to take advantage of that opportunity. I also note that I'm not sure this discussion is necessary; allowing the user's unblock requests to be declined until they take a longer break would have also been enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Immature is an understatement; I have two teenage friends who I would trust with the admin toolset before I would trust this guy with basic editing (and I mean that in a literal sense, not in a personal attack sense). This discussion is needed because last time he successfully begged his way out of his block, this time I think it needs to stick. A ban establishes that he is not welcome here, and it will also put the kabosh on any kind of wikilawyering he may try should he resort to socking like he has on other sites where I have encountered him. I'm glad most people (including you) agree with the ban though. 69.85.242.18 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Oops, forgot to log in (hello from the guest network at PCC). PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I have asked them to explain in their own words what went wrong and what to do instead. They don't make an intelligible response. It's like they don't understand what I'm asking for.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could offer to copy any responses to this thread as they cannot respond here themselves.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
support site ban unless someone can pull a rabbit out of their hat. Had not seen PCHS-NJROTC's dif's ere now. Clearly not on the same consensual reality as most of the rest of us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
What agreement, and who's your original account? —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 10:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently this is the person trying to get TonyBallioni deopped. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong support He is practically already banned at this point after all of the trouble he has caused for the community. funplussmart (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban This user has absolutely no understanding of the quality of sources required for the inclusion of contentious material in a biography of a living person. An obviously fictional humor parody does not become a reliable source just because it is published in the Washington Post, but this editor tried to use it anyway. More broadly, their behavior has been problematic for quite some time. I do not care a bit about shenanigans over at Conservapedia or RationalWiki, but it is disruptive to bring those disputes here to Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Support – this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia, given his battleground mentality and disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Support I had a look at his contributions. He wades in like a bull in a china shop to some of the most controversial and difficult articles on the encyclopedia like Racial views of Donald Trump and goes bezerk when he doesn't get his own way. I see his latest unblock request asks if we can entertain a topic ban instead; sorry, but I see the edit warring and name calling on just about any topic he's worked on. Has to be a full ban, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Arbcom asked me what I thought when they were considering lifting the previous block, and I told them I supposed a last chance was in order but had no doubt that he’s be blocked again for something eventually, so I’m unsurprised to see this. What I don’t understand is why it is necessary. The user was blocked, they made a bunch of terrible unblock requests which were all declined, talk page access was revoked, it all seeems pretty standard so I don’t know why it was felt necessary to come here at all but if we’re doing this sure, site ban away, this person simply does not seem to “get” Wikipedia editing. 19:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
I was about to close this as "ban enacted" but I see that Dlohcierekim has restored the user's talk page access for comment here just a couple hours ago. I kind of doubt that anything they can say will really have an impact on this discussion at this point, but we can wait a bit longer for a reply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
permalink If I've screweed up the formatting let me know.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I knew it was coming. I knew it. I respect Wikipedia, of course. It is a testament to how superior our Western Civilization is compared to all others. But we cannot ignore the ideological bias here. Please, stop gaslighting me. We all know that I am NOT getting blocked because of "disruptive editing" or whatever excuse people want to make up. The ONLY reason I am getting banned is because the articles I tried to edit are controlled by a small number of far-leftist editors. One of these editors literally admits in their userboxes of detesting Donald Trump and hating conservatives... But I am sure this is a simple coincidence. In fact, let's ban my entire country from editing for suggesting that user who admits to despising nationalist conservatives might not be impartial when dealing with conservatives. We all know that 9 out of 10 people voting for me to be banned are Anti-Conservative, and NO, this is not a personal attack. I did not vandalize Wikipedia, I did not use a SINGLE obscene word and have NOT reverted more than 3 times. But it doesn't matter, because we all know why I am getting banned. I do not have much to say. My final request will be, PLEASE, do NOT gaslight me and do not try to pretend that this has nothing to do with ideology. All of us understand the bias against conservatism in some of these articles. Please! Just do what you have to do! Good luck. Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we’re done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
please keep these discussions in one place. WP:AN3 seems the more appropriate locale. --Jayron32 03:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple editors are violating Wikipedia rules by posting information from biased sources without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.178.144 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many of us (myself included) have learnt the hard way to make a private request over at WP:Oversight rather than bringing it here. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like an IP editor tried to dox somebody on [REDACTED - Oshwah] - it might be wise to suppress some edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223, I don't generally get myself involved at dramaboards, but, if you think something should be suppressed, please make a private request over at WP:Oversight; this type of thing—if I infer Wikipedia policies and guidelines correctly—may lead to further unwarranted attention and will defeat the whole point of requesting oversight. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be doxxing or outing of someone's personal information, nothing that would rise to the level of needing suppression... it just looks like typical vandalism to me. Regardless, Simonm223 - if you suspect doxxing or outing of any kind, please do not add or post any diffs, links, urls, descriptions, details, or locations to such information to pages or noticeboards on Wikipedia. These are public places, and doing so increases the attention that's drawn to it as well as the number of people who will view the potentially sensitive information. You need to contact the Oversight team privately with this information so that it can be looked into and handled properly. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was trying to do the right thing here, sorry if I made a hash of it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 - No worries; I got you covered and no harm was done. Nobody is perfect and everyone messes up; it's a normal part of learning and growing here and nobody will hold good faith mistakes against you. If it makes you feel better, I make mistakes all the damn time and (if I recall correctly) I first learned about oversight and suppression and where to report outting and doxxing many years ago by doing the same thing ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About a week ago there was a notice on this board asking for input on the design of Special:Block and the block log. It sounded drearily technical, which is probably why nobody replied. But I was curious so I followed the link, which led to a very obscure page called Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking. There I learned that there are major changes planned for the block function: they are going to add the ability to block users from a specific page, or pages, or category of pages, rather than from WP as a whole. They call it "granular blocking" or "partial blocking". Apparently site-wide blocking will still be possible and in fact will be the default. But it sounds as if it is going to make the placing of a block a lot more complicated than the simple one-click process it is now. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who was unaware this is in the works. It may well be a good idea, but I think we as admins need more preparation, maybe some training before it launches, maybe even some kind of opt-in or beta test before it becomes the law of the land. I don't think WP:AN is a good place for sober discussion about meta issues, so I started a discussion at WT:RFA - admitting that it has nothing to do with RfA but was a site watched by many administrators. That's not really a good place to discuss it either. Anybody got a better idea for where we can talk about this, prepare for it, provide input? I think WMF has tried to let us know this is going on, but generally they communicate in ways that do not connect with most of us. And I feel that a lot of bad blood that sometimes exists between WMF and users, happens when WMF launches something new that comes as a surprise to users. I still don't know how this is going to work, but at least now I know that it is coming. And now, so do you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Melanie, what about WT:BLOCK?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Melanie, this is not a new thing. This has been discussed, on-Wiki, for several months (probably at least a year now) with many, well-advertised discussions. The discussions probably concluded a few months back, with consensus as to which changes to the blocking function the community desired, and based on those discussions, the devs got to work on implementing them. This is NOT a new surprise change, it has been around for a while. I participated in these discussions some time ago, and recall that there was lots of input, and a general consensus to proceed with implementation. If someone else can dig up the diffs to the discussions, that would help. --Jayron32 17:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly one of the village pumps, or wt:admin, with a note on wp:cent. And yes, we've known about this for a long time. ansh666 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Found them: Melanie, see here, which lists several discussions, the earliest going back to about 2015, though the current implementation discussions started in late 2017. --Jayron32 18:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
As they say in the Army, there's always someone who doesn't get the word. There always seem to be a LOT of us at Wikipedia that don't get the word; maybe we don't follow the right pages. I'm glad you know about it and took part in the discussions. I still think this is going to come as a surprise to quite a few of us. I'm just doing my bit to decrease that number. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, on behalf of people I probably have no right to speak for, that you didn't get the word. I distinctly remember site-wide watchlist notices, notices at the Village Pumps and at AN about these discussions, etc. Other than knocking on people's doors and hand delivering a candygram, I don't know what else the foundation could have done to publicize this more. --Jayron32 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would love somebody to turn up to MelanieN's house with a candygram, as I'm sure she would too. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll take one too, if someone's offering. Remember that you only pay toll leavingthe island, that's how we get'cha. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (+1) to wot Jayron sed. I do not have much affinity for the foundation's communication styles but in this particular case, they were near-flawless. It was mentioned over AN, (atleast twice), admins who shew interest were updated regularly and there were enough discussions with the broader community, (that led to the shunning of using categories as a block-agent) . I guess many sysops are aware of the changes, irrespective of where they stand and going by the wire frames, it won't be much difficult. ∯WBGconverse 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've participated in this; it's been a while, because I've not seen anything lately, but I know it was advertised a while back. [I just hope they're also redoing the block interface; it's a good deal more unfriendly than before they redid it a year-or-something ago.] I don't like how major changes sometimes get pushed through without warning, but this was well advertised in my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
For more general audiences, there is also of course The Signpost, whose current issue's Technology report—specifically the "Future changes" section—briefly mentioned this pending change, too. I say "is" with hesitance, though, given there appears to be no confidence that this month will have an issue due to insufficient staffing and activity. Additionally, there is Tech/News on the Meta Wiki along with various other newsletters and internal news media throughout the projects. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Palmer Middle School was deleted a week or so back but was recreated, and has been nominated again. Unfortunately the second nom was more or less tacked onto the back of the first, which is making a mess out of out of the days' AfD page. I was going to try to straighten this out myself, but I'm dubious I can do it right without admin powers; also, it seems fairly likely that it could just be speedied as recreated material and avoid the second AfD entirely. Could some passing admin take a look at it and try to sort it out? Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you mean 11 years and a week or so back. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorted (no admin magic needed), well apart from checking the old version, but I doubt it'll be G4able due to the age of the Afd meaning that the deleted version is unlikely to be "substantially identical" to the current article. ping Zchrykng to let them know, TW is usually better for Afding things for this reason.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks muchly, and sorry for missing the year of the first deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mangoe and Galobtter: Thanks! Still trying to figure out exactly how the curation tools work, assumed it would work more like TW. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, it should but it doesn't Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Many reviewers will use TW instead of the toolbar for deletion tasks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not G4able, by the way. It's not notable either, but it's not going anywhere via G4. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposal to adopt Community Approved General Sanctions for Horn of Africa Articles (Broadly Construed)[edit]
No consensus at this time in favour of imposing general sanction in topic area. SalvioLet's talk about it! 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a search through the Admin noticeboard archive the word "Somalia" comes up 106 times, mostly in AN/I and 3RR related pages, which suggests a long term pattern of disruptive editing relating to Somalia. In addition, the phrase "Horn of Africa" specifically comes up 15 times with similar lists to AN/I and 3RR. Many of these reports are from the last 12-18 months, and demonstrate a long term pattern of editorial disagreement punctuated by revert wars, POV accusations, questionable sources, and other issues which have most likely had a long term net negative effect on contributors working in this particular geographic area. In February of this year, Robert McClenon (talk·contribs) summarized the problem in an AN/I thread as follows:
The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.
There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.
