Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive312

Identifying admins

Shouldn't it be possible to identify admins at a glance, by either looking at their User page or Global account information? soibangla (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I believe you can access the "View User Groups" link on the left toolbar. It isn't necessarily the easiest to read, but it gives you the information with one click. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Also, you can use this script to automatically highlight user names that have sysop rights. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  That script changed my life, hyperbolically speaking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I use WP:POP which tells me people's userrights on mouseover. —Kusma (t·c) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)33333

  That's a wonderful script, thank you for telling me about it! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nice, thanks! soibangla (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be a clearer way to distinguish admins from non-admins. I've on multiple occasions been confused as to who has admin-status and who doesn't, in particular so when I was a new editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is visible in Global account information (example). You have to look at their contributions and the link is at the bottom of the page. I also mostly use popups, which shows all the user groups as well as some other info. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  We should all stylishly add "admin" to our signatures.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  With a big red blinking light clown nose. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. Adminship is no big deal. You should treat everyone with the same respect you would treat an admin (or an arb, or a 'crat etc.). You should treat arguments on their merits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC).
  

That's not what I'm suggesting. Rather, I am aware that there are some long-time editors who attempt to intimidate others, especially newcomers, otten by invoking certain esoteric WP arcana. Their ability to do this would be diminished if others could readily see they are not admins. soibangla (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does this mean we could have 'Crats gilded in gold, Arbs with peacemaker tags and Stewards with Fasces? Only Oversighters (with their creepy ass logo) would go unmarked, hiding in plain sight, the watchers in the dark. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Rich Farmbrough. If administrator status was visible instantly, it would change the perceptions of less experienced editors when interacting with admins on routine content matters. Unless someone is acting in an administrative role, they should be perceived as just another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• It would also be a big neon (I guess there might be a way to make it flash as well) "please come troll me" sign. Admins get enough of that without advertising it to those who revel in that sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Rich Farmbrough (and others here) that clear, obvious identification of admins would not be helpful to editors. I know I identify more as a common editor and an admin secondly. I put my admin hat on when needed but mostly I work in the poppy fields of articles. That said, I expect admins to be familiar with WP policies/guidelines and invoke them knowledgeably in discussions on boards like this one when necessary. When admins aren't familiar, I want to know that info. Many non-admin editors who participate here are fluent in policy nuance as well; some are not. It's a mixed bag. Trolling of admins, as MarnetteD said, is always a problem. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• My experience is just the opposite, the highlighting of admins name in light blue has been extremely helpful, and stopped the necessity of looking at an editor's user rights to find out if they're an admin or not. It's all automatic, and it's great. I was greatly exaggerating when I said above that it changed my life, but it has been very, very helpful to me. I recommend it highly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, I wasn't aware of the highlighter until this discussion so I added it a few hours ago. It is useful in adding a level of info to reading discussions here. It is another tool to parse back-and-forth exchanges and points. I like that part. I do worry that it might, as someone said above, lead to bias. I know I want to be fair in my evaluation of arguments (and I think I am) because we're editors trying to make the 'pedia work. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just FYI I use this script and it works well for me for this exact purpose. N.J.A. | talk 02:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• What Mark (and others) said. I am not always acting as an admin here: sometimes because I am INVOLVED at a particular page, and often because I am just being a content contributor like anybody else. If I had an "admin" tag on my signature it would appear that I am trying to intimidate others, or imply that my opinion matters more than other people's. The various scripts that have been mentioned here are wonderful for knowing who you are dealing with (established editor, newbie, admin or whatever). But we should not flout our status in everyone's face. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: I echo your sentiments. When editing articles and their talk pages, I leave my admin hat off. I'm an editor trying to improve articles and when in conflict, we try to work it out on the talk page. I never mention being an admin and work like any other editor, on structure, wording, and citations. Sometimes, though, another editor notices I'm an admin and reacts with some variant of ODD. Hilarious hijinks ensue. On these boards, the scripts are very useful. Now I realize how many admins are participating here I didn't know were admins. I like knowing who wields the mop and bucket. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I use the adminhighlighter but you may want to add this to your common.css:

  a.userhighlighter_sysop.userhighlighter_sysop { background-color: rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.25) !important; border-top: .05em dashed rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.5); border-bottom: .05em dashed rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.5); }

  a.userhighlighter_sysop.mw-changeslist-title { background-color: transparent !important; border-color: transparent !important; }

  That said, I do not believe that the default for users should be "show admins" specifically for the reasons cited by Rich and Cullen.--Jorm (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  If anyone is interested, I created a fork of adminhighlighter, User:Galobtter/adminhighlighter.js that uses that nicer css and also caches the list of admins, so the highlighting happens much faster upon page load. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• As to the original question, most administrators (9 of 10 I just randomly checked from ActiveUsers) do put Category:Wikipedia_administrators on their userpage (the 10'th had plain text that said something like "I am an administrator"), 6 of 10 used an administrator topicon as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• (two edit conflicts later ...) There is a template, {{Administrator topicon}} that puts an icon at the top right of the page to which it is affixed; see User:Ceyockey as an example. I'm of the opinion that every Admin should have this template on their User page. As for adminship being 'no big deal' - it's not, up to a point. Reality is that having admin privileges gives one the ability to do things which are completely not possible for standard editors to do from a technical point of view. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion for their userpages. However it would be unwise to highlight admin signatures by default, as it would create a them-and-us feeling, especially amongst new editors. That said, I don't think any admin should be permitted to hide their status from those who choose to use scripts like adminhighlighter specifically to identify admin contributions. For example, I dislike the way Lourdes's signature doesn't display their admin status using that script (and have told them so). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You know I am an administrator but dislike that your script doesn't out my status?! Or is it that you feel other editors would be misled into thinking that I am just a normal editor (and that too because they use a script)??! And obeisance to this script should be, as per you, made mandatory? Laughable... (...On an unrelated note, I think your contributions across the project are pretty fine and I would hope you would stand for an RfA sooner than later). Warmly, Lourdes 18:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Answering for myself, I like to know who I'm talking to, and, unfortunately, cannot keep the names of all active admins in my head, so I too would prefer that your name was highlighted by the script. I do not quite understand why you would object to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the pop-up method mentioned above would work well for editors like you who may want to know the admin status of other editors (rather than asking editors to change their signatures so that someone's script would work). Alternatively, you could contact the script maker to include forced highlighting, which would override backgrounds in signatures. But I would not prefer that, as the reality is that I don't want to be highlighted as an admin on a page where I'm interacting with fellow editors. Look at it from the other side – if I tell you that you should ensure that you include all your bits (autopatroller etc) in your signature because "I would want to know the bit status of other editors)", that won't probably cut ice with you. I don't know if you can get the emotion of the statement, but that it. Lourdes 09:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, you are incorrect - I would have absolutely no problem if my user rights were required to be listed in my sig. (I don't collect hats, but I've no trouble shwoing them if I'm required to.) I like the highlighting, and don't particularly like pop-ups. The ability to see -- at a glance -- who is and isn't an admin is what's useful to me. Extremely coincidentally, I was reminded only recently that you were an admin when I was browsing through the chronological successful RfA lists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the coder of the script if forced highlighting is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Lourdes 02:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: You are quite correct: it would indeed be laughable to suggest that an admin should change their signature in order for one particular user-created script to work. But that wasn't quite what I meant, sorry. (that's the danger of one-thumb-editing on a mobile whilst under the sheets, trying not to wake one's partner at 2am!). To answer you questions: Yes, I don't like that the script I happen to use fails to reveal your admin status, but that is absolutely not your fault! I am not suggesting you are trying to mislead anyone about having/not having admin rights. But I don't happen to like how yours fails to display that you are an admin using the one script I have deployed. Maybe you can suggest a better tool to use? Is there any reason you feel justifies why you haven't changed your signature now that I have twice highlighted the issue to you, or do you feel it's better to not reveal your user rights? Mild humour: I do hope you are actually a 'normal editor', even if you also have admin rights but, more seriously, one way or another I would definitely welcome the option to choose to easily show which posts and warnings are from an admin/non-admin without having to resort to going off tangentially to checking the user rights log. So, I would very strongly support this being an option available for all users to select within 'Preferences', if they so wished. But I care not one jot about other user rights being visible in a signature or via a script. My apologies for picking on you as an example; it just happened to be the one that I knew and that irked me. Regarding the unrelated note - thank you - and please see this. (I genuinely welcome any constructive criticism (even off-wiki) at any time that would help me better prepare to serve the community in that role). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll check your talk page link out too. If you need a co-nom, feel free to ask. Thanks, Lourdes 02:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been using the highlighter script for a few days now and am liking it. Previously I just hovered with popups. But I'm finding that having the info there for most admins at a glance is useful. Thank you to everyone involved in developing, testing and refining it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• I found the script helpful before I was an admin. There are several editors here who leap to a final warning to editors making mistakes, threatening to block them. It was useful to me to discover that they were empty threats and were not an admin. I'm not advocating more deference to admins but it is good to be able to see some intimidating messages as just bluster, not an actual threat to block. I still think the warnings should be taken seriously, but they needn't send new editors (and it's almost always warnings to new editors) into a panic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I use the script, and I find it immensely useful, not to judge the behavior by the status of the user, but to judge the user by their behavior. IE if someone is acting out, it's nice to know immediately that their an admin (or bureaucrat, etc). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Saxifrage

We have problem with Saxifrage (talk · contribs), a usually inactive legacy admin who recently closed a thread higher up on this page (Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan) by supervoting a one-way i-ban into existence. A separate thread is open below that closed thread in which numerous editors have oppose the close and none have supported it, yet neither Saxifrage nor any other admin has actually vacated the supervote closure yet. When Buffs, the victim of this administrative overreach, went to Saxifrage's talk page to seek an explanation, he was greeted by a condescending attempt to shut down the discussion. Saxifrage has made at least two unfounded accusations of incivility against Buffs (see [1] and [2]), which are themselves actionable personal attacks. My final attempt to get Saxifrage to vacate the close was denied and meanwhile Saxifrage is content to complain about the way other editors are interacting with him. It's particularly galling to watch an admin abuse their tools, brush off the editor they have victimized, and then complain about how people are being mean to them (you know, by demanding accountability for a clearly bad use of the tools). We should not allow this type of behavior to continue unchecked, so what I would like to know is how to proceed in light of Saxifrage's evident failure to recognize why their actions are not acceptable. Saxifrage also appears unable to properly handle criticism of their administrative actions. Should this be escalated to ArbCom, or is this something we are capable of handling as a community? Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Further note: as I was composing this post, I received this lovely reply from Saxifrage in which he accused me of giving him orders (incorrect) and referred to me as an angry random person. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Please reword your comments and post them at the discussion above about whether to overturn Saxifrage's close. I don't understand why you opened a new thread. After you have "moved" your comments, you should remove this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

On reconsideration, moving your comments probably doesn't make sense. Apparently, you've expanded your objection to Saxifrage's close to an allegation that Saxifrage has abused their tools/administrator authority. You're of course welcome to pursue that here, but my view is that you have no shown any evidence of persistent abuse, which normally is necessary to take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that less evidence is required, or indeed possible, in the case of a largely-inactive admin like Saxifrage. We have: 1) a misuse of the tools, 2) dismissive treatment of the editor punished by the misuse of the tools, 3) failure to heed those pointing out the misuse of the tools, 4) unsupported accusations toward the target of the misuse of the tools, 5) failure to properly distinguish between disagreement and incivility. Saxifrage's actions in this dispute have been troubling, and there is little recent evidence that this a mere lapse in otherwise good judgement. Lepricavark (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been asked several times to take voluntary actions. I have declined. I trust that Wikipedia process will handle things the way they need to be handled, and I have no desire to short-circuit that just because someone repeats a demand that I do. So my demurring causes no problem of process.

The close review is ongoing and I've felt from the beginning should be closed by an uninvolved admin. I don't know why it hasn't been closed yet—perhaps passing admins have looked at it and decided it would be too soon, or that they are not the admin to write an acceptable closing summary. In any case, that's procedure working as intended. I have no interest in doing an end-run of it on demand.