In lew of this and the most recent incidence of Somalia on the AN/I page (here and here), I would put to the community the issue of adopting community approved sanctions mirroring those at Wikipedia:ARBPIA for the Horn of Africa region (broadly construed). TomStar81 (Talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. This is necessary. Many of the disruptive editing in this topic area are prone to excessive lawyering and frequently done through meatpuppetry. I can support a community approved discretionary sanction in place. Alex Shih (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. If the current ANI threads are any indication, the situation is a complete mess; the only involved voice of reason in those threads is Ms Sarah Welch. The rest of them are like squabbling children. Something needs to be done. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. Completely justifiable. Simon Adler (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Inquiry is there any way to narrow this slightly? Dedebit F.C. is an extreme example of an article that probably doesn't need to be under sanctions. The various tribal conflicts certainly should have community sanctions, I'm not sure it's necessary for the entire region, broadly construed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: This is intended more for geographical and regional culture as well as ongoing conflict related articles, not for sports articles per se, but I could see how they'd get wrapped up in this. For the time being though I prefer to think of "broadly construed" as meaning "where we need it now" with a provision for expansion to other areas should they become problematic in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this with or without 1RR? MER-C 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@MER-C: I say with 1RR, cause that's whats being used in combination with ARBPIA in most general sanction articles. TomStar81 (Talk)
Support. It is clear that something needs to be done about long-running abuse of WP guidelines in the project, as the current conditions are not conducive to building an encyclopaedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Would there be room to establish modified SPI norms where behavioural evidence is more integral to to the workings of investigations at least within the Somali project? It has been established in previous SPIs that long term vandal of the project Middayexpress/Soupforone, as well as potentially other disruptive editors, have means of evading technical scrutiny. With that in mind could there be stipulations as part of the new sanctions of having it be mandatory (or at least recommended) to review behavioural evidence? --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kzl55: Unfortunately, this is less for editors and more for articles. The idea here is to place the articles under longterm supervision so as to frustrate the efforts of SPI and unproductive editors, who would be unable to take much action to disruptive the articles without ending up blocked for violations of much stricter article enforcement policies. That said, this is going to provide a measure of protection from people like Middayexpress and Soupforone, so a !vote for it is a !vote in the right direction. Trust me on this :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. Sounds like a plan! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose I could see switching to support in the end but want to make sure that we're being judicious with our use of this heavyweight tool. I would love to hear from some more admin who think that existing tools/noticeboards aren't enough to deal with the problems in that area. Even if/when that assurance comes, I'm not sure I can get behind the full scope listed here and would suggest a slightly more targeted scope would be appropriate based on the kinds of problems that have been going on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I noted above, its largely within the realm of culture (language, terminology, religion, historical identifications, etc) as well as with regards to the current ongoing conflicts in the region. @Cordless Larry: can back me up on that one, most of the ANI reporting has been with regards to these subject areas. I would still like to see everything related to Horn of Africa, but I'd settle for cultural, historical, and military related issues, broadly construed. That said, I can not in good faith fault you for your position. Its the really heavy artillery I want to bring out, but that should only be brought out after everything else has been tried and failed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Where does this end? Will every page subjected to controversy be put under discretionary sanctions, undefined and broadly construed? Is this not power creep? What has been tried so far? Somalia has been semi-protected for a few months, what impact did that have? How many editors have been blocked? Note that discretionary sanctions serves to allocate control of the controversial to admins, at the expense of ordinary editors, is this really the way to go without even presenting the history of what's been attempted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Ideally, this ends when the articles are better protected against disruptive editors, but thats my take on the matter since I've been waltzing to the beat of this issue for some time now. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So never ending?
Can you list the article this would apply to? How many have been semi protected or pending revisions? Are undefined extensive powers being requested due to other processes being to slow? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I’m not sure we’re here yet. It’s a controversial area, but I don’t see it at the stage where DS are needed yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
SPIs are not usually dealt with through discretionary sanctions. If disruption on an article is great enough and semi-protection isn't working, then admins are already authorized to use ECP, so I don't see the need to add another category of pages where admins have broad authority to apply ECP as a DS. Re: the edit warring, just block them. I'm personally not comfortable extending DS into this area, but I also understand if others are. Like at least one member of ArbCom has expressed, if we're not careful, soon everything will be under DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Except for a few differences, our Horn of Africa space-articles suffer from the same problems such as those related to Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan/Pakistan/India where we have DS. The Horn of Africa region has been war-torn, is religiously divided (particularly Ethiopia, Somalia border region), one with many clans-tribes-ethnic groups, numerous claims of historical or modern era nation-state or pan-nationalistic entities, a deeply contested history, sociology, anthropology, genocides/abuse/terror and the rest. What concerns us in wikipedia and this discussion is whether wikipedia articles are reasonably honest in reflecting or at least including an npov summary of the peer-reviewed scholarship, and do admins have the tools to encourage constructive editors to participate and discourage the disruptive editors and a toxic PA-filled work environment? The answer to the first is largely "no". This is a long-term problem (for evidence, see Ethiopia1, Ethiopia2, Somalia1, Somalia2 (see the two AfD discussions), Somalia3, etc). For the second question on admin tools, perhaps @Buckshot06, Doug Weller, and Nick-D: may have some input since they have commented/acted in HOA disputes (Cordless Larry has been already pinged above). There are factors indeed that may suggest a "not yet". First, there are fewer editors in the Horn of Africa space and fewer ANI/AN/ARCA cases. I see this in part an issue of the PA-filled toxic work environment (see the unhelpful 'racist' and 'white supremacist' etc allegations, coupled with edit warring and mass redirects in the most recent AN case, for example) coupled with longterm MidDayExpress/SoupforOne disruptive editing as TomStar81 and Nick-D have noted. This frustrates and drives away the more constructive editors. Second, given the poor state of many of our articles in the Horn of Africa space and relatively lesser number of peer-reviewed publications to read carefully and summarize, we may wonder if DS tools would help or make things worse. I believe the DS tools would help because they would not discourage participation by new editors, would help discourage systematic disruption/abuse by the likes of MidDayExpress, and because our admins remain obliged to use such tools with discretion. Third, given the tools available through SPI and against edit warring, we may wonder why does HOA space need DS tools? Given my experience and efforts in this space, I believe that the DS tools are needed for the same reasons that Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, etc space need them. DS tools may help reduce the systematic disruption by contesting or agenda-driven parties who are less interested in building the encyclopedia and more interested in presenting their unsourced passionately held views along with wiki-lawyering/meatpuppetry to block the editors summarizing the other sides (yes, plural). It may also encourage quality participation and help create a less hostile and less PA-filled work environment in the difficult Horn of Africa space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Additional comment: Please see the views of current ARBCom members about areas where discretionary sanctions may be appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Endorse strongly and completely; Middayexpress would not have been as half as much a problem had these sanctions been in force. Buckshot06(talk) 07:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Largely per Buckshot. This appears to be a systematically troubled area, and few if any admins have enough knowledge of it to be confident about wading into the endless disputes which are going on. A large stick will be helpful in excluding and stopping the bad faith editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Question If few if any admins have enough knowledge of it to be confident about wading into the endless disputes does putting the DS toolset behind them actually help them act more competently (no doubt it could help them act more confidently)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49: An admin may not know a subject, but still she/he can spot behavioral issues, persistent disruption or repeated violation of our content guidelines in contested/difficult/sensitive/inflammatory articles. Let us review what the community and ARBCom have supported during the Palestine-Israel DS proposal discussions. All of the context and circumstances that led to those adopted motions apply to the Horn of Africa space. Under "Purpose", "advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle" – Yes, the advocacy/propaganda/furtherance .../etc is true for HOA. Under "Decorum", "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system" – Yes, HOA space is much affected by these issues. Under "Editorial process", "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic" – Yes one more time for HOA. Under "Dispute resolution", "Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums" – Yes in HOA context again, because the disputing parties typically have been focusing on each other, instead of seeking and summarizing peer-reviewed scholarship with an RS-driven consensus approach to build an encyclopedia. For edit diffs, see examples above, and this recent case which resulted in blocks, plus a lot more in the case histories of MidDayExpress-SoupforOne socks, EthiopianHabesha, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per TonyBallioni. We are really far from implementing DS for this subject that barely attracts disruption compared to any other DS area. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Disputes happen all over Wikipedia. The disputes of HOA have been rather low in amount and are far from the stage where you would need DS. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I would support a more narrow DS, but this seems too broad to me for the problems that have occurred. -Obsidi (talk)
@Obsidi: any suggestions for a more narrow DS that you support? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I was originally thinking something along the lines of Somalia (including its culture and history articles), but reviewing the pages, I just don't see the level of disruption that would require GS. -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Obsidi: if yo have the time please take a look at this, there is also this (and many others), these are only a couple of examples of long-term persistent disruption to the project. It is worth noting that, as far as I know, all the editors/admins who have contributed (or are familiar with) the project, have responded with support of the proposal. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good afternoon! The level of my English is very weak, so I apologize for any grammatical errors! The page is on protection, I can not add new information! So please read on the discussion page and contribute this information to the article, it will help to update the data in the article! Thanks for the help!--Murza-Zade (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, there are duplicate articles at Dwarkadheesh – Bhagwaan Shree Krishn and Dwarkadheesh Bhagwaan Shree Krishn. The latter seems to be the oldest. They appear to both have the same, or basically the same content, almost verbatim, so no real merge is required. What's the best thing to do here? Is this histmerge territory? That's a bit out of my knowledge zone, so any ideas on how to deal with this would be appreciated, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like one of the articles was copy-pasted to the other without proper attribution. No, we cannot histmerge here per WP:Parallel histories. Someone should make an attribution in whichever ends up the merge target and the other merged and redirected. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Izno Thanks, I'll take care of it. Just need to ask someone more familiar what they think the best article title is. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is not related to enwiki but it would be a great favor if some (or more?) admin from here with experience in !voting can help with his opinion: There is a hung jury in elwiki. There are 8 proposals (πρόταση=proposal) and votes are clear with their icon (Υπέρ=support, Κατά=Oppose). Which do you think is the prevailing proposal in this revision? - geraki(talk) 11:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be a better idea to post this on Meta Wiki and see if you can coax a Stewart to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I would like to take an extended break from Wikipedia, as I have been discouraged and disengaged over the past several months. I would like to have a block placed on my account for an indefinite period to avoid any temptation of returning. Thank you in advance! I would greatly appreciate it. I am pinging @Xaosflux: as he answered the same request from me in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Create a new password for your account by mashing the keyboard. That should do. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Good idea! I am not sure why I did not think of that lol. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: If you like, I could block the account so you could return in the future. GABgab 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If you follow Roxy's suggestions, make sure you have a valid email first, in case you wish to reset the password and return. ansh666 17:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt responses. I will just change my password and stay away voluntarily. I have been a part of Wikipedia since the start of 2016 so I think it is time for me to move on. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what y'all think, whether User:Untitled.docx is a username violation or not. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently that username is already in use. funplussmart (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is. Why would someone ask about a hypothetical username at AN? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't see why it would be a violation. There isn't anything in WP:UPOL that would disqualify it, IMO. ansh666 01:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It's odd, but I don't think it cause any special technical issues that need to be dealt with. — xaosfluxTalk 13:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so, per Ansh666. But why here and not WP:RFC/N? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Never heard of it before, Ivanvector... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Like Thomas's English Muffins, Wikipedia has many nooks and crannies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
You should {{Uw-softerblock}} for promoting Microsoft Word :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t see a clear-cut violation so the usual procedure is to talk to the user in question, and if that doesn’t work out, RFC/N. Or not since nobody here seems to think it is a violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
An allegedly free image of "a droid", but can't really be anything other than R2D2, I think this design may be impermissible as a "free" image. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it's obviously R2D2 (and look at the name of the uploader, and the source is https://iconstore.co/icons/star-wars-icons/ which I suspect may not be fully GFDL-compliant). Beep boop beep delete. Fish+Karate 14:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I've un-embiggened the picture so it doesn't cross in to the the below section on my screen. Iffy★Chat -- 15:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like a copyvio to me. Maybe not the most egregious one, and maybe not by the uploader, but by the artist who submitted it to the source. Note that "Droid" is a registered trademark owned by Lucasfilm (now Disney, I suppose), so the filename is clearly marking it as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 15:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A clear violation of copyright. There's no way this is a generic "droid". (BTW, I'm not sure that the trademark for "droid" -- the word -- would hold up in court. As a shortening of the long-existing "android", it's about as generally trademarkable as calling an elevator a "vator". But, then again, trying to win that case again Disney's gazillions of high-priced lawyers would be an excercise in futility.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
BMK I've had the same thought, but even back when it was just LucasFilm, Motorola and Verizon both paid royalties to use the term. As unremarkable a term as it may be, with enough of a history of vigorous enforcement, it'll eventually become so associated with Star Wars that people will just assume it's trademarked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I assume that Verizon and Motorola just thought it was cheaper to license it rather than fight it, since any good intellectual property lawyer would be able to dig up the many decades of prior usage of "android". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right, I was just saying that those cases, as well as the numerous cease-and-desist letters LucasFilm has sent out seem to be establishing a precedent that future cases would look to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:FFD is that-a-way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I know, but I don't know if it was actually a problem or not because there are all kinds of caveats around depiction of copyright items in original artwork. It's a rather specialised area of law. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted the file per WP:CSD#F9 (unambiguous copyright violation). Mz7 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: For future reference, "likenesses" are usually copyrighted in the case of characters, which R2-D2 certainly is. It's possible that LicasFilm overlooked R2-D2's likeness, but doubtful. So yeah, fan art is almost always copyright vios, but is often (though not always) overlooked by the creator. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Possible conflict of wording on two different policy and guideline pages that may need fixing?[edit]
Hi everyone! While assisting someone who asked for instructions regarding how one would inquire or appeal a CheckUser block, I became aware that there are two Wikipedia pages that potentially provide two different instructions as to how to do this. If editors here agree that this is indeed the case, the instructions between the two pages should be fixed or clarified in order to consistently provide the same (and correct) instructions. This may resolve potential confusion by editors and lower the amount of incorrect steps that are taken in order to do this.