I don't know Lepricavark from the proverbial Adam, and their insistence that I do what they, specifically, tell me I should do just because they've shown up out of the blue on my talk page is clearly silly. I have no intention of subletting adminship to random people showing up to request it, and those who do so angrily make me extra disinclined to do so. Standing firm that I am not obligated to accept requests is within my rights, so there's no problem of interaction there.

We have review processes specifically so that pressure tactics like these can be done away with on Wikipedia. They're harmful to the community and contribute to editing as blood sport rather than editing as a cooperative endeavour.

Additionally, resisting pressure tactics is a responsibility of admins. Anything reserved for administrators must not be given away just for the asking, let alone given away under pressure. I've never compromised my account by bowing to concerted pressure, and I'm not about to start now, especially when there is a process underway already for taking care of the very same thing.

In summary: There are plenty of admins on Wikipedia, and it's unnecessary to personally badger me to do it. Badgering anyone on Wikipedia, admin or otherwise, is bad for the project. Impatience is not permission for poor behaviour. That it isn't necessary nor appropriate to badger a specific admin to take voluntary action seems like it should be self-evident, and should not be controversial when it is stated explicitly. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I think that your supervoting an unjust i-ban into existence is far worse than my perceived badgering which consisted of two posts on your talk page. If you want to talk about things that are bad for the project, cowboy admin conduct is very high on the list. Also, reversing your own decision, especially when it is an incorrect decision, hardly counts as short-circuiting the process. And it's interesting that you admit you don't know me from Adam, yet you are still prepared to make judgments regarding my emotional state. Lepricavark (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia operates on a "two wrongs make a right" principle. Thanks for acknowledging that it's a bad thing to do though. That considerable improves my first impression, if that matters any.

As for "angry", there are ways to request things that don't come off as angry to one's reader. It's not necessary to exclude the middle and grovel (and any admin that expected that shouldn't last!), but there's a awful lot of middle between that and coming in guns blazing (which leading with an ultimatum of capitulate or resign is). I really did mean to comment only on your approach, rather than your state of mind, which you're correct is not accessible to anyone. Minds being inaccessible in text, it is important to acknowledge that our words convey emotion though — as you noted, I have been coming off as pontificating, which you correctly identified as relevant to my posting. (For context, it's partly just how I slide into formality when discussing official things, such as reviews and procedure, and partly an intended tone to emphasise the "I'm really not interested in being pushed around, no really" message.) It didn't help that I had no concessions to offer, as I'd already committed to letting the review proceed independently, which I'm sure was frustrating and made it hard for me to meet you partway and do any of the defusing things that makes arguments smoother.

If this is a review of my adminship, that's fine. That's a concession I can give: many eyes make problems shallow. My account had an admin bit flipped because of community consensus, and the community consensus can unflip it. I trust procedure around here, and part of that is knowing that even if it's never perfect, it slowly approaches that ideal. I do hope that we understand each other a bit better now though, regardless. I'm likely to approach future clerking (if any) with extra caution, regardless of my feelings about my summary, so that's a net benefit, and I hope a useful reassurance. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your inputs and "I'm really not interested in being pushed around, no really" are the problem. Consensus was unanimous that what you did was incorrect. You weren't willing to say "ok, I see your point" or even explain your actions. Your actions are open for review and, if someone asks, you should be able to clarify. It wasn't until 5 admins and a bureaucrat were involved that you provided any clarification...clarification that no one agreed with. That you're still unwilling to admit it was a mistake in the face of 100% opposition to your actions, I think that's an indication that you haven't learned anything from this. Feel free to correct me in any part where I'm wrong. Buffs (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• "We should not allow this type of behavior to continue unchecked." But it hasn't continued, let alone unchecked. As I said in the section above, I believe Saxifrage acted in good faith, and I don't think he "victimized" Buffs either. Lepricavark talks about how "galling" it has been for him to watch these events, and it is indeed obvious from his commentary here that he is galled. @Lepricavark: I think you're blowing this one instance of a supervote out of proportion. Supervotes are (unfortunately) not as uncommon as all that. They should be vacated, that's all, unless an admin makes a habit of them. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).

  I respect you too much to argue with you, and it appears unlikely that this thread is going anywhere in any case, but to clarify: I am more troubled by the behavior after the supervote than I am by the supervote itself. Lepricavark (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• As far as being in touch with community norms, or however we choose to phrase it, Saxifrage has made on average one edit a fortnight for the last decade; it's hard to see an experienced editor here, let alone a holder of advanced permissions. ——SerialNumber54129 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• I must admit, I was a little surprised to find that their tools haven't been removed for inactivity – apparently it's 1 edit or 1 logged action in a year. Saxifrage has used: the block button once in the past 13 years;[3] the delete button once in the past 12 years;[4] and the protect button twice in the past 13 years;[5]. All up that's four admin actions in 12 years – they also hadn't edited this page for 13 years up to their close. I'm not at all surprised, after that little activity, that Saxifrage is out-of-touch with community expectations. That's not itself an actionable issue.
  Saxifrage's conduct on their talk page has been objectionable, in my opinion. I have significant respect for Bish, but I'm unable to view Saxifrage's conduct as being in good faith. Condescending is not a strong enough word for it, but I don't know of a better one. Some additional adjectives: snarky, patronising, incivil and bullying. There's also an air of smug superiority (see patronising again) in their comments. Putting myself in Buffs shoes, having just been bitch-slapped by a one-sided admin action, I'd have been upset. Dealing with Saxifrage and Mark Ironie would have made me livid – indeed that's entirely why I formally challenged the close. Honestly, I don't know how Buffs could have been better composed on Saxifrage's talk page. I can't say whether this should be escalated or not now; but I will say that if there's a repeat of this conduct, I'd be prepared to ask ArbCom to have Saxifrage de-tool-ed. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - Essentially this is a non-admin here .... 1 admin logged edit a year and one block in 12 years isn't an admin in my eyes, Overturn the close and allow it to be closed by an admin who's done more than 1 logged edit a year. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nvm going blind. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• The action on WP:AN by Saxifrage was appropriately overturned. I'll abide by the consensus of the community on whatever the outcome is determined by an uninvolved admin who can assess consensus rather than assert a supervote. As for Saxifrage's attitude, IMHO, it's very clear to me that he doesn't understand his role as an admin. User:Mr rnddude's summary of these interactions is spot on re:Saxifrage and Mark Ironie. To ask "Why?" and to be told "I've been expecting you, but you shouldn't even question my decision or contact me. You're beneath me and obviously don't know what you're doing. Learn your policies: read this!" After quoting that the policies he mentioned stated that I should contact him, I was summarily ignored. For remedy, I propose a warning on his talk page that the consensus of the community is that he overstepped his authority and such actions in the future will be escalated. That's really all we need here. Buffs (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• comment - As I stated previously, I do not care what form an IBAN comes in. I really don't. I have removed articles in common from my watchlist with Buffs weeks ago and have not touched them. I have no intention of doing so. This is not a win lose game for me, if he wants them to himself [6] that's fine. He can have at it. I'm not about to 'game' [7] anything. I have not edited any of the articles since July 15th and prior to that on the 10th and that edit was in consensus with Buffs. I simply don't care. I do have a concern, however. I am not sure what an individuals political leanings have to do with their admin abilities. I understand that the close was not done properly and to everyone's satisfaction. I do not see how Saxifrage's assumed political beliefs ties into this. Editing and admining should be non-partisan. [8]. I am not sure how Saxifrage's decision can be attributed to political bias. It just seems, I don't know, mean I suppose to make these types of statements and underhanded in that they are hidden. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I found it exceedingly strange when Buffs (talk · contribs) put a hidden message in the "Request review of close" section (discussion closed now) a few days ago. <!--Likewise, have you considered that he WAS behaving in a partisan manner? MI, IG, and CV are all part of the same Wikigroup.-->diff ("He" refers to me.) The edit summary is rather opaque on the addition: (→‎Request review of close: rephrase to include the words I'd intended to use...wow...that was poorly phrased)) I have never seen this done on a noticeboard or talk page, only in articles for date format, etc. I decided to let it slide so the review could run its course without distraction. Pointing out Buffs' misunderstanding of how Wikiprojects work and function seemed petty as well. The one that Indigenous girl spoke of above seems more like commentary he doesn't want publicly visible. I'm having trouble discerning its purpose or audience. <!--I don't know Saxifrage's motivations for such a decision, but it is similar to others who openly support leftist/socialist ideals. If I had to guess, it's an attempt to silence conservative views rather than balance them within Wikipedia. No objective view of that discussion can possibly come to the conclusion that Saxifrage came to...to be blunt, I've never seen 100% opposition like this for an administrative action. In articles revolving around the humanities, such a bias is a significant problem. In universities, 95%+ of humanities professors vote for left/liberal candidates, and their work/conclusions reflect this bias.-->diff The only guidelines I could find were in the Manual of Style in Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text and Invisible comments. Inappropriate uses of hidden text offers this: "Using it as a talk page," the meaning of which I'm finding difficult to interpret. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's not hard to imagine why an editor who has been unjustly blocked, t-banned, and i-banned might think that people are out to get him, and you have not helped matters by making disingenuous comments such as this one. I hope you aren't planning to derail this thread with more walls of text. Lepricavark (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lepricavark I have no intention of posting walls of text. I only posted twice, I believe, in the IBAN thread. I think that the issue folks have with Saxifrage can be handled without being sneaky. If somebody feels they are targeted for their political views, why not simply post it in mainspace? If they honestly feel that way then I see no reason to hide those concerns. I'm not trying to derail, this has to do with the matter at hand, which is Saxifrage, and hidden text in the thread. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I too would ask that you keep discussion concise and on point. This is about Saxifrage, not me. Saxifrage's political beliefs are prominently displayed on his user page. As for the hidden text. It's just more information. It doesn't need to be visible to make my point, but if people want more, it's there. It isn't even addressed in any guidelines, so please stop insinuating there's inappropriate behavior when none exists. Buffs (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• @IG, I'd ask that you remove your remarks as these aren't related to the topic at hand: Saxifrage. Likewise, you cannot demand I not talk to you and then go to unrelated sections and make comments about me. If you want me to leave you alone (something I've done), stop talking about me. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Lepricavark: You seem to be missing my point: Hidden text in a noticeboard comment is highly unusual in my experience. Yes, it's visible to anyone editing/contributing to the discussion but not to the casual reader. It is still passing strange. As to my comment on Saxifrage's talk page, do you think I just wanted to protect the close result? (Which was a complete surprise to me.) My response was purely about Buffs badgering Saxifrage. I had intended to stay away from the whole brouhaha of the close review (and did so after that comment) but I'd seen this behaviour far too many times over months from Buffs. There's a reason I apologized to Saxifrage: I was admonishing an editor on his talk page. This was impolite and rude of me, not to Buffs but to Saxifrage. You think my pleading with Buffs to stop was disingenuous? That it was mere self-serving about preserving the close? I knew there was a perfectly well-established procedure for challenging the close, one that Buffs could easily have found or asked about. Yet Buffs (and you) responded in very unpleasant ways on Saxifrage's talk page. Acrimony, incivility, bullying, and abuse-disguised-as-argument were uncalled for. How we react to adversity reflects on our character. I'm sorry if the length of my comments is too long for you. I value clarity. I don't write at length to obfuscate, to overwhelm with "walls of text". I write in an effort to be precise in the details. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, Buffs using hidden comments was a little weird. I get that. But I'm one of those wackos who thinks it's a big deal when a user, in this case Buffs, gets picked on repeatedly by people who insist that, no, he's actually the bad guy. So I'm going to extend a certain amount of latitude to Buffs for strange behavior under the circumstances. IMO, it's outrageous that you can see an admin supervote a one-way i-ban into existence, the target of that unwarranted i-ban protest at the overreaching admin's page, and then you come to the conclusion that the targeted editor is the problem. Moreover, it is unacceptable for you or Saxifrage to insist on strict adherence to proper procedure for appealing a sanction when Saxifrage did not adhere to proper procedure when imposing the sanction. I don't much care for the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude on display here. When I asked Buffs to stop with the walls of text, he did. Maybe that's because he is acting in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm solidly involved here, so won't do it myself, but IMO this should be closed. Yes, it was an egregious supervote. Yes, it's bad that they didn't recognise consensus and undo the close themselves. Yes, their statement above insisting on wasting the community's time with bureaucratic paper-pushing process obsession makes it worse, not better. But no, this on its own is not the basis of desysopping for cause. GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  I concur. Unless further information/examples are brought forward, a warning on his talk page is sufficient. Buffs (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (involved) Saxifrage does not need to be warned. Nothing he did was "egregious". As one of the only uninvolved people here, he summarized the dispute as he saw it.Diff From what I can see, unlike most others who weighed in, he actually looked at the evidence. Then he was ganged up on over a technicality. He's been bullied enough already. There is no need for any warning. This has already been excessive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you think that a supervote is nothing more than a technicality, you should not be an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Supervote is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Note this example: "if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, an admin who doesn't take supervotes seriously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to ask for a delay in closing the thread. I'm writing a response I'd like included in the thread. Thank you. Mark Ironie (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the comments on Saxifrage here seem to devolve to "Burn the Witch." Metaphorically. There are quite a few adjectives being used to describe Saxifrage and his actions, many of them insulting and/or ad hominem attacks. I'm even seeing a level of "own-y" response from Buffs to the thread where, per usual, Buffs tells people what he wants them to do. Most specifically, he again tries to force Indigenous girl to interact with him, and focuses on silencing her,(comment to IG) as he has for several months.

There is a qualitative difference between IG's participation here and Buffs. She asked a question about the treatment of Saxifrage and the use of hidden text. Buffs, instead, addressed his comments directly to her, and complained about not being able to post on her talk page:(comment to IG). Though others have said things he considers "off topic" she is the only one he tried to order to delete her words, asking her to "remove your remarks". These are more of his same attempts at boundary violation and silencing he has shown towards her through this entire conflict. (Such as when he hid her remarks on article talk and declared the "discussion closed" after she posted a source.[9], right after he came off a block for harassing her.[10]] She has never done anything even remotely like this to him. This harassment has always been one way.

This is not off-topic; I'm drawing a parallel to reactions of outrage about Saxifrage's close of the discussion and his responses afterward. Yet the majority of opprobrium here is in the eye of the partisan rather than what Saxifrage actually said, objections to tone rather than content. Additionally, Buffs continues to post misrepresentations (or maybe he is this confused), in describing events, such as Buffs' description of this situation: "It wasn't until 5 admins and a bureaucrat were involved".

After Bishonen called the close a "classic supervote", that emerged as the main reason for overturning the close, invoked frequently from then on as if it were obvious and proven true. It was not a supervote nor was it proven so in my opinion.

It was a Boomerang.

Evaluating this case includes being able to pull back from details and get an overview of the material. Evaluating the evidence requires a frame of mind that makes sure things are aligned and consistent. It's a focus on whether wording and footnotes (or diffs) support each other. If there are contradictions, can they be resolved? So I tried to look at Saxifrage's close and how he might have gotten to the very detailed evaluation and decision he did.

A vociferous group showed up to contest the close and began a process of vilifying Saxifrage, here and his talk page. This seems based on Saxifrage standing by his decision and suggesting people use standard processes to overturn the close rather than demanding actions of him. Lepricavark demanded he vacate the evaluation/close or resign adminship, an exceptionally strong statement on a long and complex case I sincerely doubt he has thoroughly read. (For instance, Lepricavark has now posted in the original closed and unclosed discussion, to support Buffs in saying no IBAN is needed, citing Green Means Go as the voice of reason, but Lepricavark seems unaware that GMG has not only endorsed an IBAN, but has been an involved editor since the beginning of the conflicts.)

My point: if you back away from the case, look at the evidence without prejudice or partisan glasses, without choosing who's right or wrong, Saxifrage's close makes sense and is in line with policy and process. His subsequent responses to Buffs, GoldenRing, and Lepricavark were formal rather than informal. Any perceived incivility seems bought by the aggrieved rather than from Saxifrage (yes, I mean "bought"). For example, Saxifrage's first response to Buffs has been called uncivil and condescending (Lepricavark, opening at the top of this AN section.) Remember, Saxifrage had recently finished reviewing the long and complex AN thread before closing it. It seems to me that his review was thorough, including evidence of Buffs' interactions with people on AN and elsewhere. Buffs-as-victim was an integral theme from GoldenRing's opening post and continues to be the dominant narrative from several people here, blindly and despite all contrary evidence. Buffs showing up on Saxifrage's talk page was entirely predictable as was Buffs explaining the faults/lack in Saxifrage's reasoning in the close. Saxifrage expected it. When Saxifrage spoke of being "an admin who doesn’t take personalised guff,"[11] it wasn't lack of AGF as much as it was a recognition of Buffs' consistent and historical adversarial attitude. This was evident from Buffs' first post on Saxifrages' talk page where he ignored the quite detailed close text and tallies up !votes (his version.) This latterly painting of Buffs' behaviour as rooted in the justified righteous anger of the wronged is dissociated from actual events and facts.

There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation on Saxifrage because he actually read the evidence and made a close based on what he saw. That, apparently, is horribly wrong. Impugning Saxifrage's grasp of policy and process is inexplicable to me. Saying he is out of touch with current WP norms and standards because of sparse activity levels is patronizing and condescending. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of text. I shall respond to the substance, of which there is considerably less, even if you tried to dress it up with fancy language. For someone who exaggerates the extent to which others use rhetoric, you sure use it a lot yourself. I don't see how this could possible be a boomerang. This issue was brought to AN by GoldenRing, not Buffs. It is of note that the only individuals who deny that this is a supervote are those who liked the outcome. Buffs, his defenders, and neutral observers generally held that it was in fact a supervote. You can say, if you like, that they are all wrong, but that seems unpersuasive given that your alternative description is false by definition. You are trying to present yourself as a neutral observer, but clearly you are incapable of arriving at that vantage point. I'm not surprised to see one out-of-touch legacy admin defending another, but I refuse to descend in your game of talking past one other in walls of text. I trust that any editors who consider it worth their time to read your novel will be able to form appropriate conclusions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're funny. You use "legacy admin" like it is a cabal, a protection racket. Your pejorative usage is not lost on me either, sort of "old and in the way" meets "quaint and old-fashioned". Perhaps unsophisticated as well, and a touch of simple-mindedness. You seem incapable of affording me WP:AGF or a reasonable facsimile of it. Because "fancy language" and "rhetoric". You don't have to agree with me and I don't expect it. My opinion is part of the discussion despite your denigration and insults. You might consider reining that in; aggression and denial are not persuasive points in debate. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

[A]ggression and denial are not persuasive points in debate - Excellent point. If only you'd apply it to your uni-dimensional, Buffs obsessed, wall-of-text bludgeoning of this thread and the one that spawned it. It doesn't matter how many words you write, or how detailed you get. Your assessment is transparently skewed. [I]ncapable of affording me WP:AGF - Don't ask to receive what you don't in turn give. Your "participants out for vengeance" bit is pure distilled ABF. I won't say you're out of touch, but you are definitely not without prejudice or partisan. [D]o you think I just wanted to protect the close result - I think you've answered your own question here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Like Saxifrage, you have repeatedly failed to distinguish between incivility and legitimate scrutiny of admin conduct. You begin your statement with You're funny and then talk about how I've said pejorative things about you, even though it's true that you are one legacy admin protecting another legacy admin who talks and thinks a lot like you do. You talk about "aggression and denial", but that remark rings hollow as your participation here has been full of both. You've tried to present yourself as capable of objectively evaluating Saxifrage's closure... and you've arrived at the conclusion that everyone who disagreed with you was wrong (how objective!). On which of these bases should I assume that you are acting in good faith? Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice neither of you (Mr rnddude and Lepricavark) addressed any of the substance or points of my comment above. Instead, responses include rebuttals of my phrasing with extreme doubts about my integrity and veracity. Assertions that my relevance and even mere existence on WP is detrimental to the 'pedia seem like incivility to me. There is no substantial engagement with the pertinent issues I brought up, just shallow and empty attacks on me. In general, the contention that Saxifrage's close was a "supervote" lacks substance if anyone had bothered to read beyond the lede, such as this section of the essay. To be clear, Supervote is an essay and it is neither a policy nor a guideline. Even so, I think its application to Saxifrage's close is questionable, no matter how many people think otherwise. That's called independent thought. In the end, here, I might be in the minority of consensus on this point. That's OK. I'm comfortable holding a minority opinion. Counterpoint opinion is a necessary part of the process. We look for consensus, not unanimity. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind your claim to independent thought. I mind your claim to objectivity. I believe that we are in fact responding to the substance of your posts, and not merely the phrasing. Also, I don't recall asserting that you don't belong on Wikipedia, and I think it's actually uncivil of you to falsely claim that I said that (unless you meant it came from Mr rnddude, who also hasn't said such a thing). Indeed, I have not intentionally crossed the bounds of civility during this entire dispute, and I dare you to provide one actual quote to the contrary. Disagreement, even when expressed strongly, is not inherently uncivil. Prior to this incident, I don't believe I've ever seen any admin use the 'it's just an essay!' argument to minimize the severity of supervoting. Given your lack of familiarity with how this community perceives that issue, I don't see why anyone should accept your definition. There's an issue in the inaugural thread noted by two individuals (ironically, the two individuals whom you accuse of ignoring the substance of your remarks) that you have yet to address. It concerns your misrepresentation of evidence against Buffs. Please address it. (Note that this is a request, not a demand. You've gotten those confused in the past.) Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

MI, you're correct that WP:SUPERVOTE isn't policy. It IS, however, a definition of the term and what people are accusing Saxifrage of doing, ergo, policy or not, that is the definition of what happened and, furthermore, an explanation as to why it's wrong, rather than rehashing every single argument here. I concur with Lepricavark...your level of incivility is not helpful. I'd go one step further and say that as an Admin, you should know and act better than this. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add a "me three" to this assessment. If you assess IG's remarks as "She asked a question about the treatment of Saxifrage", you're being willfully blind; most was remarks about herself or misleading remarks/insinuation of malfeasance on my part unreleated to Saxifrage. Our interactions with Saxifrage are not because he is "standing by his decision and suggesting people use standard processes to overturn the close rather than demanding actions of him." Rather, it is because literally the first steps listed in "standard processes" specifically state to discuss with the closing admin and ask the closing admin to revert: WP:Closing discussions, WP:Supervote, and WP:ADMINACCT. Buffs (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie:, what do you mean by "bought"? Buffs (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I see from your comments over on Bbb23's talk page that you are concerned that I am accusing you (and/or others) of legal crimes. I sincerely apologize if I gave that impression. Emphasizing the word "bought" was a mistake on my part. It was unclear, unexplained, and open to interpretation. What I meant is too abstruse for this discussion and I could not expect other people to understand it. "Bought" represents a transactional exchange of goods for money. On a different level, it means rising value of goods equals a rising value of investment. Thus, the more people "invest" in a specific outcome ("goods") of a discussion, the more rigid and intolerant of opposing views they become. My usage did not encompass an absolutely literal meaning of people and opinions being bought. No accusations of bribery or meatpuppetry, and I was not implying I believe in conspiratorial opposition here. I don't know why you jumped to accusations of legal crimes. I understand that you and some others here have a very low opinion of me and my views (e.g., this whole discussion) but, wow, this is a new level of lack of AGF for me. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, it didn't sound like an accusation of crimes to me and I'm rather surprised that Buffs arrived at that interpretation. As for the overall tenor of this thread, it has become rather unpleasant and we are not going to accomplish anything, so I'm bowing out. Lepricavark (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It was rather unclear from the context, which is why I asked. You stated very clearly yes, I mean "bought" when you could have further clarified. From what I'm understanding now, you effectively mean "they bought into that argument". Prior to this explanation, your intended meaning was not discernible from your given remarks and easy to misinterpret/bring confusion. If it's too abstruse for this discussion, don't bring it up.