When providing assistance, I initially told the user that CheckUser blocks must be appealed by contacting the Arbitration Committee - this is what I've known to be correct and have told others for some time when asked this question. However, I became aware that Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states that if you are concerned that a checkuser block has been made in error, you should refer the block promptly to the functionaries team, who will carefully review the checkuser evidence. Checkuser blocks may subsequently be appealed, as a matter of last resort, to the Arbitration Committee. Bearing this in mind, if you now refer to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Checkuser and Oversight blocks, it states (in bold letters) that ...in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. It of course says immediately afterwards that Administrators who believe there's an issue with a CU block should try to talk to the CheckUser who applied it first (as we all know), then it concludes the sentence with if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, [the administrator] should email the committee.
Is there a conflict with the wording on these two pages regarding what users should do and who they should contact in order to address or appeal CU blocks? One page reads to me (putting myself in the shoes as a new, novice, or even maybe an average user) to state that the first point of contact for users to appeal or express concerns with a CU block is the functionaries team (which then states that "as a last resort", ArbCom can be subsequently contacted), while the other states that it's the Arbitration Committee. Do you believe that the information may be unclear and could or should be improved to be more clear? Or... are the instructions provided between these two pages referring to "concerns" and "appeals" as two entirely separate things (which I agree - a "concern" and an actual "block appeal" mean two completely different things to me) and hence two entirely different processes and instructions exist for each avenue to be pursued? If anything, these pages might be unclear when it comes to editors and IPs, CheckUser blocks, and how to correctly contact the right people regarding them. What are your thoughts? Comments, input, feedback, or information I may have missed would be greatly appreciated. I just want to share what I found in order to address and fix any potential problems or conflicts (if such exist), and make sure that the Wikipedia pages we use to address policies and point users to are consistent and correct. Thanks everyone :-). ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I think clearly the guide (which is a supplement) needs to be updated in accord with the guideline/policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izno (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t really see this as that big a deal or necessarily contradictory. If someone has been CU blocked on-wiki they make an appeal, and often another admin will ping a 2nd CU to confirm the findings. At that point, both agree with the block, ArbCom is the best avenue of appeal. They can consult the functionaries team if they want or review it themselves. This is also what the blocking policy would have us do: ArbCom handles appeals from CU blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your statement here regarding CU block appeals and who to contact... that's what I've always understood as the proper process. The reason I started this discussion was regarding how the two pages word this process and information; I think it would make more sense if this is explained on both pages and in a more clear manner, and I wanted to see how others feel and if they agree here. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I pretty much agree that the instructions should make an effort to be consistent, but I don't think this is really too big a deal. Arbitrators are themselves functionaries, so contacting either group gets you in touch with the people who you should be in touch with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Gee, with the exception of one editor, all who have commented here are candidates for CU. Based on the comments, I think administrators need more guidance on how to handle unblock requests from CU-blocked users than the users.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as a long-term member of the functionaries team, unblocking isn’t really what we do, but we do provide support and commentary to the committee. If we receive such a request, often one or two team members will review the block and comment on what they saw, but that’s about it. There’s no harm in sending us such a request for our feedback but normally the decision to actually unblock or not sits with the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry y'all, but how did this happen? And happen for so long? I have an excuse: Alabama was playing and I was dragged to arbitration. Seriously, this is crazy. How did no one (including me...) see this? Drmies (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering why Airplaneman, who had protected the page two weeks earlier because of this exact same vandalism, came back and reverted the same vandalism again but did not do anything else, like re-protecting the page or blocking the vandal. It took General Ization posting at AIV, posting at RFPP, and then going straight to Drmies to get any action on this. We admins seem to have failed pretty thoroughly at defending BLP here. I agree with Drmies' advice: if you see it again, go straight to ANI and all-caps-scream about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Also: I'm not suggesting Airplaneman did anything wrong; admins are not required to push the buttons. I'm just curious. I see this as a systemic failure, not any one user's problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hey, thanks for the ping, Ivanvector. This is the reversion of mine Ivanvector is referring to. My thought process at the time was that this was one-off vandalism 5 days after protection had ended and that it did not establish a pattern to motivate protecting the page again. Looking back, I'm not sure why I did not REVDEL the edit. A lapse in judgement on my part. Airplaneman ✈ 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
All of you should go sit in a corner and reflect on what you've done. Or better yet, accept the blame without too much self-recrimination and go on improving the project. Shit does, indeed, happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, since I love analyzing things so much, Airplaneman and GI issued the standard 1→4 warnings, and GI reported to RfPP once the final warning was breached. RfPP can have 12-24 hour+ backlog sometimes, so you're not going to get immediate action there. They didn't report to AIV for around another half hour. So that's where the first half hour went. The subsequent half hour before they went to Drmies was just a fairly typical AIV wait time. AIV can have a wait time sometimes. It's not always instantaneous. If it's a severe case that needs to be actioned urgently and isn't, a note on AN/I would be appropriate (simple requests at AN/I often have no delay whatsoever). Nobody individually or collectively "failed" here, it was just one very persistent vandal who managed to cause a lot of disruption in a short amount of time before they were blocked. But, we're talking about 40 minutes at AIV. That's not all that unusual. The discussion shouldn't be what went wrong and who's to blame, we should just take this as a lesson that more eyes on AIV are needed. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In emergency cases like this, getting to ANI and/or pinging individual active admins is probably the most efficient course of action. And it is sometimes a good idea to indicate the degree of urgency when one files a RFPP nomination. (Well, sure, everybody thinks RFPP is only for urgent matter, but three vandal edits in three days is not the same as ten vandal edits in one hour).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I just want to point out that I meant to say "accept the responsibility," not "accept the blame," above. I agree with Drmies opening a section here to get attention on it. I also agree that if everybody had been on the ball, it wouldn't have happened. But I would have to disagree if anyone said that there's no excuse for everybody not being on the ball 24/7 because we're not robots. Yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Vaibhav Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created back in October 2015 by Gauravsinghgehlot who was subsequently indef'd for WP:SOCK per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vkdutta4u. I stumbled across it because someone was using the infobox logo in User:Mcseladana/sandbox which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Anyway, the article was self-assessd by Gauravsinghgehlot as "B" class with "mid" importance. In principle, it seems wrong to self-assess articles you create, but I realize these assessments are not such a big deal. My concern though is whether the article itself should be kept at all per WP:EVADE and WP:G5. The primary contributor appears to be Gauravsinghgehlot and some IPs. Others have edited the article, but this seems to be for mainly maintenance purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The community seems to think that G5 should not apply to articles created before the spammer's first account is blocked. If you can link this to an account blocked prior to article creation then G5 would apply, otherwise it's PROD or AfD. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that would be the current consensus, if is obviously the same individual. I think some admins have used G5 in this situation, so we may want to revisit this. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
G5 would be advised; they recreated the AfD'ed Shop LC (their American teleshopping channel) under its former Liquidation Channel name which had been previously speedied under the account HarjinderSB(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) two years ago; thankfully I got it early and watchlisted it to keep it from turning into an ad. I figured they wouldn't give up easily. The info in the VG article is easily confined to (and already in) the Shop LC and The Jewellery Channel articles. As-is, the article is basically their financials and a bunch of glow quotes, which when removed hollows out the body considerably. Nate•(chatter) 21:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. More importantly, is there a reason not to block Nobberclog as a straightforward CIR case? (Swarm ♠ talk) 08:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: I would support a block. Multiple warnings for disruption and nary an edit outside of draft or mainspace to respond to those warnings and concerns. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm and Anthony. Support blocking indefinately for not cummunicating and Boleyn's reasoning in the previous ANI since NeilN's block didn't resolve the issue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
User blocked indef. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
CU/OS activity standards motion proposed: Community comments invited[edit]
Original:Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; or holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.
and:
Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.
Replaced with:
Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the Checkuser or Oversight OTRS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to Checkuser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.
and:
Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
Reply within seven days to email communications from the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.
Community comments on the change are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 05:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Rajeshbieee (talk·contribs) was blocked for having a perceived conflict of interest and sockpuppetry back in February. As six months has passed, and he assures me has not socked since, he has a reasonable case for taking the Standard Offer. I don't know much about him at all, and to be honest his unblock requests don't strike me with much confidence - he has repeatedly said "yes, I will adhere to WP:N and WP:COI from now on" without actually spelling out what exactly he wants to work on. On the other hand, the last couple of articles he created have been retained in mainspace, so it's not like he's a spam-only account or anything. As I don't really have a strong opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked, I thought I would throw it open to the community to decide. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkuser needed can we get a CU to look to see if there is any evidence of socking? I think that would be relevant to the discussion as it's part of the block rationale. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I gave him a heads up that we might want a checkuser, and if it uncovers any socks then the deal is very much off, so good point. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No apparent socking seen by this checkuser. — Berean Hunter(talk) 00:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
They seem to have done some nice work on historical cinema topics; their trouble seems to be promoting their own work and that of people they know. So... maybe unblock with a TBAN on any cinema or music subject after 2000? (just to draw a hard-to-boundary-push line between any remotely promotable stuff and history) Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with this measure as being required to prevent further COI editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Per Berean Hunter and Jytdog, support unblock with TBAN on entertainment topics post-2000. @Jytdog:, does any of their useful historical work go later than 2000? In other words, if we moved the bar to 2010 would it make a difference to their useful work? 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that 2000 is far enough back. Look at this added in 2014, expanded by Rajeshbieee over time to this. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I cleaned up some of that article... Yikes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Jytdog. I think 2000 isnt far enough back. Also we need good clauses for TBAN regarding all biographies, not just BLPs. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Important reading - I knew the account name rang an alarm bell in my memory but had to dig a bit to find the source; without commenting on the substance of the appeal, I think anyone considering it should read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gantlet/Archive. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Wasn't there a specific reason why he was unblocked to begin with? I feel like there was some exception made in his case, otherwise, why wouldn't we have unblocked Gantlet, or Rajeshbiee (two Bs)? I note some of the discussion here, where Bbb23 and Tokyogirl79 had some input. I don't exactly recall the details of this case and don't have tons of time to look right now, but I feel like there was more to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I was one of those who had declined his unblock request during his earlier block and I'll make these points: He shouldn't be uploading any images, and it was one of the conditions I suggested that Tokyogirl impose when she unblocked him; Similar to Jytdog's position, I think a timeline on preventing creations on films is needed, I'd likely go for some time between 2000 and 2010; in addition, I think he has to be prevented from writing any biographical articles as most subjects are people he has had marginal interactions with. Also, regarding the SPI above, I don't think Rajeshbieee is linked to that sock farm which was more of a paid COI farm while Rajeshbieee is more of a fanboy with problematic editing. —SpacemanSpiff 04:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
My final concern is that Rajeshbieee has not acknowledged that was involved in undisclosed paid editing or that he will stop doing this. We have strong evidence that paid editing was occuring. So with him not coming clean I am hesitant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thus endeth the tale of the Good SamarIP Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've blocked this range (contributions, block log) for 1 year for unrelentless and never-ending vandalism; the range has been blocked for similar periods numerous times in the past, and every time the block expires, the vandalism starts straight up again. I see one IP on the range reverting vandalism (possibly a teacher?); they're just going to have to get an account. I'm tempted to up the block to indefinite, but I can't think of any occasion when any admin has actually indeffed a /19 range. Any thoughts? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I know of an indeffed /16, and you've just reminded me I meant to follow up on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would leave it at a year. Pressing block again in a year's time if the crap resumes is reasonable. Indeffing an IP range that big is quite unusual. Fish+Karate 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the camp that thinks that indeffing IPs is always (subject to IAR) a bad idea and should never (except IAR) be done. Block for one year, when the problems return, block for one more year. That's not too hard to keep up with. --Jayron32 01:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Jayron32, always? Isn't it normal to indef-block IPs that are found to be open proxies? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Please no. And thankfully, it's not normal these days. I'm not the only admin who has spent way too long dealing with unblock requests from dynamic IPs where the open proxy lasted a few days several years ago. Nearly all open proxies vanish after a short time. It's true there are still some indef-blocks remaining, some are occasionally reviewed, but we're not routinely adding to them. -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much this. There are so many things that can happen - IP's get re-assigned, proxy owner moves on, proxy owner gets disconnected for abuse and a non-proxy moves in, etc. The max I usually go is 2 years, and that's in cases where I'm pretty sure it isn't going to move. SQLQuery me! 01:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have experience with them doing the same thing on the Simple English Wikipedia back in May and June. As they're rangeblocked here now, it's likely they'll return to SEW and then other wikis, in which case I'll notify a steward to look into a g-block. Vermont (talk)
This isn't just schools. It's hundreds of public libraries. I'm sorry, Ritchie, but you could have discussed the block with us instead of presenting us with a fait accompli. There was no urgency - from the time monitoring commenced at 1 PM on Tuesday all vandalism was removed within ten minutes. Blocking gives the vandals an incentive to disrupt the service - if we had been allowed to continue reverting them instantly they vandalised they would soon have lost interest. I checked the block logs at Simple Wikipedia of the IPs responsible for the latest spree. They have been blocked for a total of 130 hours. No individual block exceeded 48 hours and there is nothing recent. If an IP were globally blocked it would not be blocked for more than a week. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Whether it's schools or libraries should be irrelevant because there are hundreds of legitimate editors who are school age anyway... I'm not a fan of school blocks, but this is quite a mountain of garbage. The only thing is, we block the school range and surely whoever wants to vandalize can just find somewhere else to do it. Think about it, if you're a bored student in London, and you get into your head that you want to see what happens when you mess with an article on Wikipedia, the school block template flat out says how to get around it. On the other hand, if you are a busy teacher with dozens of papers to grade and you notice an error in Wikipedia as you are checking someone's paper for plagiarism, or you are a student who takes academics seriously and you have tons of homework to concentrate on, are your really going to follow the steps in order to create an account to correct that error? We have to ask ourselves whether this one year block is really going to benefit the encyclopedia or hinder it. That said, this particular range is spewing a ton of the crap, so... PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I've come in on a Saturday morning to respond. Instruction on constructive editing can be a useful part of a lesson. Also when Wikipedia is consulted during a lesson it's useful to be able to correct errors in articles there and then - otherwise it tends to be forgotten and the mistakes linger on. It's absolutely right that the {{schoolblock}} template is an invitation to vandalise. Crime isn't stopped by the police suggesting that offenders go to another street which they won't be patrolling - they watch out for offences being committed and deal with them as they happen.