Please stop following me around. It's getting creepy. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"the majority of opprobrium here is in the eye of the partisan" "continues to be the dominant narrative from several people here, blindly and despite all contrary evidence" "There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation"

wow, this is a new level of lack of AGF for me indeed 199.247.44.10 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review this block

Will an uninvolved administrator please review the block I imposed and the subsequent discussion at User talk:Merge8productions? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the block. The user is free to submit a proper unblock request, where their reasoning ought to be relayed in a concise and cogent manner. It is a promotional username, as far I can tell, regardless that the company is now defunct. El_C 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Good block. I think there's a substantial chance this person or persons is trolling us, because there's a degree of righteous indignation that I don't often see in genuine newbie. But even with AGF and all that, the block is justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Endorse block. Some contribs I pulled at random also seem promotional (or just odd), so there may be something on that front, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Jumping into this thread rather than creating a new one - could I trouble one of you all to revoke talk page access? The user is just continuing to post about how terribly they've been wronged and argue about whether their name is okay without submitting a proper unblock request. creffett (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked and notified due to the post block behaviour. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Paedophile redirects yet again

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Paedophile redirects issue was closed and archived, and nobody disagreed with the comment "I think from the discussion above it is clear that article titles which label someone as a paedophile are not acceptable", but one of the redirects still exists and the discussion has been relisted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Angela Allen (paedophile). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. Angela Allen is a redlink so there's no need for the disambiguation anyway. Either delete it or rename it, utter stupidity. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the RfD is already going, let it run. And frankly, the subject in question has much bigger issues than a Wikipedia redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon requests clarification or lifting of restrictions

In the 2015 unblocking statement (when I did the "standard offer" return from an indef block for sockpuppetry), I was warned to not misbehave, with one wording at WP:AN and another at my talk page. I would like to get a clarification of whether either of these should be considered to be still in effect, and whether the one on my talk page is a "ban" against the work I have been doing for the last 4 years, and if so whether any restriction or ban could be appealed and lifted.

The particular statements in question were both made by User:Prodego:

• At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Standard offer unblock request from Dicklyon:

User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here.

• And at my talk page:

Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves.

(my bold in both to highlight the relevant difference)

Why I'm here:

I don't recommend trying to wade through it, but reference WP:AN/I#MarcusBritish personal attacks, where Beyond My Ken tried to whack me with a boomerang. He proposed and argued to sanction me for making a lot of page moves over the last four years, which he says is evidence of my violating these terms.

In closing off that megathread, User:El C reminded me on my talk page to "to adhere to the terms of your ban, pending an appeal". I didn't know I had a ban (he clarified he meant what's implicit in what Prodego wrote on my talk page), but if I did, I hereby appeal, per his advice. The idea of avoiding "potentially controversial actions" is hard to imagine, but I do a good job of resolving controversy before making mass moves.

Background

As I stipulated at that AN/I discussion, since my 2015 unblock I've moved about 7000 pages manually, plus nearly 3000 via approved bot assistance, and hundreds (at least) more indirectly via RM discussions and RMTR requests. When BMK was not able to find or elicit any evidence of any of my mass moves being controversial, he invoked the wording of my "ban" to say that I'm prohibited from mass moves generally, not just controversial ones, and therefore I ought to be indeffed.

@Prodego:, the 2015 unblocking admin, wrote

In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant.

and later wrote:

I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them.

Moving forward

The accusations didn't stick, but neither did I get exonerated. So I'm seeking clarification, having been a very active and usually quite good editor for the last four years (if you can believe the bunch of editors who showed up to defend me). If anyone here wants me to detail what some of the big masses of moves were about, and why they were non-controversial and a net improvement to en.WP, I'd be happy to elaborate.

Thanks for your consideration. My plan is to say nothing else unless asked, and I would assume that anyone who was part of the AN/I debate will preface their comments here with "(involved)" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's move past this, shall we? This exchange will produce more meaningless drama, and we've had our share.-- Dlohcierekim 13:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not try to "whack [Dicklyon] off with a boomerang" (which incidentally, has in the US a sexual gloss -- "whacking off" meaning "jerking off", which I'm sure Dicklyon did not mean), I assessed the discussion which had already taken place and concluded that MarcusBritish should be indef blocked (Proposal (B)) for this continuing incivility and personal attacks, which je was, and that Dicklyon had violated his 2015 unblock conditions, which were still in effect, by making mass moves, an opinion which had previously been expressed by a number of people in the discussion which had already taken place, and that the indef block should be re-instated. (Proposal (A)) I did not invent that argument out of whole cloth, and Dicklyon himself admitted to the mass moves himself. The locus of our disagreement was in our differing understandings of his unblock conditions. My contention is that what Dicklyon was told on his talk page, where he was actually informed of the community's unblock baseed on granting his SO request, was controlling, and that lannguage is clear: Dicklyon should "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Since this was the official notification of his unblock, this should be controlling. This clearly tells him to avoid mass page move because they are potentially controversial. Dicklyon on the other hand, apparently relies on the language of the closing at AN/I, [12] to avoid "large scale controversial actions". Those two statements are indeed different, but only the one (the first) was officially given to Dicklyon when he was unblocked, and so should be controlling. Nevertheless, I have no objection to Dicklyon's seeking either a clarification of his unblock conditions or a lifting of them altogether. Editors here should read the AN/I thread in which the community (not Prodego!) granted him his Standard Offer request in 2015 (it's here [13]), read Prodego's official unblock notification ([14]), and at least try to pick your way through the very long, very convoluted recent discusssion ([15]), before evaluating Dicklyon's contributions over the last 4 years since he was unblocked. No, my only objection is to Dicklyon's ascribing to me a malevolent intent in floating Proposal (A), which was never the case. In any event, it's not relevant to his request, and I would ask him to stop these near-PAs snd to simply about his task of convincing the community that the sanction should be lifted. I don't plan to participate any further, so there should be no more reason for my name to arise here at all. This is not about Dicklyon vs. BMK, this is about Dicklyon making a request to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, he did not say “whack off,” he said “whack” which carries no other connotation, and is a perfectly appropriate word to describe what happens when a boomerang hits something. This is not the first time you’ve misrepresented someone’s words on this page, so please be more careful. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) @Mr Ernie: You are correct, he wrote "whack" and not "whack off", so I have corrected my comment above. My error, and my apologies to {{ping|Dicklyon)). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal – lift ban

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.

---

• Support removing ban God, here we go again, but the gist of what I got from that horrid mega thread was that the ban is no longer needed. Not sure if everyone will agree with that, after all of the Sturm und Drang, but here it is. And yes, it was indefinite, meaning it requires discussion to lift it, not "oh, it was so long ago, let's pretend it isn't there." Probably Dicklyon should have appealed at some earlier time, but not everyone is familiar with navigating this toxic waste superfund site's peculiarities-- Dlohcierekim 12:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  contra Andy Dingley, I think it was determined in the mega thread that his page moves were constructive rather than disruptive, his violation of the restriction was through misunderstanding, and that there were strong assertions there that the restriction had outlived its usefulness.-- Dlohcierekim 13:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  per Dicklyon's request above, I was a part of that horrid mega thread, but my opinion changed from what it started as.-- Dlohcierekim 16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I agree. As the closing admin of the last God, here we go again, I've insisted on this appeal (and been criticized for that), but I felt I had little choice. Noticeboard consensus saw these restrictions placed and, in turn, such noticeboard consensus should see them lifted. El_C 12:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't think an unblock condition that results from ANI consensus becomes invalidated just because the closing admin feels it lapses with time or that they failed to properly log it (though the latter is a problem). Either the close is invalid, or it isn't. Either the time is specified, or it is, by default, indefinite. Still, I must admit that I viewed this as more of a formality and, in light of Dicklyon's voluminous contributions, I expected this request to be accepted without much friction. The fact that it is not, saddens me, and frankly, now I'm thinking whether for pragmatic reasons I should have closed with the unblock conditions lifted, even if it goes against the procedure of noticeboard consensus and its binding nature. Certainly, I don't expect Dicklyon to prove a negative with respect to their record for the last four years, but I think the fact that no reports (to my knowledge) were brought to the admin noticeboards which took issue with him violating the 2015 unblock conditions, speaks for itself. I, therefore, reiterate my support to have Dicklyon's unblock restrictions lifted and am hopeful his efforts to do so does not get curtailed due to unrelated past conflicts. El_C 18:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• topic ban I was unaware of your 2015 ban or any conditions regarding it, lifted or still applied. But for a period of some years since this, we have been in perpetual conflict where you have done everything possible to stamp out capitalisation. I have not sought you out over this, but you've popped up at areas of my own technical interest, from British railways to the Apollo CSM which you moved to the lowercase form [16]. Most recently you have done the same at one of Gibralter's unique pieces of Edwardian engineering, renaming "the Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant" as "an air lock diving-bell plant" just to imply that these things were commonplace and thus not capitalised. Everywhere I see you, you're campaigning to convert the capitalised proper name phrases of distinct items into uncapitalised generics: Talk:Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant. You have no knowledge of the subjects involved, you not merely excuse but actually flaunt your lack of knowledge and claim that simplistic wiki dogma on capitalisation overrides all other sources.

So yes, you have spent the last few years being perpetually disruptive, controversial and involved in mass page moves.