The only function of a block is to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia. This block does damage the encyclopaedia because all the vandalism gets removed within ten minutes and hundreds of thousands of people are being prevented from editing simply to exclude a few. You might as well say that because a few people get drunk and rowdy in pubs that's a reason to close all pubs, or shut ClueBot down and protect the entire site instead. We can deal with the problem because the IP number plus the edit time enables us to pinpoint the individual pupils responsible. We propose to post notices in all IT suites informing of this and possible action, which could include expulsion and possible police action depending on the pupil's age and the seriousness of the abuse.
"I'm sorry, Ritchie, but you could have discussed the block with us" I did; since you were jumping IPs and not contactable via email I had no other way of possibly opening a discussion.
"It's hundreds of public libraries." Which ones? It's certainly not my local public library, where I was updating London Waterloo East railway station from this afternoon. For all I know, you could just be lying in the hope I'll believe you and unblock you so you can vandalise even more.
"if we had been allowed to continue reverting them instantly they vandalised they would soon have lost interest" - and a lot of people would have wasted time leaving warning messages, filing reports at WP:AIV etc. Anyway, the figures don't agree with you. I did a check of all the edits on the entire IP range going back several years. Aside from one guy (you?) reverting vandalism, I could not find a single good-faith edit on any of them, but lots of rubbish like this, this and this. So while "hundreds of thousands of people are being prevented from editing simply to exclude a few" does seem to be a reasonable argument, in this specific instance the empirical evidence shows is that this just isn't true. PCHS-NJROTC is known for being strongly against range blocking unless it's necessary, and if he is saying the block is necessary, then it probably is. I'm not going to ignore the blocking policy and let a whole bunch of people vandalise the encyclopedia on the off chance that somebody might let a obscene BLP violation only stand for ten minutes.
I remember when I was at school that the entire year got frogmarched into the assembly hall and given an almighty bollocking en masse by the headmaster because one kid had blocked up the toilets causing them to flood the entire floor. I don't see this as being any different.
Fortunately, the block is anon-only. So if you want to edit, create an account and you can. Problem solved. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I assessed the collateral damage since it has been called into question. One year is good for the block duration. The IP has no clue about the damage done by accounts which in this case is substantial. Many of the accounts are blocked and we don't want new ones based on those. Many of the edits are vandalism/garbage/socking. One LTA uses this range as does another distinct sockmaster. What I don't see is anything scholarly as might would be expected. The "good" edits are mediocre at best but they are enough to keep things as an anonblock instead of a hardblock. The IP's arguments aren't backed up by the data. — Berean Hunter(talk) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Damage? What kind of damage has this range caused? Most vandalism from schools is as "mediocre" as the legitimate edits you speak of; it is easy to spot and get rid of, and in fact it's easier to sit there and watch for it coming from a school range and snipe any of it that gets missed like a watchman in the guard tower than to pick through a mountain of DSL/cable/cellular range edits (which is where these nonsense edits are ultimately going to come from if we block the schools). I'm on vacation at the moment and haven't looked at the edits from the IP range in depth, but I say keep the one year block if there is legitimately an LTA user (someone listed at WP:Long term abuse) using the range, otherwise take into consideration how many people are using the range. London is a pretty big city, and I generally say if out of 100 edits 1 is any flavor of good faith and the other 99 are the typical random characters or "I love Brooke with all of my heart" the IP or IP range is a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the encyclopedia. On the other hand... to the person who said that these "kids" who edit from libraries don't vandalize, you are wrong. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way... RE: BLP violations, these blocks don't stop them, so if you are trying to prevent all possibility of BLP violations being committed, it'd be better to just semi-protect all of the BLPs. To give an example of how ineffective these kind of blocks are at achieving what you wish to achieve, I am editing from Pensacola Christian College right now. If I weren't a registered user, and you wanted to stop me from writing unkind things about a living person, you could schoolblock all of PCC, but I could literally go down to Burger King and skirt the block if I wanted to. If I were a distinctive vandal that Wikipedia would have an interest in stopping, like User:Grawp or User:Mmbabies, the schoolblock probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but don't expect it to stop the casual edit tester from finding a way to write gibberish on an article. These kind of blocks are most useful for putting the kibosh on an active vandalism spree, not preventing vandalism altogether. It's an inherent and perennial problem with open wikis; bad things can and will happen. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all the comments. I will deal with them in order. Before the block my discussion with Ritchie was on User talk:5.150.99.188. There were messages from him at 09:57 and 10:05, 19 September but nothing further. The block was at 14:48 - the change in IP came subsequently, as I think he well knows. We would not reveal the addresses of individual public libraries any more than we would give out the addresses of individual schools. The identities only become known when they report - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ron liebman and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Anonymous Aryan activist. The library is not blocked now and has not been for a long time. Ritchie's local public library is not blocked now because he asked for it to be unblocked Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ansh666#Oppose (#8).
My IP is not blocked (obviously) and you can see I'm not vandalising - I don't see why Ritchie felt it necessary to raise the point. I understand that blocks are only imposed after four warning messages. That stage will never be reached because we will have reverted the vandalism long before then. This makes it apparent to your vandal fighters that we have the situation fully under control. This is an example of what we are doing at the moment:
Obscene BLP violations are dealt with by ClueBot instantly - for the rest there's no "off chance that somebody might" clear the vandalism within ten minutes - the monitoring system works and Ritchie knows it works. You've provided some figures but they don't prove what you say they prove - in all those years the range has been blocked, believe me, many, many good editors have wanted to contribute but have been prevented from doing so. The good editors have been driven off the range. We've put together some figures which reveal the true story. First and foremost, the reports which have been coming in indicate that libraries have been blocked even though no vandals are using them. 194.66.226.95 is the central reference library for the whole of the United Kingdom. It has a total of 1,889 edits. There are thirteen vandalism warnings, none later than 2015. At one point it was unblocked by an administrator who said he would monitor it for a while.
5.150.93.133 has 191 edits and three vandalism warnings (none later than 2014). 62.140.210.135 has 63 edits and no vandalism warnings. 80.5.88.70 has 164 edits and six vandalism warnings, none later than 2017. 195.191.67.226 has fifty edits and one vandalism warning (in 2015). The reason for its block appears to be as follows:
At 07:59, 30 August 2017 a well-known troll posted the question "How many people in Germany were killed in air raids by the RAF?" It was removed by the library and the library was blocked at 09:29.
Ritchie's anecdote proves our point - everyone got a warning and the lavatories were not closed. As I have said, once we are allowed to continue with the work we have started the problem will disappear within a few days. The point about the accounts shows our approach is the correct one. If this were a real problem which could not be solved by blocking the accounts the range would be hardblocked - and it's not. If the block notice didn't encourage the vandals to open an account they wouldn't do it. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
We? If you are admitting that you are a we that uses the internet to vandalize Wikipedia, than that is why you-plural is blocked. Not enough warning is the we defense? Most unimpressive, we. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In our experience, children who choose to spend their precious leisure time in public libraries do not go there to vandalise Wikipedia: they are either reading or playing computer games. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete one sentence as it appears to have been misconstrued. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The point about the "not enough warning" is that each IP in the range is a separate location. Each individual vandal should be warned enough times per the policy. If you think the policy is wrong, Alanscottwalker, start an RfC to change it. Looking at your contributions you don't appear to do any vandal fighting. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
What policy do you think is being breached here, such that a rangeblock requires an RfC? WP:RANGEBLOCK is a thing. A CU has already checked and confirmed (above) that collateral damage is at a minimum. One can quibble over the as brief as possible bit, but given the amount of vandalism from this range, one year does not seem unreasonable, and is certainly not out of the bounds of admin discretion, per most of the admins in this thread. Also, references to individual users' vandal-fighting histories doesn't really help anyone's case. it's not exactly rocket science anyway Writ Keeper⚇♔ 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, these kind of rangeblocks need to be discussed more often and I thank the blocking admin for discussing it. There are a handful of disruptive admins who issue these kind of blocks when they are not needed, and those admins really ought to not only lose their mop but be blocked like any other disruptive admin. This block allows account creation though, so I don't see this being an overly big deal; it just forces editors to make an account which is not hard to do. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll have to check the diffs to be accurate, but as I recall, one IP came in on AIV and I blocked for 12 hours. I spotted more vandalism, with one IP reverting. I waited, saw more vandalism happening, and range blocked for a couple of hours, hoping it was just a one-off, and apologised to the "teacher" IP, giving them a barnstar for their efforts. I went off to do something else, and notice that after the block had expired, another IP had been reported at AIV and blocked for 31 hours. I checked the block log and blocked for a year based on previous blocks of 1-3 years stretching back to 2014. If I hadn't done this, another admin would have done anyway. The bottom line is vandalism should not persist on Wikipedia - ever. An hour is too long. Ten minutes is too long. Ten seconds is too long. Our aim should be towards it never happening.
Despite the IP's claims above, ClueBot is not perfect. If it was, AIV would be marked historical. For example, today I was asked to clear up 184.175.102.29 (talk·contribs). This IP had left numerous obscene messages and edit summaries in support of Hilter and the Third Reich. ClueBot didn't go near them. Regarding warnings, the correct number of minimum warnings to give to a vandal before a block is ZERO. Per WP:VANDALISM : "Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal." If you put obscenities supporting the Third Reich in an article, you get blocked, I don't care how many Twinkle warnings you have or don't have, you get the hell off this site right now.