I'm only here because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. I know nothing of previous restrictions, but as of now I would like to see a strong topic ban against these. And importantly, not merely for moves but also for renames within a page (advocating them in talk: space would be reasonable). I do not call for any sort of bans or restrictions on editing otherwise (but if others want to go that far, I'd probably support it). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lift any ban, if there is one. Every single editor on this site is expected to refrain from performing large-scale potentially-disruptive actions without first inviting discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Reaper Eternal. — Ched :  ?  — 16:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Reaper Eternal. Indeed, "Every single editor on this site is expected to refrain from performing large-scale potentially-disruptive actions without first inviting discussion"; when one on many occasions hasn't refrained, however, it sometimes becomes necessary to explicit-ify that which should be obvious. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked for examples of potentially disruptive actions; i apologise, Dicklyon that it has taken a while ~ work, you know.... So, there is this, where the conclusion was no outright ban but clearly Dicklyon was on the verge of disruption. And this in which multiple reverts, while well-intentioned, were disruptive. And this, where it is argued that he had violated unblock conditions with controversial moves (hmm, familiar). I think that the nub of the issue is the intention: I have no doubt at all that he is always well-intentioned in his edits, but the good intentions are not always enough to hide the disruption of the action. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of this edit (though i would be happier without the final four words, which i think could still allow for controversy) i now support the lifting of the ban. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It became prettyt clear during the previous discussion at AN/I that Dicklyon had violated the terms of their extant t-ban, saw nothing untoward about their actions and would do so again. While I didn't think Marcus British handled the conflict anywhere remotely close to appropriate, Dicklyon has not earned the trust necessary to lift the t-ban. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing ban Primary reason: To me, this comes down to one simple question. Do I trust Dicklyon to not be disruptive if the ban on "large scale, controversial actions" is lifted? Yes. I do. I believe that he has more than earned our trust. Secondary reason: If it turns out that I am wrong, I would prefer a new response from the community, based upon behavior since the unblock, and not mixed up with a block/appeal for an unrelated past sockpuppetry issue. But I don't think I am wrong, and I don't think we will ever again have any issues with Dicklyon making large scale, controversial changes without seeking consensus first. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lift – No recent issue with Dicklyon's behaviour. — JFG ^talk 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing ban – Dicklyon is one of the most professional of our editors in housecleaning the project. He does an enormous amount of good that clearly passes under the radar of some users here (and as for all of us here, the errors he does make are tiny compared with the size of output—errors that seem to be amplified by others in support of particular agendas). And I see above that there's confusion between (i) sudden, mass changes, and (ii) carefully argued, properly proposed multiple moves that rely on editors' feedback on the page before anything is finalised. Tony (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he does good. But if he can't do that without also doing harm, and intensely irritating the other editors around him, that's not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is a highly disruptive user who has violated his unblock agreement and doctored an MOS page to make it look like his position was already supported. Show him the outside of the door. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• On the fence, leaning oppose I intend to find some time to look into this further and clear that up one way or another. But for the moment, I'm seeing someone who willfully violated their unblock condition and we shouldn't respond to that by removing the unblock condition. If Dicklyon didn't understand their unblock condition, they have serious problems with reading comprehension. It wasn't difficult to follow. The alleged confusion seems to me to be much easier to understand as an attempt to wikilawyer around the ban than actual confusion over the wording. I'm also not convinced that the mass page moves they have carried out were uncontroversial; several have been reverted en masse and by Dicklyon's own admission, a lot of people complained about them. Lastly, modifying MOS to support one of those mass page moves to support your position in an argument about one of them is - how can I put this politely? - not the move of someone whose restriction is no longer necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• There is no ban - with respect to Prodego, the wording in the unblocking close is not sufficient to establish that a ban was enacted in the first place. Banning someone from "controversial actions" is so vague as to be unenforceable as a sanction. Furthermore it is not logged and has never been logged at WP:EDR, and the sanctioning admin has endorsed this approach; the community cannot endorse a restriction that does not exist. It is moot. If someone wants to propose that Dicklyon should be topic-banned from [mass-]page moves based on recent behaviour, they should do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting... if the ban exists at all. While I don't think Dicklyon's handling was perfect, I can empathize with his frustration with vagueness of "avoiding potentially controversial moves" and subsequent catch-22 interpretation that several have been reverted en masse and therefore, they were controversial. Sorry, "controversial" does not mean "anyone objects for any reason including IDONTLIKEIT". As Ivanvector said, anyone can propose a ban that defines a clear bright line, but the current situation is simply untenable. As the evidence suggests, his page moves have been largely uncontroversial (sensu stricto) and he did not move-war when challenged. I'm pretty late in the game to make a proposal, but we could have formulated a restriction that Dicklyon must announce any move involving more than X (~20) articles on appropriate wikiproject(s) and/or RM and wait for 7 days before execution. Something like this would still be a good idea for Dick to follow voluntarily if the ban gets lifted. No such user (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@No such user: Er... what? The restriction explicitly included "mass page moves" as something he was banned from doing because they are potentially controversial. No catch-22 here. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Well, the wording (and history of sanctions, I don't feel like searching for the original move ban discussion – was it formalized?) certainly included sufficient wiggle room. I'm not sure I subscribe to the notion that "" As Guy Macon pointed out, [I] would prefer a new response from the community, based upon behavior since the unblock, and not mixed up with a block/appeal for an unrelated past sockpuppetry issue. WP:ROPE, WP:BYGONES and all that. No such user (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Maintain the ban. I'm not acquainted with this editor or their history, but I do not trust a person with this sort of block log - edit-warring for years on end - to perform mass actions of any kind, let alone "large scale, controversial actions"". These are best avoided by everybody in any event. Sandstein 18:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sandstein, Dicklyon deserves more than just a cursory glance at their block log. If you can’t bother to look into the issue then please don’t offer an opinion. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lift ban if it exists. Ivanvector's argument is probably sufficient by itself. AFAIK, Noone has challenged the claim that he hasn't warred once reverted. That sounds like an editor aware and mindful of his past and looking to improve the encyclopedia without causing disruption or getting into trouble. Many editors (in the previous discussion) were of the opinion that his work is a necessary one. These editors seemed to be aware of the big picture in which the actions were carried out, while the opposing editors still seem to me, mad about few that they are closely involved with. Considering the scale/volume of his work, that's an understandable/unavoidable amount of controversy, IMO. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per LindsayH. This editor has a long history of asserting his actions are uncontroversial because they are fully justified in his own mind and constantly pushing the limits. Only a bright line rule will work. Jonathunder (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting if there is a ban. There's a strong suggestion that this "ban" was imposed in a way that isn't permitted in the rules, in that it was decided by a single admin rather than AN consensus. But if that that interpretation turns out to be invalid, then I also support the proposal to lift it. That is not to say I think Dick should head on out and perform large-scale controversial moves. Of course not. But, as already noted, neither should anyone else. Dick has not done anything that I know of in the last four years to merit being singled out from other editors in this fashion. And to anyone who thinks it doesn't really matter, the recent ANI episode – where Dick's reporting of a problematic editor (who was blocked for incivility) almost resulted in a BOOMERANG because of this sanction – shows that actually this is something that looms large over Dick's Wikipedia career. And at this point in time, even though I don't always agree with Dick, I don't think that's fair because he cares about the project and by-and-large he follows the rules. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift ban. Support IV's vagueness / process arg. Dicklyon is a good editor with a strong technical background. Glrx (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift if there is one at all (I think not per Ivanvector). I've seen Dicklyon's comments on a number of RMs, and they generally seem to be sensible. I trust their ability to move pages in accordance with policy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift any ban Paul August ☎ 00:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon comments

OK, nobody asked, but allow me a few reactions anyway.

First, many thanks to all the fine editors who stood up for me, knowing me or not. And especially to prodigal son Dlohcierekim, who was able to change his view on me. And El C for his naively optimistic idea that an appeal would be a simple formality.

Nyttend was the only editor besides MarcusBritish in what Beyond My Ken refers to as "a number of people" who expressed in the AN/I discussion that I had violated my "2015 unblock conditions" before BMK moved to indef me for that. Nyttend's comments there, and here, should be evaluated in the context of long-running style debates at RM discussions, which he has generally lost. Moves, not mass moves. His anti-MOS drama and WP:INVOLVED interference goes back at least to this 2013 RM discussion, which he lost. And this 2016 mess, which I lost. His beef is with moves and MOS, not with controversial mass moves. He's likely still sore that I took him to AN/I about it in 2017.

Andy Dingley just likes to cap stuff that's important to him (rail lines, computers, ships, whatever), but loses at all the relevant RM discussions. These discussions generally come early, and get resolved before "mass" moves happen. Some are not at all associated with mass moves (the computer and ship examples). And the British rail fans insisted on discussing pretty much every item, so we did, over quite a few months, including many in separate RM discussions, as they requested (e.g. see long list open in Feb. 2017 at the bottom of this article alerts page where you can see that almost all moved to lowercase line). Andy now claims (above) that I downcased the Apollo command and service module, but his link belies him – it was in fact closed and moved by RGloucester after Andy lost the debate in 2018.

GoldenRing is politely discussing with me to see if there's anything behind his complaint: User talk:GoldenRing#Examples, background?.

Simonm223 declined to clarify at his talk page.

LindsayH responded above to a clarification request. He found a British railway fan wanting to ban me since the RM discussions weren't going their way (not really "mass", but there may have been dozens by then, such as this one). And a not-move-related Vitamin D argument. And a complaint about my work related to MOS:JR, a provision that was very widely supported, eventually led to many thousands of moves including a few thousand by me and a few thousand by Mandruss and others after more discussion. Not exactly controversial mass moves.

Sandstein shows a lot of gall with his claim "I don't recognize this editor" after all the complaining I've been doing about his WP:INVOLVED action on unrelated matters in the last 3 days: multiple edits at this AE action, a trout on his talk page, and a snarky congrats; maybe he didn't notice. And then he argues for a ban based on not trusting me, for blocks from before I had 7 months off to think about my role in WP. And his anti-MOS involved actions go back to 2014 at least. His opinion can be weighed accordingly.

Jonathunder is just saying bad things for reasons I don't understand. Maybe he's been in some of those MOS-related discussions?

I'm not claiming everyone loves me or MOS-related style fixes, just that I don't abuse the system and I don't do controversial mass moves. Yes, as I stipulated at the start, I do "mass moves", but none of those masses have been controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I would really appreciate some kind of commitment that when you move pages, you will link to the discussion that preceded the move in your edit summary. It's not a policy requirement, but if you are regularly moving dozens to hundreds of pages, it is a tremendous help. If the link is too long to fit in the summary, you can use Special:PermanentLink. I also think you should consider the probability that all mass moves are controversial. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to linking discussions on future moves wherever it's not obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2019 (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.

On the 2015 "ban"

When I closed the original AN/I thread, the rationale was "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." While a ban on page moves was proposed in that thread, it did not have consensus and no ban was established. The word "ban" does not appear in the closure, the message on Dicklyon's talk page, or the unblock log message.

This "provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions", as many correctly surmised above, is restatement of a policy that applies to all users. It is a warning that such actions will result in being reblocked. Any increased vigilance of monitoring Dicklyon's page moves due to this four year old warning is long past.

There is a separate question of whether consensus in this most recent AN/I thread established a new ban, which was unclear. This discussion has now made that clear. Prodego ^talk 16:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so, and for your support along the way. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I moved about 100 articles this weekend, and tried to use links to explain where I could. If anyone sees anything controversial among the groups or singlets there, please just let me know and I'll take them to discussion. So far no pushback, and none expected really. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The comments by Prodego here, are telling, along with comments made in the discussion as to the validity of calling Prodego's comments in the above and preceding discussions a "ban". Pedantically construing Prodego's close to be a ban is probably a misrepresentation (ie taking things out of context) amounting to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to the extent of being a personal attack, in the context that sanctions have been sought. This is reminiscent of witch hunts. Those raising such an hue and cry should be cautioned (at the very least) for their actions, particularly if they profess to be knowledgeable in the finer working of such matters. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably a very good idea for admins to watch this closely

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and associated pages. I mean current event pages in the countries of US rivals will always be a mess but this one looks particularly in need of careful, neutral, admin oversight. There's been a fair bit of WP:RGW from both editors with pro and anti China POVs there, and there's a lot of editors on IPs trying to use Wikipedia as an organizing and communications tool rather than an encyclopedia. At this point, I'm not running to AN/I to call out any specific editors, and would in fact advise caution and care toward WP:BITE. But I do think admins being alert to this cluster of event pages and filled in on the rapidly changing landscape of discussion here would be a very good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I've been trying to keep an eye. El_C 18:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to all that Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard also exists now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

An abundance of caution

I just felt the need to report this user, Kamrul079 based on their recently created promotional page. God knows what they plan to contribute but I presume it will be promotional and PAID. Trillfendi (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP

There is an IP-hopping anon with a bone to pick who has been vandalizing WP:RPP. I semi-protected the page for 1 day, but additional eyes on it -- especially once the protection lapses -- and the other pages the IP was targeting (like Aircraft carrier) would be appreciated. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B000::/42 range blocked for 31 hours. That should stop the disruption for now. It might need to be widened to a /40, so let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

One for the old timers

Anyone who's been around forever might remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Overstock sued a bunch of Wall Street firms for $3.5bn or so for naked short selling,and duked it out here as well. Apparently that all settled by 2016 for a total of about 1% of the claim, including dismissal of a comedy RICO claim, but that's an aside. They diverged into selling their own stock online, and (of course!) did an ICO. And today Patrick Byrne is back in the news due to a liaison with Maria Butina: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/business/overstock-paul-byrne-maria-butina-affair.html?fbclid=IwAR2lS5ljxNsJUosvJXK8nBC2nFZzmlST5aYYurvPCUjApZL4h80FrvRrbHw. Welcome to Wikipedia, where both sides of a dispute turn out to be shitty. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Now, now. That isn't entirely accurate. Sometimes there are three or more sides that all turn out to be shitty. :)

Also, you should apologize to shit for comparing it to certain of the more unsavory denizens of Wall Street. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What both these guys said. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to create Baltimore Gneiss article

The article title is currently blacklist, however I would like to create this page as it is a significant geological unit that merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Avg W (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Done here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Users should create drafts, then ask an admin to move them. Blank pages will just get speedy deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, NinjaRobotPirate; with that in mind, I've taken the liberty of creating a User:Avg W/Baltimore Gneiss page for Avg W. Hope that helps. ——SerialNumber54129 09:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have put a starter page at [[User:Avg W/Baltimore Gneiss so an admin can move it. I intend on filling it out with more detail. Avg W (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Avg W: Proterozoic Tectonic Evolution of the Grenville Orogen, US Geological Survey, Gneiss Domes in Orogeny, Potassium Argon Dating, The geology of the crystalline rocks, The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States, Baltimore, Migmatites. ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be blacklisted; the problem is with the title blacklist, where the first letter of each word is missing in some titles - .* is 0 or more characters, not 1 or more. Other corrections and updates are needed there, such as the numbers (last updated in 2016) preventing creation of many IPv6 talk pages, the repeated namespace for "Portal" missing a colon, and blacklisting of IP talk pages for which the blocks expired in 2009. Peter James (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  This blacklisted entry exists because of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinanike101, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Arab–Israel conflict

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:

• Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
• Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
• Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
• Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
• Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case will be suspended until September 19, and parties and participants will be notified by then of the timetable for the case as well as any other necessary case management information.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding the Arab–Israel conflict

Edit review

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, edits made by Hildeoc on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and Wikipedia:Requested moves review needed by admin. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Before coming here, couldn't you first have a normal human conversation with them? Find out what they're trying to do? Explain why you think it's incorrect? That kind of thing? Something more than edit summaries and canned warning templates? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion. @ZI Jony:, please remember to do that next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I tried to make clear my edits, and their reasons to the inquirer within the relevant edit summaries, as well as my personal talk page. However, the inquirer has not responded to my statement so far.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hildeoc When your edit was reverted by Steel1943 you suppose to discuss on talk page but you repeat again and again, please discuss on talk page before made this type of changes, and when page movers or admin clear request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests your changes will be automatically erase. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again: I made that edit in order to ensure that all shortcuts as well as the subpage instructions are transcluded to the main page. Please feel free to contact me in case of further questions. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

PS: @ZI Jony: What exactly do you mean by "when page movers or admin clear request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests your changes will be automatically erase" here?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: Page movers and admin can see one button called as "Clear all requests", when they press on that button everything will erase. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: Oh, I see. Thank you for pointing that out. Do you or anybody else here happen to know how to fix that?--Hildeoc (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

PS: I have now started a corresponding thread on the RM talk page.--Hildeoc (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, since I was pinged, at the present time, it looks like issue I saw with the instructions not appearing of Wikipedia:Requested moves has been resolved, I have nothing to say/add to this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2019 (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.