Having said all of the above, I have an idea that will hopefully resolve this dispute. Provided I get consensus (or no objections from admins), I am happy to lift this range block as an experiment. However, if a report comes in on WP:AIV by a neutral and involved editor in the first 48 hours, and results in a block for any relevant IP, the range block gets re-applied. How does that strike people? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there some flavor of pattern where it appears to be the same person over and over again, or is it sporadic instances of random characters being added? If it's the former, keep the range blocked unless there's a specific reason someone needs it unblocked. The way you can tell if it's truly an LTA is if the abuse ceases with the range block or if the same pattern of vandalism pops up elsewhere; a true LTA will use some other network to vandalize until everything they have reasonable access to is blocked (believe me, I have plenty of experience with LTAs) The problem I have with these kind of blocks is that I often see them implimented when there is no clear pattern of abuse and it's often a matter of burning a village to prevent ants from infesting it, simply because someone has seen one or two sugar ants crawling around there, but there are times when blocking is indeed appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Assuming what you are saying is correct... support rangeblock as is. This is a great example of when rangeblocks are appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 04:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
At the top of the talk page there is this message:
Educational institution staff and network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Can you post details either there or here? You say that if vandalism lingers for one second that is one second too long. Then protect the entire site. I doubt that there is any fixed timelag after which a rangeblock must be applied if vandalism is not removed before then. This vandalism is not gross BLP violations, it's schoolchildren larking about. Nobody actually sees it - the typical article they vandalise will not be visited within ten months, let alone ten minutes. When the police are investigating say a drug ring they don't immediately arrest the first mule they uncover. They watch and wait, and when they do move in they bust the entire operation. We don't know if it is the same person coming back - give us enough time to investigate and if it is we'll find him and take him out. You've given one lead - Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. However, this person's edits don't seem to be immediately identifiable - what criteria do you use?
In an effort to get some data we visited the page, expecting to find documented instances of abuse à la Grawp or JarlaxleArtemis. What we found was a vague claim, filed six years after the last confirmed edit, that she "has a long history with Jc3s5h. She routinely edit wars with Jc3s5h." There are no diffs, which is a big red flag because Jc3s5h will have been edit warring with her. So we went to his contribution record. In the past few weeks he has been edit warring with numerous editors, mainly on Greenwich Mean Time. They are complaining that he is forcing his POV into the article. He has stated his views at User talk:Jc3s5h#Greenwich Mean Time. His modus operandi appears to be to remove all content that he personally doesn't agree with claiming that it was added by a "banned user". He claimed MrDemeanour was banned at 09:45 on 21 September. He repeated the claim at 11:25 the same morning. He has objected to an agreed rewrite of a couple of sections claiming that it was drafted by a "banned user". He never gives reasons and he never formalises his objections in an SPI. This has all the hallmarks of a joe job, and our public libraries are the ultimate victims. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well can you therefore explain this edit you made around the time you made the above comment, and explain why it's not vandalism. Thanks! Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not following. The vandalism you link to was at 16:16 on Monday - I edited yesterday. Can you please apply a little WP:AGF instead of setting up strawmen? IP suites do not just contain one computer - they contain a large number of them, all with the same IP address. If you hadn't forced us to stop monitoring we would have picked that up. We did pick it up later (it was out of school hours) but seeing the reversion by one of your vandal fighters did not check further. We now see that the vandal was backing up another vandal, so that your vandal fighter in fact restored the original vandalism. Again, if you had not forced us to stop monitoring we would have restored the last good version and we wouldn't have made that mistake. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
You aren't going to be able to edit from an IP and maintain your arguments. Your monitoring should be done to your satisfaction but it will not be taken in lieu of our monitoring standards so you can cease with the idea that we should be letting you handle everything. Not going to happen. No one forced you to stop monitoring, but blaming us is telltale that doing things your way won't work. I think it may be best if you contact OTRS and authenticate that you have some authority there. Good faith from IP ranges that have LTAs doesn't work. Making these arguments as an unidentified IP won't do. Either, BU Rob13 or DeltaQuad may review your OTRS validation and advise on moving forward. — Berean Hunter(talk) 13:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking that 5.150.74.195 is simply a troll who is wasting our time and should be blocked for 1 year just like the similar IPs which triggered this section? Apparently they vandalized an article because "we forced them to stop monitoring" somehow? This IP shows a remarkable knowledge of enwiki and its history when it suits them, but ha a thorough lack of knowledge when it suits them as well (e.g. knowing beforehand about JarlaxleArtemis, but not knowing and having trouble recognising the edits by Vote X, with some bizarre non sequiturs about Jc3s5h thrown in). I see no benefits in continuing to entertain their presence here, and a reduction in vandalism if we block them. Fram (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you're not the only one, Fram, at least partially. The IP 5.150.74.195 (registered to Edmonton Green Library) does have some good faith edits on it (although none since July), so I wouldn't support a block for that long. However, anyone who's feeling brave could phone them up (Google will give you their landline) and ask them "Excuse me, is one of your staff actively editing Wikipedia? Inquiring minds want to know" and see what happens. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) apparently not, Fram This thread is a waste of time. Rangeblocks are a thing allowed by policy, and that doesn't change because one or two users don't like it: start an RfC if you want rangeblocks to only happen after community consensus. If we blocked a named user who was consistently vandalizing, we wouldn't accept an unblock request that promises not to stop vandalizing but to revert it really quickly afterward, and I don't see how this is significantly different. IP, if you want to keep monitoring for vandalism from whatever IP range you care about, feel free to create an account; the rangeblock doesn't affect named users or account creation, so anyone who wants to edit from these IP addresses can do so by simply creating a user account and password. This is not a big deal. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
...and with that rant (since removed by another editor, thanks!), I guess we all have seen enough. Blocked for one year as another VoteX troll. "We can only justify employing people to detect and remove vandalism if they are going to be occupied all day. If they are only going to be removing one or two items of vandalism (because virtually all the range has been blocked) and are going to be sitting idle all the rest of the time we cannot justify it. " has to be the most ridiculous argument ever not to preemptively block vandal IPs. We have apparently caused the unemployment of paid vandalism removers now. Fram (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
closure requests handled by Fish and karate --DBigXray 10:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Salvio semi protected the Canvassed AfD. Drmies closed the AfD as Delete. DBigXray 10:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think an admin might want to take a look at this AfD. Govvy (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The followers of this Guru, have overrun the AfD page and it now looks like, an excellent lab specimen for WP:CANVAS page. Curious to know if it is allowed to semi protect AfD pages ? --DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I have just semied the page; that AFD really had been overrun. SalvioLet's talk about it! 21:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DBigXray: I think semi-protecting AfD pages is allowed, per WP:IAR, but policy seems to also allow it, as it states on WP:SEMI: administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. I believe canvassing could be considered disruption. SemiHypercube✎ 21:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thx, appreciate your reply.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It was time to close that thing. Done. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey'all! This is gonna be a bit of a weird one, but would any admin be willing to reblock Newname? It means you'll get an echo notification everytime a malformed request is posted on WP:CHUU and I won't anymore. Your sacrifice will surely lead to golden karma or something. ;) Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Alternativaly if someone has time and motivation to fix the CHU/U system not to link to the roleaccount so AnomieBot stops pinging the roleaccount's blocking admin, I'm sure that'd be a net improvement anyways :p Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I was looking through the terribly designed {{Usurp}} template system (really? are 5 templates needed to handle it?) to see if I could make it not link to Newname, but then I realized that one could just unblock the account, which was fine not being blocked until Salv blocked it in 2014; alternatively AnomieBOT could smartly clerk such requests by explaining to the user that their request is malformed and that they need to specify a target username. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, both fixing the template or the Bot would solve the underlying cause of the issue but either require more than a few clicks so the simpler solution to reassign the symptom to a willing volunteer seemed more approachable. I agree that in theory the account doesn't need to be blocked but our policy/precedent is that role/test accounts are blocked and that's what I enforced in 2014 (I seem to recall there was some discussion about non-blocked roleaccounts and the outcome was to block them). Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 20:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Pinging User:Writ Keeper. The editor above forgot to sign. Also, why dont you guys create a dummy account with admin privileges just for such occasions? —usernamekiran(talk) 04:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Because we already have enough dummies with admin privileges. Fish+Karate 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, that's not news to me. I considered suggesting that to Salv, but didn't know what other, possibly legit pings that bot might create, so didn't want to suggest to someone that they ignore a bunch of pings that they didn't want, and figured this was easier, since I don't mind. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 13:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
{{Usurp}} is made of 5 templates? Yikes! I've made a start at unsnarling it at User:Scott/Usurp new, but it has bugs (see the talk page) and also the ping link relies on {{Usurp2}} which I didn't immediately know how to fix. Could some kind soul help finish the job so we can do away with that Byzantine mess? — Scott•talk 15:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Something went wrong here with some AfD, can't seem to revert or fix it, maybe an admin can look at it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
They meant to nominate Rush Hour 4, a redirect to Rush Hour (franchise), but the redirect confused them (or confused Twinkle, I don't know). I've removed the AFD notice from the article and the AFD from the daily AFD log. The easiest solution would be to just delete the AFD page too, but people have commented there so I'll wait to see if anyone objects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
k, ye, my twinkle didn't work and undo just went blank and left the wikipedia header on the page also for some reason, thanks for fixing. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
For anyone interested in responding, this refers to Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen infamously detained in Guantanamo Bay from age 16. I find nowhere in the article where he is described as a "Canadian soldier", and the two uses of the wording "child soldier" are cited directly as opinions and not as general statements of fact. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 21:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A user came into en-help on IRC with this complaint. The Google Knowledge panel does list him as a Canadian soldier. I recommend the user contact Google using their feedback button and made clear that was not Wikipedia content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
We get questions of this sort regularly at en-help, because they assume that Google's Knowledge Graph updates at the same time as edits to the Wikipedia article are made. My usual responce to them is to wait it out, since Google takes time to update stuff that's been cached and the Wikipedia page itself has almost always already been edited to correct it. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 00:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This has been reported multiple times to OTRS, sometimes in very emotional terms (Is he is the news ?) It is troubling how many people misread the Google Knowledge graph- which is largely the fault of Google, who identifies Wikipedia as a source, but doesn't clearly identify which material comes from Wikipedia and which comes from other sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and WWE Studios have false information[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JesseRafe keeps reverting edits on these two pages that have false information on a film called Tom and Jerry: WWE Grand Smackdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.232.141.133 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's a trailer for the Willy Wonka one on the official Warner Bros animation Youtube channel. There are also clips for The Jetsons WWE, Scooby Doo WWE & The Flinstones WWE. I'd say this is markedly more likely than the OP thinks, though the editor being reported here should probably find one of the abundant sources to justify their edit instead of merely edit warring it back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 17:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like everything's been closed. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needs to be closed, one day overdue, and the nominations for the Election Committee should start on Friday according to the schema.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I closed the easy one. The more consequential/debated ones, may need multiple closers, IMO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content dispute, no user issues reported. please follow WP:DR --DBigXray 14:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
WP:DRN is that way. Dwanyewest, please inform them to follow Dispute resolution process ANI or AN doesn't look into content disputes. if there are behavior issues, among these editors you can point that and seek help at WP:ANI. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original:Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; or holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.
and:
Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.
Replaced with:
Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the Checkuser or Oversight OTRS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to Checkuser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.
and:
Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
Reply within seven days to email communications from the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 05:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, dear admins, I besides others were TBANned probably in April this year, TBAN was for three months i.e till July 2018,Kindly inform either TBAN is now over or not? What is status of TBAN now?
مھتاب_احمد, Arif80s... JogiAsad Talk 17:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@JogiAsad What were you TBanned for, what date and do you have a link to the notification or where it was logged at WP:AEL? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
JogiAsad, per this, your topic ban is still in effect. However, you can now appeal your topic ban since it has been more than three months since it was put into effect. If you want to appeal, you'll need to explain how your understanding of notability has improved. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
If its duration is over then why and how its still effective? And where to appeal?. JogiAsad Talk 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Galobtter. I was just about to post more or less the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a link to that, TBanned for deletion discussion. If its duration is over then why and how its still effective? And where to appeal?. JogiAsad Talk 18:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Your TBan did not have an expiration date which means it is indefinite until/unless lifted. The three months was the minimum time you needed to wait before appealing. Here (WP:AN) is probably the best place to appeal. I would suggest opening a new thread explicitly identified in the title as a TBan appeal, though I leave that to you. See Galobtter's comment above. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
okay, thanks, now tell me how and where to appeal? JogiAsad Talk 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
JogiAsad, appeal by creating a new section on this page, asking for the topic ban to be lifted with an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but you might want to keep your eye on Christine Blasey Ford during this week. Will be deeply in the news in a way that makes it prone for conflict.Casprings (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It's extended-confirmed protected until 18 October, so hopefully there won't be too much disruption. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
There is some pretty silly stuff going on over at her high school too. Holton-Arms School. It's semi protected, but there's non constructive foruming going on from an IP at the talk and I expect it will all start up again once protection lifts later this week. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Brett Kavanaugh is also worth watching (and my request for ECP there was declined). This whole area is likely to be worse than WP:ARBAPDS normally is for the next week, admins be warned: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
What's the circle of Hell for POV-pushers, edit warrers and BLP violators? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course, this entire suite of Kavanaugh related articles are subject to high levels of disruptive editing right now. That is why we have various levels of protection. Once the controversy is settled, one way or another, the politically motivated edits will recede, and the actual encyclopedists among us will clean up all these articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Fucking hell. Why do people feel the need to write "biographies" about people in the news? Half of this article is about the Kavanaugh nomination and of course the article was only started this week. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Because if they don't the appeals to lack of critical thinking that are at the heart of the manipulation of American Politics do not work. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Because the article clearly meets WP:N and I wanted to. Do you not want an encyclopedia that is up to date? Moreover, the article seems both useful in WP:10YT and a lot easier to "clean up" then starting from nothing.Casprings (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, newspapers and TV news programs are "up to date", an encyclopedia is supposed to have a somewhat less immediate perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
No, Casprings, I don't want an encyclopedia that is "up to date", because clearly from the context of your statement, what you mean is "up to the minute". As BMK said, we are supposed to take a longer view. Don't you realize, that due to our insane business model, we have put every other encyclopedia out of business, save one (Britannica, and they're now controlled by a major university and hence, neutrality questionable). And it's permanent. We have very low production costs, very low distribution costs and zero labor costs. No one can complete with that. We have a responsibility to replace what we killed. No one knows the facts on this subject we are discussing here yet. But we're cranking articles out on it. Bits are getting added to existing articles about it. It's all sourced to news, and all of that is PRIMARY, and hence not encyclopedic content. You know, I can smack a golf ball over a quarter mile with a baseball bat. I can do it over and over again until I run out of golf balls. But no matter how many times I do it, that baseball bat will never ever be a golf club. It's well past time we stop using our very powerful baseball bat as a golf club. It's irresponsible. Period. John from Idegon (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon A few points on this. First, it is far easier to make a good article if you start with a developed article. Of course we don't know the all the facts yet. Britannica doesn't know all the facts of any article it developed either. You always take in more information and refine. But they had something to start with and decide how new information fits into the an article. Is it harder or easier to develop an article five years from now or now when people are interested in editing? You seem to be of the mind that you should let the goal be perfection. I am the mind that wikipedia should be here to serve the reader and having an imperfect article developed now is better then a prefect article five years from now. Second, older encyclopedia were constrained by size. That caused the article list to be picked by a group with their own bias. Here, the question should be simple, are we being useful to the reader? In 10, 20, 50 years, would a researcher at The Trump Library be served by the article? Moreover, they might be served by looking at how the article evolved over time, which would be very possible with wikipedia. In fact, I would argue that we are TOO strict with WP:N, and that researcher would like to have an article Rachel Mitchell (I guess we have that now!) for the same reason. This is far more useful then any older encyclopedia and it isn't a bad thing that they are gone. On your final point on sourcing, better sources can be added over time, but the article has nothing but WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: I reviewed the DRV and was on the fence about snow-closing it as well, given the unanimous 22 endorsements. I probably would have let it play out longer (would feel weird snow closing the review of a snow close), but ultimately closed it early due to your withdrawal and per the unanimous endorsement. --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I archived an WP:ANI thread about Devil's Triangle (disambiguation); it's fully protected for a week but admins may want to watch it in case the current circus goes on longer than that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could it be possible for someone to either add a block on my talk page or tell me how I could do it myself please?, to stop automated bots from posting automated messages, such as "this is an automated message, blah blah blah" when I make a mistake on a page please. It's getting kinda annoying.
Hello L1amw90. Wouldn't it be better to stop making mistakes? Anyway, I'll tell you how you can do it yourself, for most bots. Read the stuff at Template:Bots, then if you agree, add {{nobots}} to the page. I note that a lot of messages to your talk page are not actually bots. Please also consider using the help desk for help. -- zzuuzz(talk) 11:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this page should be a redirect to the article Venky Jois – I don't know why it's blacklisted, apparently. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. As near as I can understand without doing actual research, it was on the title blacklist because of a spammer who has created several pages with the name "Venketasha", but this is related to a different person entirely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
ping Ivanvector who added the entry recently; I reckon that entry should be removed as it has too much collateral (per search 80 matches just in article space meaning an estimated 5-10 creations an year affected, venkatesh being a common name) and as far as I can see the sockpuppets only have created articles at two titles. Or change it to something like .*((C\.R\..*?enkatesh|enkatesh.*?C\.R\.)).*Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Modified as suggested, and thanks for the ping. It might take the servers a while to figure out that something changed. The request here is obviously not related to the spammer I was trying to blacklist, and if someone wants to create a redirect from the incorrect but maybe plausible misspelling, we have {{R from misspelling}} just for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Ok, thanks, didn't notice the difference in spelling. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
After posting a reversal request to Fennec's talk page, they suggested that I bring it here and that they wouldn't object to a reversal if that was the decision. My original request to them was:
"While I understand that the edit from the anonymous account qualifies for deletion under RD3, I would like to request you reverse the deletion due to the source of that edit ( https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/1045422483082551302 ). That this was edited by someone from within the US House of Representatives' domain may be an indication of malfeasance which will need to be readily accessible for official remedies. Hiding the evidence of what was done would make it more difficult to show what was done. Thank you."
Unfortunately, due to anonymous Wikipedia editors using Congressional IPs doxxing people by inserting home addresses and phone numbers into, the CongressEdits twitter account has been suspended, so the referenced tweet is no longer available. This suggests to me that, in addition to the above stated reason, that not hiding these edits would also be in the public interest for people to see what kinds of things are being attempted under cover of anonymity by those in public office.
Respectfully, Blackfyr (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No. Anyone who is actually able to do a meaningful investigation will have no problem obtaining access to the suppressed material. I also have no idea why giving away the home address (I've seen it suggested the phone numbers were fake) is necessary to tell people what happened. There are thousands of news reports which do that, without having to give the specific info. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood what was being requested here especially since the page of concern was only mentioned in the header (which is always confusing). I thought a request was being made to reveal the suppressed edits containing the home addresses (and alleged phone numbers) of some US Senators. It sounds like a request is instead being made to reveal some deleted edits of something more akin to childish vandalism albeit concern a LP and their testimony of what something meant. But I still stick to my main points. There is no reason why this is a barrier to anyone who actually has the ability to investigate. Only network admins of the Congressional network could do that. And I doubt they even need access to the deleted info for the actual investigation anyway. The IP and time are still there. It's unlikely the precise edit details would help them identify the culprit. The precise edit details may be necessary for any disciplinary or legal action, but again, if they really need that info it's unlikely there will be any barrier to them requesting it. And again what happened here has been covered at least at a basic level in news sources (albeit fewer). Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit in question is surely this one (the link is not really admin only as it's splashed all over all the mainstream media). Although the stated reasons for restoring can be disputed, it's questionable under RD3, IMO. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The same argument (that anyone able to investigate will have access to the suppressed material) surely applies to home addresses also! When, exactly, did information that used to get thrown onto your porch in a plastic bag every year in a phone book turn into Classified Top Secret??? You want to throw away Wikipedia's pretensions to transparency let alone open community decision-making over the presumed inability of the common prole to find out a famous person's address? Really? Wnt (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
WP takes Doxing very seriously. Probably because many of the people on WP like to use pseudonyms and would rather not have their friends and bosses know what they do on WP, or getting harassed in real life for edits made to WP. Also we respect people's privacy to keep such information private if they choose to (which you could also exclude your name from the white/yellow pages in the past). So the world might not care about finding a famous person's address, but WP does. -Obsidi (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's just be clear that this is not suppressed material, nor private information. The exact text can be found with a simple Google search for Devil's triangle. -- zzuuzz(talk) 03:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Doxing of the senators addresses that occurred above should be suppressed. But this edit wasn't that, and I agree with the admin below that unredaction is appropriate here. -Obsidi (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
These edits were redacted using RD2 and RD3 as justification. RD2 allows redaction in the case of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material... slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." I would argue that this edit does not even remotely rise to the level of RD2; it's quite tame. It's borderline uncivil, but certainly nothing more than ordinary incivility. RD3 allows redaction in the case of "purely disruptive material", including "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks," and various types of links to inappropriate/disruptive web pages. None of that is happening here, the edit is simply a sarcastic restatement of something that was said during a Senate hearing and reported widely in the news.
Furthermore, as pointed out previously, the content of the redacted edit has already been published in various news articles. So, not only is this redaction outside of WP process, it was performed far too late to be effective.
The argument about facilitating a potential investigation is a red herring; there is no WP redaction policy that prevents redaction in the case of a potential investigation. However, there is also no WP redaction policy that applies to the edit in question here. Therefore, I have reverted this redaction. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sensitive Admins might want to revdel some recent stuff, I really couldn't care less. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 10:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Done I'm not a sensitive admin, but we don't need low rent vandalism like this in the histories of BLP articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
As there seems to be a steady stream of vandalism (much of it misogynist) affecting this article, I've also applied pending changes to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
From the lazy-ass CheckUser whose principal failing was not blocking the user earlier: there's nothing more to do here. Drmies, thank you for fixing my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bbb23 has banned be from further editing a page here. He has given no reason for his action, which was delivered to me in a highly aggressive manner. For that reason alone, I am owed an explanation. I will not accept being told yet again that I apparently do not know what Administrators do here, because I have triple checked. I know for a fact that what he has done is absolutely unnacceptable (the lack of explanation, not the ban). I would not be surprised, however, given the entire context (me daring to question the fitness of another Administrator, from the low status as the outsider), that my complaint will be ignored. It should not be ignored, since the effect of Bbb23's ban was to also remove yet more evidence provided by me that the Administrator in question does not know the difference between an objective fact and a widely held opinion. Without checking, I am assuming that trait is not desirable in Administrators here. But if it is deemed too controversial to be heard, so be it. I would appreciate that being confirmed as the reason, or indeed being given any reason at all. But if no reason can be found, then the ban is out of order and should be lifted. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is probably permitted under discretionary sanctions. It's also permitted since you're a single-purpose account who is certainly bludgeoning that discussion, and possibly trolling or socking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I’ve asked the OP how he came to be involved at the MfD discussion. After he claimed to represent a Wikipedia outsider view, I think he should explain himself and disclose his previous editing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AttackTheMoonNow, your account, since creation, has done nothing except to, first, make thirteen comments to the discussion in question, and then argue over being told to knock it off. It appears that your account was created explicitly to participate in that discussion, which violates our policies on sockpuppetry, as "alternative" accounts are not permitted to participate in project space discussions. In the future, please log in to your primary account to participate in any project space discussion. I would not be averse to blocking this account as a likely sock. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There are twenty six instances of "pants" in that discussion, if we are really going to be entertaining the idea I have broken some imaginary limit. Yes, my interest is singular, and no, you have not shown how this is a problem. Just like you have not shown I am a sock. But if you people believe you don't need to explain the reason for a page ban, then perhaps no explanations for any of these smears is required either? It takes no effort to understand what this is really about. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)]
It takes no effort, indeed. It is clearly about your ego, and ain't nobody got time for that. General IzationTalk 02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone else would be averse to your doing so. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Even if socking can't be proven, virtually every edit they have made violates some part of our civility policy, and they've yet to make a single useful contribution, despite making 18 edits so far. Just block them per WP:NOTHERE, because building an encyclopedia is clearly the last thing on their mind.