Could you please redirect Https://en.wikipedia.org to Wikipedia please?

99721829Max (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure how to parse this.--Jorm (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We have en.wikipedia.org as a redirect to English Wikipedia already; I think he's asking for the same thing from a page with the full URL as the title. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like anything even remotely plausible as a search term. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's the only way I can understand this request. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done redirects are cheap. I've sent it to Main Page, as that is the normal landing spot for someone entering that URL. I'd take an argument to send it to English Wikipedia as a possible alternative landing spot, since it explicitly includes en. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would really like it if Wiki's search could automatically parse external links to itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean the English Wikipedia article. 99721829Max (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine? It'd be like putting Google's URL into Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: hope you were joking? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It should probably go to English Wikipedia as http://en.wikipedia.org already targets there. It's a {{R from domain name}}. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done per the clarification of the requester above and to conform with the other page which was the subject of a previous RfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On the question of "Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine?": It's very common these days to be looking at a browser with a URL box, a browser Search box, and a site-specific Search box immediately below. It's very easy to paste a URL into one of the search boxes by mistake, or a search term into the URL box or the wrong search box... I do it all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh, NOW I get why this is at this noticeboard. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 17#Http://en.wikipedia.org. Only an admin was able to create this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, A lot has changed after that 2017 discussion. So more people, apart from admins, can do that now. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  [Thank you for the ping] Oh, I see. Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have, on occasion, copied what I thought was a wikilink but instead was the entire URL, meaning that I did put in Https://en.wikipedia.org... at the end of the normal URL. Weird stuff happens. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm joining this thread a bit late with a question that is highly related. Similar to Https://en.wikipedia.org, it is quite clear that the full URLs of popular websites (possibly the world's top 10 or 20 as found in the alexa ranks here) should also have a redirect to their articles (it is already the case for many www. pages, without the https://). However, only several pages have this redirect, such as Http://www.cnn.com, while others do not, including Https://www.facebook.com -> Facebook or https://www.wikipedia.com -> Wikipedia. And while attempting to create this page/redirect, an error message appears saying that the action is "restricted to administrators". Has there been any discussion about this subject? Shalom11111 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the last week Eric has been baited into a block on various threads, mainly surrounding Moors murders which is currently at WP:FAR as a result of being ruined by some fairly well-intentioned editors. Eric was blocked by GoldenRing for 72 hours and was asked we he can't "let stuff go". Then, 72 hours later (maybe more) Eric is visited by an admin, Scottywong, who leaves this rather unnecessary and provocative message, in order to provoke an equally unnecessary and provocative retaliation from Eric. It is clear that Eric and Scottywong have history, so will it be a case of sitting back and watching with bated anticipation, to see if Eric responds with an equally uncivil retort, so he can be blocked, or will Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble? Cassianto^Talk 03:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, EC will ignore the bait. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. Someone should have the foresight to deal with the instigator rather than the instigated. Cassianto^Talk 03:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate to some standard that the intention of the comments to which Eric is reacting inappropriately is to provoke just that reaction for the purpose of having Eric blocked or banned, then I think there is grounds for intervention. Otherwise, it still comes down to Eric needing to bite his tongue and not rise to the challenge. If nobody can prove to some reasonable standard that the baiting is intended to cause Eric to violate his editing restrictions, then we're well into WP:NOTTHERAPY territory. As to that one diff, I just don't see it as being intended to cause him to violate rather than an unfriendly, snippy remark. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For "unfriendly" and "snippy", read incivility. There is not a separate rule for sysops. Cassianto^Talk 04:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read my filing comment? SW's comment offers nothing relevant to the thread, other than to mock Eric's "style" - indicated by the provocative use of quote marks. EC and SW have history, further evidence with regards to a motive. And no, it does not fall to Eric to bite his tongue when we have people actively going about provoking incivility. If this kind of provocation didn't exist, Eric wouldn't react. Can you demonstrate the positivities of saying such a comment to someone who's just come of a block? Cassianto^Talk 04:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who has tried to understand and get to know Eric as a person knows that he has a touchy or prickly personality, but also that Eric is a great Wikipedia editor when nobody is trying to pick a fight. And very smart. I will never forget the help he gave me on my first Good Article, an article that I really cared about. He has provided similar assistance on many, many other articles, when other editors were happy to work with him. In my opinion, any administrator who comments on his talk page (or the talk page of any recently blocked editor) should have a clearly articulated and valid reason to communicate. Poking at a person who has gone through such a tough experience is a very bad idea. Administrators should always try to keep caution and compassion in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If I accidentally removed part of another editor's comment, then I apologize. Please feel free to refactor to clean up my mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The notion one must "demonstrate the intention" or "prove the baiting is intended" is absurd in the context of text-only WP. (Even in court of law, successful perjury cases are nearly non-existent, because the standard of proving intent, that the liar "knew they were lying" is an almost impossible bar to meet. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd.) The text is there in black & white for any reasonable person to read & interpret whether baiting or not, as well as any accompanying history or context. --IHTS (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There must be intent. In the absence of intent demonstrated to some standard, you're assuming bad faith inappropriately. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd. Of course Wikipedia is not a court of law. But we still must adjudicate problems like this fairly and even-handedly, according to policy, rather than what we "feel" is right or wrong, baiting or provocation. I see no clear facts being asserted to demonstrate intent to disrupt or intent to cause Eric to violate his sanctions. In the absence thereof, I would advise that this discussion be ended. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. I realise that, like me, you cannot read SW's mind but can you please try to explain how you think their comment was useful/what purpose it served, bearing in mind in particular the past interactions and the unusual grammar. That is, in your terms, the "intent". - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. On the contrary, I'm trying to bring a measure of logic and analytical response to this matter, rather than an endless reliance on "concern" for "problematic" comments. One needn't read someone's mind to determine intent, after all. And, indeed, I don't think SW's comment was constructive or intended to be particularly constructive. But I also don't see any indication that the comment was intended to push Eric into violating his restriction. If that comment is worthy of sanction under the ordinary policies, then it should be sanctioned. If not, it should not. All this talk about "baiting" Eric is meaningless unless there's intent to cause Eric to violate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. Given your opinion of SW's "intent", why should the comment have been made at all? - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. I have no interest in your prejudices. The only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved rationally. The only way to do this is to put aside personal, subjective feelings and by pursuing this in an objective, repeatable manner. This is the approach I have advocated from the beginning and will continue to advocate. If SW can be shown to have intended for Eric to violate as a result of his comment, then he should be sanctioned. Similarly, if SW's comment violates standards for civility, then he should be sanctioned accordingly. This is not hard by any means. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: No, the only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved in a way that minimises disruption to the encyclopaedia project. If totally irrational actions result in that end, that's fine with me. I don't care what SW's intent was; anyone can see that this is unnecessary and likely to be provoking, especially given the history between these two. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, totally irrational actions don't result in minimizing disruption. Totally irrational actions–especially admin actions–always increase disruption. Exhibit A: deleting dlthewave's firearms page as a DS sanction; Exh. B: indef'ing Huldra when Sir Joseph had a 3 month tban; Exh. C: removing Scottywong's comment but doing nothing about Corbett's just-as-bad-or-worse comments (see my next comment below). I wish you would take on board that Mendaliv's point here is correct and yours is not: there needs to be rationality in enforcement, or else the people rebel. That's why the real world has laws and not just cops who do what they think is right from moment to moment. – Levivich 15:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that Golden Ring blocked Corbett less than a week ago? Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit D: when an editor is blocked for incivility for a month, then comes back and is even more uncivil, giving him a 72-hour block is irrational and leads to–you guessed it–he's back after 72 hours, and still uncivil. (In fairness, GR's issuing of the AE block was per admin consensus and not a unilateral action, as far as I read it. But it illustrates mendaliv's point about rationality in enforcement actions [though I'm not sure if mendaliv supported the block at all, I can't remember]). – Levivich 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric is always going to be uncivil. I've never much cared for that and I used to be one of the editors making a big deal of it. Frankly, I don't know what should be done about his incivility and, if yet another discussion was held to try and figure out a resolution, I wouldn't touch it with a 39-and-a-half foot pole. But none of that makes it okay for Scotty to bait Eric, and I'm not down with going easy on Scotty just because Eric is uncivil. I brought up GoldenRing's block because you made it seem like he was completely ignoring's Eric behavior when, in reality, it takes a great deal of courage to block Eric given the backlash that normally ensues. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that GR was ignoring Eric's behavior (I might take issue with how GR uses the tools sometimes, but GR certainly doesn't ignore issues; he often tackles the toughest disputes, much to his credit). As for EC always being uncivil, I hope you're wrong, but if you're right, the answer is an indef block. Having recently read his last 500 contribs (going back to May 2008), it seems to me he is definitely capable of communicating normally, he just chooses not to. – Levivich 16:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that every single interaction with Eric includes incivility, but rather that I believe these civility issues will keep reoccurring in perpetuity. Baiting is a large part of the problem, although not the entirety of the problem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the facts don't much matter here, but the recent one-month block was not for incivility but for mentioning a certain project with a tangential relationship to GGTF. Eric Corbett 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

poor judgement [...] in her membership of WiR was the offending statement. – Levivich 17:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been concerned about this too. Cassianto, thanks for bringing it here. One of Eric's FAs, Moors murders, was recently edited extensively (I'm choosing my words carefully) just as Eric was blocked for a month. To cut a long story short, it led to Eric receiving another block when he returned, several editors turning up who seemed hostile to Eric rather than interested in the article, serious personal attacks against Eric, the opening of a FAR, and editors who could have fixed the issues taking the pages off their watchlists in disgust (including the FAR nominator). I followed suit and took the FAR off my watchlist today.
  It is unfair that when Eric is baited, only he receives a block because he is under an ArbCom civility restriction. I'm pretty sure the ArbCom would not have intended to create that disparity. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Sarah, it's even worse when one of the baiters happens to be an admin. Talk about lead by example. Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin Please explain why you raised the FAR in a thread that is about editor behavior rather than article content, and why you appear to think that opening an FAR (to address what appear to be extensive and specifically stated article content issues that earlier measures including directly editing the article and discussion on talk had prominently failed to address) can be interpreted as a personal attack on an editor or indeed as anything other than purely being a step towards keeping our FAs high quality. Interpreting the FAR as an attack, as you articulate here and as Eric Corbett has explicitly articulated on the FAR itself, and then stepping away from the FAR as you and Eric Corbett both say you are doing, appears to make the failure of the FAR more likely. Your continued protection of the article, despite being necessary at the time, also stands in the way of the success of the FAR, because without being able to edit the article it is difficult to fix any issues. I'd rather think you'd prefer (as I do) that the FAR succeed in addressing the issues, returning the article to FA quality, and reaffirming its FA status. But for that to happen, it is essential that the review be depersonalized and depoliticized, or to put it more bluntly that editors feel free to criticize the wording of the article without fear that in doing so they will be taken to WP:AN as trying to bait Eric Corbett. It appears to be the case that criticizing or even editing the article acts to bait Eric Corbett, but if so, that should be his problem, not the problem of people trying to make FA and FAR work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You've misunderstood. I protected the article for 24 hours only. I did not interpret opening the FAR as a personal attack. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Then why even mention it at all here, in a thread that is purely about personal attacks to or by Eric Corbett? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Personal attacks? I think you may be confused with another thread somewhere. No where have I said this is a "personal attack". This is about baiting behaviour, aggravated by the fact that it was by an administrator. But thank you for your valued input as always. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • David Eppstein I'm not sure why you're attacking SlimVirgin but the FAR is to some extent directly related. Regardless, as I've explained to you now numerous times opening a FAR was my suggestion as the only means forward to solving intractable talk page issues at that article, almost all of which occurred in Eric's absence. I expected that Eric would and should be involved in the FAR, but it's not yet another venue for editors to attack each other. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I personally don't see any baiting on the part of either Scottywong, GoldenRing, or Sandstein. None of them use clearly insulting wording like "incompetent gutter-snipe", "Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills", "stupid", or "unpaid goons" -- for all of which Eric Corbett was blocked [17]. If Eric Corbett wants Scottywonng to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• +1 with Softlavender. Much as I love Cass and Eric and the absolutely outstanding work they have contributed (even saying this sounds patronising; and that's what I feel is the top value of their work), there is no baiting here – though I am sorry Eric has to go through all this. Lourdes 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Softlavender, yours seem to be the "naughty words" approach to civility. Putting style in scare quotes, as SW did, is clear baiting. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• The quotation marks were directly quoting what Eric Corbett had said immediately above; therefore they weren't "scare quotes". If Eric Corbett wants Scottywong to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. If the community wants to enact an interaction ban between Scottywong and Eric Corbett, then someone needs to propose it. Scottywong's comment does not appear sanctionable per se. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, come off it! - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you believe Scottywong's comment is sanctionable per se, then what sanction to do you propose? Block? De-sysop? And based on what policy? Ad hominem comments like "Oh, come off it!" appear to indicate that you have no argument at this point but are merely bludgeoning those who disagree with your point of view. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please read Cassianto's opening remarks in this thread. I have no idea why you are using the phrase ad hominem. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• So if you agree with Cassianto's apparent suggestion that "Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble", then I would suggest that you compose a boldfaced "Support" !vote for a block (including a policy rationale), rather than telling good-faith commenters to "Oh, come off it!". -- Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• My congrats. First you insert ad hominem, which you know is usually used in the context of WP:NPA, and now you insert good faith with its implication that I may not be such because we're disagreeing here and you are. Smart stuff: if you honestly cannot see the baiting and totally unconstructive nature of SW's comment then I despair and hope that our paths do not cross in future because it doesn't look like I would get fair treatment. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• More ad hominem remarks instead of clear arguments. I never said Scottywong's comment was totally constructive; I said, and repeated myself, that in my opinion it is not sanctionable per se. If you believe it is sanctionable per se, then please propose an actual sanction and back that up with a policy rationale, and stop bludgeoning the conversation, questioning the good faith of those you disagree with, and posting ad hominem insults. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• So says the editor who replied to my comment at RfA (that admins have no business being admins if they can't do the easy thing of turning off their mouths from saying "Fuck you", as cops on-the-job don't do to citizens) by referencing my block log. (Seems to me that makes you transparently hypocritical re your ad hominem complaints.) --IHTS (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett has a number of restrictions by Arbcom because admins like SlimVirgin singularly failed to curb his bad behaviour, agressiveness, and article ownership issues. In many cases enabling it further. So whinging that he gets sanctioned under those restrictions is amazingly lacking in self-awareness. It is unfair that editors have to deal with Corbett and his protectors every time he throws a fit over his contributions being criticized, articles he has worked on being edited etc. But they had to deal with it, and it took an arbcom case to give them some form of parity. If admins had taken a more rigourous approch when these issues first appeared, it wouldnt have ended up at arbcom with Eric under a spotlight. So, only the enablers to blame at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider it actionable in this case given that SW and Eric seem to have avoided each other for the last five years, but Scottywong used to have a long history of appearing in threads in which he'd never previously commented to try to goad Eric (take your pick here). I can certainly appreciate that this kind of petty point-scoring is conduct unbecoming, although I can't see that a one-off instance is anything actionable. It takes two to tango and if Eric stops rising to the bait, SW will get bored and find another game to play. ‑ Iridescent 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. SW needs to be trouted and told to stay away unless they're going to contribute something which is, without question, constructive. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but as far as I can tell this is the first instance for five years, which is why I said "not actionable". On the general issue of taking two to tango, All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken is explicit written Wikipedia policy. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. Then this needs to go to the Committee, which has exclusive authority over such matters. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. The onus is already on Eric based on the GGTF remedy, which requires him to disengage if he feels the need to fight back against someone that's annoying him. If this is unfair, an amendment should be sought at WP:ARCA. Until such time as that remedy changes, the onus is on Eric. This is not difficult. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree completely that Eric should not rise to the bait - no issue there. However, if there were no bait there would be nothing that might cause reaction. This doesn't need a formal sanction, just an informal shot across the bows so that SW is in no doubt that the edit was bad form. And all that needs is the notification of this discussion on their talk page + a consensus that it was indeed a poor comment. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Iridescent. It was baiting, it was inappropriate, and it doesn't rise to any blockable level. Funny, I thought Scottywong had retired--was their activity level substantial enough to keep the tool? They haven't been really active since 2013, or 2014 if one is charitable. And here they are, picking up where they left off years ago. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• It was unnecessary, ill-advised, inappropriate, etc. etc. Clearly provocative. But why bring it here and increase the potential for drama? Words to the Admin's. own talk page directly would have been more effective. This section is another unnecessary magnet, as can be seen..... Leaky caldron (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• A sanctimonious, self-promoting, trolling and clearly unsought comment which says more about Scottywong then Eric would ever be permitted to say. Probably not sanctionable as a first “offence”, but if this regrettable behaviour continues, then removal of his tool should be the first step in discouraging him. We expect better behaviour from our Admins. Giano (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I've removed the comment (and a response to it as collateral damage). It was completely unnecessary provocation of an editor who's just come off a block for responding to similar. It is deeply disappointing to see an admin stooping to this level and I agree with others than any repeat should be sanctioned, either by the community (IBAN?) or arbcom. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• ((edit conflict) with GoldenRing) I'm sorry to see Scottywong has ignored the ping in the original post, even though he's active. I'm also sorry to see Cassianto has not alerted Scotty that he's being discussed here, because pings are not sufficient (they don't always work). I have rectified the second thing, and posted an alert of Scotty's page. My opinion of this thing is that, no, it's not necessary to "prove intent", Mendaliv. Since we can't inspect the insides of each other's heads, we don't know other's intent. Scotty made a post that he should have known was provocative, a few days after Eric was blocked. I don't agree with Cass's implication that that post was specifically intended to cause Eric to flare up "so he can be blocked"; I don't even believe anybody would block him for responding rudely to provocation; or, if some admin did block, there would be an outcry and an unblock. No. But I do think it was a very poor idea, @Scottywong:. I don't know about past interactions (Cassianto's link for "have history" is less than helpful), but it's enough that you're an admin and Eric is not, which means that you have more power here. Eric had a recent block in his history, which was an appropriate and sufficient sanction IMO. GoldenRing, who placed the block and a note about it, was very polite, as was appropriate. There was absolutely no call for Scotty to go there and poke Eric. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oops, sorry, Cass, I see you did notify Scottywong. I should have checked the page history. He removed your notification with the comment "lol", and didn't deign to reply here. Lovely. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

• My less than helpful link is probably down to my inability to search for key things using the method Iridescent used - he found what I was looking for in his comment. Cassianto^Talk 11:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse GoldenRing's action and analysis. Haukur (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse GoldenRing. See "admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric" (July 2014). Also, Scottywong indeffed Eric on 5 July 2013 (reduced 7 hours later). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• IMHO it's clear baiting and I certainly endorse GoldenRing - Any repeats should result in sanctions (I would've liked to have seen sanctions now but maybe that would be punitive. –Davey2010^Talk 10:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I just like to note the irony of Cassianto filing this complaint. My talk page is a good example of Cassianto baiting just as good. Anyway, ScottyWong should be at best warned about the behaviour. It is up to EC to ignore it. Thats it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't about me, so kindly do one. You're like an itch that wont go away. Cassianto^Talk 11:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This comment by Cassianto is a striking example of incivility in a thread where I would expect everyone to be more careful of their own behavior than that, however provoked they may feel. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • This comment by David Epstein is a striking example of someone trying to create a straw man argument to take the emphasis off of the real issue, which is Scottywong's baiting behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Your incivility, in a thread on AN about incivility, is not a straw man. And I believe in the ability of AN participants to continue examining both Scottywong and Eric Corbett's behavior despite now also being pushed by your incivility to add another incivil editor to those under examination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • • It is a straw man as this was never about incivility. Why don't you put some spectacles on and actually read my very first comment? Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Is that the main incivility that strikes you in this thread, David, really? For my own part I'm more disturbed by the fact that Scottywong has removed Cassianto's AN alert from his page with the edit summary "lol" and has now also removed my own alert with "yawn, not interested". He can't be arsed to reply to the comments here, from many users, including the admin who blocked Eric (GoldenRing). I call that incivility and nonchalance. Note also WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
        • Removing material from one's own talk page and laughing it off is not incivility. And the existence of other incivility nearby does not provide any justification for Cassianto being incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Something about stones and glass houses. For the record, BabbaQ's comment could also been considered an attempt to bait Cassianto. As for Scotty, perhaps a short block would remind him to not do this in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • How is tu quoque a useful response to this? But if you insist on going in that direction, and the least civil thing you can find by trawling through someone's talk page looking to discredit them is a mildly-colorful adjective directed at the quality of Wikidata rather than at an actual editor, then you should look harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I could've brought up other stuff. Be grateful that I didn't. Regardless, it wouldn't be okay to scrutinize low–level misbehavior on the part of one editor while completely ignoring the blatant provocation even if you weren't yourself guilty of recent incivility. But of course, the exchange between BabbaQ and Cassianto is a microcosm of this entire thread. Person A provokes Person B, and a sizable number of people want to give Person A a pass while suggesting that Person B better not say anything dumb in response. Seems unfair. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh, let's not have a long game of 'oo killed slagged off 'oo. And while I'm pretty disappointed with Scotty's response to this, a block would be punitive, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Not necessarily. Scotty's given no indication that he understands he needs to refrain from such behavior; indeed, he seems to find this all very amusing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll be making a full comment about this alleged baiting later, but for now I ask people refer to my previous statement at AE (which will likely get ignored by most admins again). My friends and I are going to the beach for now, though because I need to do something that isn't Wikipedia for like a day, I mean come on MJL you were editing for most of your birthday too.. that's just sad.
  I'll comment later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• What is the point of raising something that was already covered in a now-closed AE thread? It is history and Eric got a block for stuff raised in that thread. The current issue here is not merely about baiting but about admin conduct, which is arguably a higher level of concern. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Sitush: Because not a single admin commented on my statement besides (briefly) Galobtter. The entire discussion there was centered around EEng and Moors murders. How did I bait Eric by just questioning the validity of sources on Cotswold Olimpick Games?^[18] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• MJL, I'm sorry, but who are you? Why do we need to know that you will be making a "full comment" later? And if not a single admin comments on your comment...maybe your comment wasn't all that exciting. And now I see that we have yet another Arb case, where you're throwing in some comments from, what, 2016? That actually was a pretty useful comment: "wasted enough of my time already" is applicable in many circumstances. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: [Thank you for the ping] I was going to make a full comment, but I read some of the discussion asking for this to be punted to arbcom. I obliged. As for the rest, I am unsure as to how best answer your question on this forum. I'm kind of new here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• SW's comment, I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style"., has been removed by an admin. So far, no admin has removed Corbett's comments from the two days since his last block expired:
  • (In response to a conversation between two editors about a social/cultural impact section being added) And you really think that you're the man to do it eh? God help us! In the same damn edit, Corbett writes "Obviously I will be taking no part in this review given the poisonous and insulting atmosphere created by certain individuals, and one in particular ..." followed by a bunch of attacks against EEng (again)
  • To David Eppstein: You have your opinion, I have mine. So why not get back to the evisceration and leave me alone?
  • To EEng, again: And I propose that you extract your head from your arse and get on with all your "improvements". – Levivich 16:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    ...and though at least one of those comments was hatted and then moved to a talk page (Corbett moved it back), nobody deleted them, nobody posted a warning on his talk page, and nobody started a noticeboard thread. Why? Because this is par for the Corbett course, and everybody knows we're going to need like a lot more diffs like that before anyone can even try, for the umpteenth time, to stop the incivility. – Levivich 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    • FWIW I don't consider the remark by Corbett quoted above and directed at me to be incivility towards me. It demonstrates a regrettable and hostile attitude towards editorial examination of article content and perhaps a hint of ownership, but that's a different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

      Calling your efforts to improve an article an "evisceration" is uncivil in my book. – Levivich 17:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt anyone cares about your book right here, right now. That issue is done and dusted. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wasn't this report supposed to be about Scottywong's behaviour? Why not close it now with a summary to the effect that it doesn't matter how uncivil anyone is towards me, as that's evidently the conclusion that's being drawn here. Eric Corbett 17:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion

El C, I'm sorry but I think discussion needs to continue. I don't think Eric was actually asking it to close. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't asking for it to be closed, I merely asked a rhetorical question. Eric Corbett 18:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)and it isn't the "Moore" article. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Will undo. Anyway, do (any of) you have a concrete proposal on how to resolve this? El_C 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

El C, if the discussion continues, we might be able to figure out what's been happening. It isn't straightforward. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry again. El_C 18:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• What bothers me here is the intentional goading, EC is responsible for his own behavior and responses but at what point do the people trying to right great wrongs become a large part of that problem too. One very valuable thing I learned from the Lightbreather arb case is that even when you feel the other person is the problem the actions you (SW) take not only make the problem much much worse it obfuscates the actual "problem behavior" they wish to highlight. It may not just obscure that POV it may also deepen the problem for both individuals...took me a I-ban to figure that out but it was a lesson I have learned... Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wrote up this reply to Levivich, but then the thread closed, so I'll post it down here.
  I've seen nothing but good work from you since you started editing in 2018. I was surprised to see you arrive at Talk:Moors murders on 13 August to support installing EEng's shorter version, after your detailed post against Eric on 11 August at AE. That seems to mix up editor disputes and content issues. It seems from your comments that you're not familiar with the topic, and you've followed whatever EEng wants (e.g. you were about to make an edit request but stopped when he advised against it). You've also ignored personal attacks on Eric.
  For example, when EEng found the sourcing issues (common in older FAs), he posted a link to his comment with the heading "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs!" on the talk pages of eight editors, including you and five admins. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] No one blocked him. Goldenring warned him. You thanked him. [27] Is this not a clear example of double standards? Increasingly it feels that anyone can say whatever they want to or about Eric, can undermine his work while he's blocked, and if he doesn't express his frustration in the right way, he (and only he) gets blocked again. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin:

• What you leave out (and you do have a way of leaving things out) is that I agreed poseurs was overboard, and changed it to have feet of clay just like other editors on my own initiative [28]. My unutterable astonishment on finding – even while the target of a barrage of nonspecific allegations that I'd edited out "nuanced meaning" allegedly present in the sources – that our vaunted Content Creators pushed an article through FA with scores of unverified passages is best summarized here [29].
• While we're here, I'm sick and tired of you repeating your fucking bullshit (which you emitted once before in this very thread [30]) that I undermined [E.C.'s] work while he's blocked. To quote myself:

I had absolutely no idea EC had been blocked. I've worked on this article here and there for a year or two, and it's simply a cosmic coincidence that I really got into it the other day. In fact, EC was blocked that day after I started this round of edits [31], which was stimulated by this [32] pretty-awful edit by an IP.

That quote is from the article's talk page [33], where you've been stalking about with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick for some time now, apparently without bothering to read the thread (the one I just linked) which was the background to the events on which you've been pontificating. Or did you, in fact, read the above and just choose to ignore it because the facts are inconvenient to the poor-baited-Eric mythology to which you've married yourself? You tell us which. I'm not in the habit of asking for apologies, especially from those willing to insist that black is white, but now that this particular lie has been exposed in this very public forum I assume we'll hear no more of it.

• I've got one more for you before I leave you to put all this in your pipe and smoke it. Where was the baiting in this thread [34] that led to E.C. suggestion that I extract your head from your arse and get on with all your "improvements"? Do inform us.

EEng 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• • My concern is that you are prioritizing Eric's feelings over valid article content issues. Who cares whether EEng presented the issues with the moor murder article in a somewhat abrasive way? Who cares whether one of the people who brought it to FA status ten years ago got himself blocked for unrelated reasons a day or so after EEng started copyediting the article? None of those things is a reason to prevent improvements to the article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Let me try and spell it out for you. That "complete fraud" accusation was why I will take no part in the FAR. Which, just to be clear, I would have opened myself if nobody else had. There's nothing in it for me whether Moors murders keeps its bronze star or not; The standards for sourcing are different now to what they were ten years ago, but I'd defy anyone to find any "fraud" in the article. Eric Corbett 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • And at the risk of yet another block, let me be even more blunt. Any problems with the sourcing could very easily have been fixed by those who actually had access to the sources and knew that material. But no, all of them were chased away. So you will end up with a camel of an article which in the end will satisfy nobody. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The difference between fraud and falsification is merely one of intent. I have good faith that there was no fraudulent intent in the creation and editing of the article; it could much more easily be explained as sloppiness. But once problematic content has been identified, and a group of editors reacts not by fixing it but instead by kicking up a huge fuss about civility as an excuse to not to anything, protecting the article in the old problematic version, repeatedly reverting to that version, and then claiming to walk away from the mess while simultaneously derailing the improvement process with off-topic comments about how offended they are, that good faith is harder to maintain. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • David Eppstein, I went through a period of being harassed several years ago. I recognize the signs of it, and I think it's happening here to Eric. That doesn't mean that everyone not on his side intends to do it. But regardless of intention, we need to be aware of it and find a solution. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • We should not allow anyone to harass Eric or anyone else. Scotty's comment that kicked off the thread is of a type I have seen from others on Wikipedia: carefully staying this side of the line of overt incivility but intended to provoke. If we're going to sanction that sort of behavior, good, but we should do so consistently with others as well. On the other hand, we should also not allow claimed harassment to be used as an excuse to avoid content issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

David, the problems at the article are to do with citation density, nothing more, which is common with older FAs, and we deal with it routinely. The content is almost certainly solid. No one has removed themselves "as an excuse". The authors and others familiar with the topic have decided they don't want to interact with someone who keeps attacking them and people they respect. If you agree that Eric should not be harassed, then please take a step back and look at the recent two AEs, and the timing of people arriving at Moors murders. Just as harassment should not be used as an excuse to avoid content issues, content issues should not be used as an excuse to engage in harassment. We should also recognize that people can engage in harassment without intending to. But that doesn't make it feel any better to the person at the centre of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the it-just-citation-density plea. I addressed that here [35] when E.C. entered the same plea:

This has nothing to do with citation density ... but rather WP:V, which has always been policy. There can be just one cite for a whole section, if it supports all the material there. Instead, [at FAR] is a list of 55 points at which the source doesn't support the text (and that's after a review of only half of the article, and doesn't include the 5 or so instances which have been fixed and removed from the list), most of which seem to have been there since you nominated the article for FA. I have little doubt that 90% of that material is correct and verifiable; but that leaves the 10% that isn't and needs to be removed, and there's no way to know which is which without the citations. If it's all so easily verifiable you should have done it ten years ago before nominating it for FA; now others are going to have to do it, and you can either help or get out of the way. Articles often have problems like this, but they're not supposed to be FAs, and this constant heaping of abuse on those now doing what you should have done is transparently defensive.

EEng 20:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, you asked for an analysis of timing of arrivals to Moors murders and their relation to other events involving Eric C. Eric violates a topic ban on an unrelated issue: July 1 2019. EEng (who had edited Moors murders as early as November 2016, and made some other significant copyedits this May) starts a long string of copyedits to the article: July 2 2019, with no evidence of having seen the AE thread on Corbett's violation. Eric is blocked: July 3. Martinevans123 (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 5. Iridescent (who had also edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 9. Cassianto, DrKay, and Kieronoldham (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) start interacting with EEng: July 10. So far, all very peaceful, although not all editors agreed on all edits. Eric C is unblocked: I assume some time around August 3. First major reversions: Serial Number 54129, quickly self-reverted, then Cassianto, restored by now-blocked Hari-kiri Te Kanawa and re-reverted by BabbaQ, August 5, leading to the first round of protection. So EEng's timing appears to be a complete coincidence, but Cassianto's and Te Kanawa's timing might have a connection to Corbett's block, and after that things became a mess. Is that what you were trying to imply? Or is there some other entrant to all this that you're referring to instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please don't refer to me as "Corbett". I find that most insulting. Eric Corbett 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] Ok, will do, sorry about that. I have complained before about people addressing me as "Eppstein" (although I don't mind if they use that name when talking about me in the third person) so I know how it feels. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  ... he said, completely ignoring the substance of the post. No doubt if he'd referred to you as "Eric" you'd be bristling at the presumption of his overfamiliarity. EEng 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Eh? The post was in response to Slim Virgin, not Eric. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Eh? What? Who's on first? What are you talking about? What post? Who are you talking to? EEng 20:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  User:EEng is there really a need for the bad faith assumption about what EC likes or wouldn't have liked? Can't we stop the baiting at least here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  +1 Paul August ☎ 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Evidently not. Eric Corbett 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  -1 Paul August ☎ 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well the point was that his complaint about the form of address, sincere or not, distracted from the fact that he ignored the substance of David Eppstein's post. But you're right, so I've struck the bit about the form of address, leaving just the bit about the ignoring. EEng 21:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • David, thank you for looking at the AE reports (1 July and 11 August). First, please note that WP:STEWARDSHIP is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." That was ignored, and it has led to this situation.
    Eric was taken to AE on 1 July for having referred to someone's membership of Women in Red during an RfA. On 3 July, when it was clear he was about to be blocked, EEng arrived at Moors murders to make a series of edits he had argued for (against consensus) in 2016. I'm going to AGF and assume he didn't see the AE. But I think most editors would wonder, if they started making edits that had previously been opposed, especially to an FA, why the main author was silent, and when they saw from his talk page that he was blocked for a month would stop.
    It was clear that at least some of the edits were against consensus. People asked EEng to stop; Iridescent said he was literally begging him to stop. When Cassianto reverted, EEng of course reverted back, and there were a flurry of reverts, including from a sockpuppet who reverted to EEng's version. When Eric's block ended, he reacted to EEng, and was taken back to AE and blocked again. Only Eric was blocked because he has a civility restriction. Now the page has to be protected so that no one can edit it, just to stop EEng from reverting to his version. Meanwhile, it seems he can say whatever he wants about Eric, including "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" in an edit summary. Levivich, who took part in both AEs, commenting against Eric (in the second one extensively), has arrived at Talk:Moors murders to support whatever EEng wants. I AGF of Levivich, who is an editor I've had good experiences with, and I respect his work and his opinion. But I think what has happened here is not good, and that everyone needs to step back and examine how best to proceed with minimum disruption to the article, with respect for the FAR process, and with respect for the authors of the article, which is a sensitively written piece about a very difficult topic. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I want to thank you for recognising that Moors murders was a very difficult article to write. We tried very hard to strike what we thought was the right balance, but it was written ten years ago now. Some new information has come to light, and standards for the required citation density have changed, but I can state categorically that we made nothing up, which is why the repeated charge of "fraud" makes it impossible to collaborate with EEng. I am in favour of many of the improvements made in the intervening years, particularly dealing with the death of Ian Brady, so the charge of ownership simply astonishes me. We did what we could, so now let's see what EEng can do. Eric Corbett 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • SlimVirgin You are misrepresenting the chronology that I carefully laid out for you just above. "On 3 July, when it was clear