Yawn. How many times do we have to read the same diatribe? Repetition is not process. WP:BLUDGEON. O3000 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I figure he's got about one more useless process-wankery comment before someone else does the deed. To be clear: no amount of attacking other editors will justify your own behavior, Mr. MoonNow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please do a WP:NOTHERE block. Settling scores on an MfD page is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Support block and striking this user's comments on the MfD. It is good to have other POVs but I have seen these comments as disruptive from the beginning - calling for JzG to be de-sysoped. Let actual editors give their opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
So ordered. Well, the block, not the striking of comments. That's, like, real work. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Their comments actually serve a valuable purpose as a litmus test for whether JzG's essay is right or not, and this "editor" certainly demonstrated the truths in the essay. Therefore I suggest striking, rather than deleting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
IMO this can be closed with the editor blocked and looking likely to lose talk page access. If anyone feels their comments should be removed, this is probably best discussed elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The real question from the beginning has been, why haven't the lazy-ass CUs done the needful for this fine fellow instead of just sitting back and collecting their exorbitant salaries? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
How about if they agree to a 90% salary cut for their failings? Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, in cases like this I can assure you the account has been checked multiple times, but likely with inconclusive result(s). That alone does not mean this could not be a returning user, but without technical evidence obviously a different block reason would need to be chosen, and there was plenty to choose from, so I was surprised to find out a lot of airtime has been offered. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't like defending the lazy-ass CUs, but in this case YOU WERE WRONG and collectively we are suing you for defamation. I think the libel laws are way too lax, and the failing Wikipedia Signpost should report on that. Covfefe. My lawyer will take a bullet for me. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
endorse block' Having a disagreeable (to some) POV is one thing, being disagreeable obnoxiously noxious about it (from a throwaway account) is another.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the cleanup of pages created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016 done yet? I have never seen any articles in the relevant speedy deletion category, so can it be deprecated, since per WP:XCSD, Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed.SemiHypercube✎ 01:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe it is no longer needed only after the work on this page has been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have not seen any X2 deletions lately. Has the cleanup been finished or has no one bothered to delete the pages recently? I wasn't around when this happened, and I'm not sure if the community thinks the situation has been solved now. In my opinion, once deletions have stopped, the criterion is no longer needed. funplussmart (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think everything has been done that is going to be done. But this was not a well thought-out procedure: There was very substantial disagreement on standards among the various people screening these, and a good many articles were actually kept after discussion, fixed to varying extents. If we need to do something of the sort again, we shouldn't try to shoehorn it into speedy, which is supposed to work very differently: for the other criteria, deleting admins almost always agree with each other. Speedy is not for situations where reasonable people will disagree. To a lesser degree we had problems with X1--there was not really agreement in practice about which articles were worth rescuing. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems clear that there is broad agreement that there is a problem here. Where differences come in is in the details. Many of those opposed would prefer a topic ban, but it has been made clear that this would be functionally equivalent to a block so that option is basically moot. Others disagree with the logged reason for the block. That may be a fair criticism, but it does not excuse the problematic behaviors. Therefore, in the interest of not being needlessly beuracratic, the simplest solution, which is widely supported here, is to leave the block in place. If Gorrila Warfare wishes to change the logged reason for the block in response to this discussion she is of course welcome to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:TaylanUB has been indef blocked by User:GorillaWarfare for the logged reason "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" and with a block message comment "Your transphobia is not welcome here". The resulting unblock appeal has attracted significant comment, and I think it is one that should not be left to an individual admin to decide but should be referred to the community. As a strong supporter of gender-based equality and one who abhors gender-based bigotry (whether anatomical, genetic, cultural, psychological (which itself is at least partly genetic and/or partly cultural) or whatever), I clearly can not decide this for myself - and I don't think any individual admin should. I think it needs community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment. (edit conflict) This is the controversial edit summary. I don't support blocking TERFs for being TERFs, but we should have some consensus on mainspace disruption. wumbolo^^^ 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, on a purely formal ground - the user has been here for quite a while, reasonably active, once dragged for ANI without any consequences, couple of times warned - once for edit-warring, once for pushing an agenda, but this is about it, unless I am missing smth. An indef block is the last resort, not the first resort, no? To me, unless it was a very specific horrible policy violation, which was not referenced in the block notice, the case does not match WP:NOTTHERE. I blocked a lot of people per WP:NOTTHERE, and these are typically POV pushers who drive by the articles replacing India with Pakistan or smth like this. If they manage to stay under the radar, they can only get discovered after several hundred edits and still be blocked per WP:NOTTHERE, but here we clearly have a very different case. Not all POV edors are NOTHERE, and this one does not look to me like the case where the first block must have been indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this falls somewhere in the realm of WP:POINT better than NOTHERE. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to the administrators that, if the indef block seems excessive, a topic-ban from all gender-related articles and discussions might achieve the needed effect. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment - This user has been a problem, needlessly TENDENTIOUS, BATTLEGROUND ([144], [145], [146]), and otherwise offensive on transgender/TERF articles. I don't have a solid opinion on how best to handle this user's behavior, but I feel it is necessary to show how disruptive this user has been (imho). Examples include:
Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem. See also [148]
Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we. See also [165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172]
Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women.
While pushing against the status quo and challenging POVs is healthy and useful to Wikipedia, there is a point where it moves from healthy to crusading. EvergreenFir(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What? Providing diffs of behavior is exactly what AN encourages; it's not battleground at all. GorillaWarfare(talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Providing fewer diffs encourages better judgment, while alleging that every policy was broken only leads to wasting time arguing the weaker points. wumbolo^^^ 21:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: I appreciate parsimony but I wished to demonstrate the widespreadness (#makingitaword) of the issue. These are not cherry-picked diffs to try to paint a user in a bad light. My first set of diffs was from TaylanUB's last 100 edits. But it seems odd to claim I'm being BATTLEGROUND about this... EvergreenFir(talk) 00:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
How does that make sense? Taylan's words speak for herself; she dug this hole, she can lay in it. It's very clearly battleground.--Jorm (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jorm: Quick note but per Taylan's userpage I believe he is male. GorillaWarfare(talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: ah but we know that she doesn't seem to have a problem misgendering people, so, you know.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not battleground to defend yourself against inaccurate comments, if no one else attempts to defend you. wumbolo^^^ 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
endorse block for disruption and pointiness Thanks, EvergreenFir for refreshing my memory. I'd gone cross-eyed looking at the user talk page earlier. I think the point is the user refuses to follow the MOS that the community agreed upon regarding transgender issues. Though the user is quite eloquent in many ways, including claiming victimization, the problem and the reason for the block is some sort of WP:NOTHERE or POV pushing agenda, and willingness to do battle to rewrite Wikipedia to their personal taste and against consensus. While the block may have been seen as premature and precipitous, it also comes after a log period of strife. And that this has gone on so long w/o remedy is no reason not to effect remedy now. I see no problem in unblocking if the user agrees to leave aside transgender issues, stop POV pushing, and conform to/accept the MOS, or if the user agrees to a WP:TBAN on transgender in particular.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Addendum TBAN if unblocked.' TBH, I think an unblock will just be asking for more trouble, but a TBAN might slow it down.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse per the pile of evidence presented by EvergreenFir. Tag, bag, and move on. Nihlus 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Of this editor's ≈450 edits, far too many contain disruptive conduct in mainspace or elsewhere. The appeal was unconvincing. Endorse.AGK ■ 20:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any specific receipts/examples regarding the claim that I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles unbalanced? For instance, how big of a role do my edits regarding the incident at Speaker's Corner relate to this, if any? (Or is your claim meant very broadly, such that citing individual edits or even topics would not be useful?) As for my alleged "consistent use of incorrect pronouns for trans subjects," can you please confirm that this has actually happened more than a single time, which was within an edit summary? As far as I remember, the only time I used wrong pronouns as per MOS:GENDERID for a trans person was in an edit summary in which I referred to Tara Wolf with male pronouns. Can you clarify to what degree MOS:GENDERID or the whole Manual of Style applies to edit summaries? (My assumption up so far was that the MOS applies only to article bodies.) Regarding "dehumanizing people," could you show any examples in which you've perceived me as doing this?
(end first comment)
(start second comment)
For anyone who considers a topic ban: please reconsider. There is fairly good evidence that there is a repeated pattern of bias in transgender related articles, in favor of the positions of transgender activists. For instance, I recently restored some documentation on my user page of repeated, persistent attempts to remove from the page Feminist views on transgender topics a very well-cited case, with significant media representation, of a transgender activist having assaulted a feminist in a public gathering. Further, shortly before my block some editors started edit warring with me with the claim that what happened was not an assault, even though reliable sources confirm that the case was one of assault and that the assailant was eventually convicted for "assault by beating". (References: [173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180]) Currently the page Feminist views on transgender topics once again calls the incident an "altercation" rather than an "assault". My behavior which others have called "disruptive" or "tendentious" has often been based on this repeated pattern of bias that I was in fact struggling against. This struggle is made especially difficult as multiple editors are involved in supporting the positions of transgender activists.
A second case study: the page trans woman starts by defining a transwoman as "a woman who was assigned male at birth." I've proposed to change this to "a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman." The proposed wording is neutral, avoids contradicting the first sentence of the article woman as well as common English dictionaries, and is better supported by reliable sources as you can see on the talk page. In the RfC poll you can see on the talk page, it won the majority of votes with a small margin. Despite this, my past attempts at changing the article to use that wording have been strictly opposed and my behavior called disruptive. The ordeal ended in the massive RfC debate you see.
I would conclude that my behavior is perceived as disruptive because I insist on neutrality, balance, and objectivity, in areas that make some editors uncomfortable due to our deep differences in ideology. I expressly do not want Wikipedia to have an unbalanced presentation of the subject matter, even in favor of the ideologies I support, because that would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia's "take" on the matter. There are enough platforms out there for a one-sided representation, and I use them when I feel the need; the point of Wikipedia as I understand it is that people can get a hopefully completely impartial representation of the subject matter and make up their own minds.
(end second comment)
Thanks again. Taylan (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to add the following point-by-point response to EvergreenFir. This might be somewhat long-winded again, but I think it's important, especially since the AN entry is fresh and those reading it might not know any of the surrounding context.
(start comment)
Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman.
Indeed, I personally find gender identity ideology offensive, because it reduces "woman" and "man" to sexist stereotypes in my view. I have personally been severely hurt by the collateral damage sex stereotypes cause men, so this is personal to me too. I am, I believe, entitled to this opinion. I believe I did not try to bring undue representation of this opinion into Wikipedia articles.
Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem.
I think this is a misrepresentation of what I've said. I said that I personally find it very difficult to use female pronouns for Tara Wolf, since they as a male-bodied person have committed something I see as supporting male supremacy (or "patriarchy"): the use of physical assault against a politically dissenting female-bodied person. I did not comment on the appropriateness of using male pronouns for transwomen in general, especially not within Wikipedia articles. For instance I don't think I ever breached MOS:GENDERID, unless it applies to edit summaries, which if it does I was not aware of at the time and did once.
Accusing bad faith of other editors.
I have been called a POV-pusher, disruptive, tendentious, a bigot, a transphobe, and worse, for insisting on bringing well-sourced material into Wikipedia with due representation. (The most extreme case is documented in my user page. Thank you EvergreenFir for having dealt with the abusive person back then.) I honestly have to admit that it has become very difficult for me to genuinely assume good faith in all instances, especially when I'm being egged on.
Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women.
Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we.
As stated above and explained in the links you provided, I indeed find gender identity ideology offensive, and I believe I'm entitled to this opinion. Leaving my opinion aside, the statement that transwomen are women is not one supported by reliable sources, as was revealed in the discussion on the talk page of trans woman. Rather, it represents a dispute and a political position as evidenced by the Pew poll you mention. (Here: [181]) Are you implying that Wikipedia should take a side on this dispute? Note that I'm not disputing MOS:GENDERID, which is about pronoun use.
BLP violations
I sincerely don't understand how what you linked falls under BLP violations, especially since it was an expression of personal opinion on a talk page. Regarding whether it was wrong to use male pronouns for Tara Wolf in an edit summary, I've already asked for clarification.
Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women
I feel that this is a particularly unfair and pernicious misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else on the Internet nor in real life, that I see transgender people or transwomen as a particular danger to anyone. What I do occasionally point out is that women have no reason to believe, without evidence, that a specific subset of male-bodied people should be intrinsically more trustworthy than the general population of male-bodied people, especially when the only unifying aspect of said subset is a verbal declaration that they make about themselves. (That is, the expression "I'm a woman/transwoman". In the discussion you link I've provided some citations to back the claim that this declaration is the sole requirement for being considered a transwoman nowadays.) And please remember that I'm a male-bodied person myself, lest somebody start thinking that I'm discriminating against male-bodied people in general.
By the way, I'd like to point out that as mentioned here, there are several transgender/transsexual individuals (some prefer "transsexual") who are on the "same side" in this debate as me. For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women. I'm especially a fan of Kathleen Stock for her eloquent speaking.
(end comment)
Thank you. Taylan (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The block was based on your overall pattern of conduct, not just a handful of recent edits. Even the most brief look through your contributions show you've been here to push your various opinions on feminism (TERF, anti-pornography) etc. since day one. As for using the wrong pronouns, yes, it was outside of just one edit summary (for example: [182]). You're probably right that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to edit summaries, but BLP still does. And the "dehumanizing" comment was meant to summarize your campaign of arguing that trans people should not be referred to by their correct pronouns.
As a side note, you've already been encouraged to keep your replies reasonably brief on your talk page. A comment like this (or set of comments, I guess) that's longer than the entire discussion so far is a lot to sift through. GorillaWarfare(talk) 21:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
"For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women." These two groups have been described as "anti-trans" by reliable sources: [183][184] --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Lots of diffs, but certainly - in my opinion - this one is worth either an indef or at least a TBAN from gender-related articles. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse, NOT per the WP:POV railroad presented above or the lengthy user talk page discussion or because plenty of editors believe TERFs are a hate group or similar, but per Black Kite. wumbolo^^^ 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose indef at this time but support 30-day warning block. The incivility in Black Kite's example is clear. I think it is quite healthy for Wikipedia to have a TERF editing gender articles but not like this. Unfortunately, Taylan continues with the walls of text and not acknowledging any wrongdoing. Conversation with Taylan doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I would give him a chance to think about it, come back in 30 days, and explain that he understands the problem or at least understands that the behavior won't be tolerated here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Re DIYeditor's comment just above: An indef is exactly correct and the user is welcome to think about it, come back in 30 days, and offer their understanding of the problem and how they would avoid it in the future if an appeal was successful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose indef, support topic-ban. Wikipedia is supposed to be based upon a system of warnings and escalating blocks, targeting problematic behavior. Jumping straight to the extreme measure of indefinite block is excessive. Carrite (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It seems to me that he was blocked for misgendering in an edit summary. People may dislike his view on transgender, but that doesn't mean that is WP:NOTHERE or POV pushing an agenda. I would note that almost all of the cited edits above were edits to his own talk page in which I believe he is free to express his own opinions and stating such opinions on his talk page is not POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Regardless of the proper boundary of Talk page freedom of expression, the evidence of Taylan's POV pushing is all over Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics, Talk:Trans woman and the related discussion on NPOVN; indeed, the history of each page to which Taylan has made a contribution is marked by his singular POV. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I would remind you that per WP:POVPUSHThe term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. He is free to express his opinions on what the most appropriate way to discuss the topic in mainspace on the talk pages and try to build consensus around his viewpoint. He is not free to push his POV into mainspace against consensus. -Obsidi (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I would note obviously you are highly involved in these edits given he was reverting your edits, but lets discuss them directly. On the second group of edits, it looks to me like you have a dispute concerning WP:SPS vs WP:SELFPUB. I wouldn't say that constitutes POV pushing, I've gotten into my own disputes over that before, for some reason people think that selfpublished sources can never be used. The first set is worse. There is a clear push into the article on that even after it was reverted and someone objected to it on WP:DUE grounds without first getting consensus. He did discuss this on the talk page, which I give him credit for, but still this was an aggressive move by him to re-add this. A pattern of this kind of behavior (over more than just one edit) is what I would be looking for to prove POV pushing, but one instance wouldn't do it for me (and even then I think a TBAN from that topic area would be more appropriate if you proved he was a POV pusher). -Obsidi (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I was involved in the first example I gave above, but not in the second. Perhaps the clearest example of Taylan's PUSH behaviour, though, is the following (in which I was peripherally INVOLVED: I made a mistake which I then immediately self-reverted). Taylan insisted in this case that his non-consensus text stay in place while the Talk discussion continued.[189][190][191][192] While not a 3RR volation, to me this is clearly BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE behaviour. Note that Taylan has quite recently indicated that he considered himself to be in the right on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Obsidi: Wikipedia certainly gives more leeway on user talk pages, but people are regularly blocked for offensive or trolling behavior on those pages. Users do not have license to be racist, for example, especially in regard to living people who have articles on this site. I'm not sure NOTHERE indef is here best response, but I don't get the sense Taylan is HERE to create a good encyclopedia... just one that comports with his worldview. EvergreenFir(talk) 04:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No one should be removed for merely stating something "offensive" as Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED and so may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Trolling is a different story obviously and would violate WP:CIVIL among others, but I don't get the impression that he is what he is trying to do. -Obsidi (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Feminists with exclusionary views have been referred to as "TERFs" (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). They generally object to the acronym[1] and have called it a slur or even hate speech.[2]>[3].
And from the second footnote:
"If “TERF” were a term that conveyed something purposeful, accurate, or useful, beyond simply smearing, silencing, insulting, discriminating against, or inciting violence, it could perhaps be considered neutral or harmless. But because the term itself is politically dishonest and misrepresentative, and because its intent is to vilify, disparage, and intimidate, as well as to incite and justify violence against women, it is dangerous and indeed qualifies as a form of hate speech. While women have tried to point out that this would be the end result of “TERF” before, they were, as usual, dismissed. We now have undeniable proof that painting women with this brush leads to real, physical violence. If you didn’t believe us before, you now have no excuse. - Meghan E. Murphy (September 21, 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current.
The phrase "You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
If your going to quote an edit summery link to it so people can see it for themselves [193] -Obsidi (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
And Calton, you are providing a really good example of why opinion vehicles should not be used as sources for facts and their findings can not be presented in WIkipedia's voice. You have just cited the opinion of a FRINGE source as "fact". This has been one result of Taylan's fairly tireless editing on his chosen single topic. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Obsidi: continuing with the racism parallel, NOTCENSORED still doesn't mean you get to promote racist stuff or say racist things repeatedly on your user page. @Calton: check that article's edit history maybe? EvergreenFir(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Which covers most racist statements. For statements not attacking editors/people/entities the statements cannot just be offensive, but must be extremely offensive on the order of promotion of Nazism or pro-pedophilia advocacy before the rules kick in to prohibit them. -Obsidi (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Stated reason for block not supported by compelling evidence. Also indeffing someone for WP:NOTHERE (thats a supplement, not a policy), not to mention labelling them transphobic, is both heavy-handed and a violation of WP:NPA. TERF is also a well-documented slur for those editors who are casually throwing it around. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse (largely per AGK) but also support a topic ban on editing trans topics as a more long-term solution, as other editors suggested above. In cases like this where an editor has a long history of bias, a temporary block (whether lifted now or appealed in time as some suggest above) often only trains the user to "civilly POV-push". A topic ban would allow the editor to return and edit the encyclopedia, assuming that is indeed what he is here for, outside the problem area. (Editors who have only commented about the block, how do you feel about a topic ban?) -sche (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be ok with a TBAN on trans topics for 6 months or so. That would push him to edit other topics for a while, if he isn't a 1 topic POV pusher. My only problem with that is I don't much like adding bans unless I have seen clearly wrongful behavior. But it should satisfy those that claim he is a POV pusher. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Weird block rationale that I don't believe applies. The user responds to comments, however much one might disagree with them. This is basically a content dispute block. Arkon (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm fine with the block being replaced with a topic ban, but did want to point out that TaylanUB has said a topic ban from transgender-related topics would have the same effect as a permanent block[194]. GorillaWarfare(talk) 23:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment Regardless of your political views, willfully misgendering people is petty and disrespectful, and it inevitably raises questions about an editor's ability to edit neutrally on articles dealing with trans people. I know these are old diffs, but I'd really like to hear some kind of explanation for this pair of edits:
this - why this pointless mention of Tara Wolf in connection with another protest?
this why did you include "AKA" and then add another name for Tara Wolf (not quoting here because I'm not sure if it needs to be oversighted)? This name doesn't appear in the cited source, or any of the mainstream coverage that I can find. Googling that name led me to a pair of indisputably transphobic websites which appear to be primarily dedicated to doxxing trans people.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that the second edit, taken alongside your apparent hostility toward Wolf, scares the shit out of me. It smacks of an effort to publicize the name of an trans person who you obviously dislike. I'm trying to assume good faith, but what encyclopedic purpose could possibly be served by adding this apparently non-public personal identifying information here? Nblundtalk 23:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
edit it appears that the original edit cited this article. After it was reverted, Taylan restored it with a new source but without changing any of the text. I don't know if this changes my point, since the cited Feminist Current article is also incredibly disrespectful and non-reliable, and since adding a first middle and last legal name for this person still serves no purpose other than to further publicize their identity. Nblundtalk 23:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The original source also used "(also known as full <first middle last name>)," so he may have just been following the original source. This was NOT her prior male name prior to transitioning, which would have been a much bigger problem. I don't consider he did to be a problem per WP:BLPPRIVACYWikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources -Obsidi (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"widely published by reliable sources" - can you find this name in any reliable source? Mainstream press coverage appears to exclusively use the name Tara Wolf (ex, ex). Citing this screed for BLP-related material is a problem in and of itself, but Taylan even restored the name after dropping the source. It was widely reported that Wolf expressed a fear of being doxxed on hate sites. She specifically mentioned Gender Identity Watch, which happens to be the second site that pops up when I Google that other name. Accidental or no, this is not okay. Nblundtalk 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you think Daily Caller is a reliable source for a BLP? A Telegraph editorial and a Morning Star Online article (which actually deadnames Wolf) probably don't constitute "wide coverage in reliable sources", and there's still zero encyclopedic purpose for including both names. Nblundtalk 16:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse per the mountain of diffs. A user who's dead set on pushing a hateful POV, and wantonly violating BLP and other policies along the way, isn't a user we want here. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 01:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Support: indeed, the evidence is pretty compelling that the editor is "not here" to improve the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. This whole issue isn't as obviously black-and-white as is being painted. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
endorse we all have work to do here, and dealing with a person who is a) committed to working in a given topic and b) also committed to fighting broad and deep community consensus about how we edit on that topic, is a timesink for people who understand how to work in a community and want to work on building content. Not to mention everybody else when it hits the drama boards, as it is inevitably does. This is a behavior issue, not a content issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
endorse per the diffs above. If unblocked, I support a TBAN or a 1RR restriction. Vermont (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
^Goldberg, Michelle (August 4, 2014). "What Is a Woman?". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 20, 2015. TERF stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." The term can be useful for making a distinction with radical feminists who do not share the same position, but those at whom it is directed consider it a slur.
^Meghan E. Murphy (September 21, 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current. If "TERF" were a term that conveyed something purposeful, accurate, or useful, beyond simply smearing, silencing, insulting, discriminating against, or inciting violence, it could perhaps be considered neutral or harmless. But because the term itself is politically dishonest and misrepresentative, and because its intent is to vilify, disparage, and intimidate, as well as to incite and justify violence against women, it is dangerous and indeed qualifies as a form of hate speech. While women have tried to point out that this would be the end result of "TERF" before, they were, as usual, dismissed. We now have undeniable proof that painting women with this brush leads to real, physical violence. If you didn't believe us before, you now have no excuse.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org).
No violation and 
Not blocked, especially when it comes to preventing a recurring problem. Bright☀ 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Administrator changes
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Checking... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
Resolved
Doing... Regards SoWhy 15:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 13:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved from WT:AN
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes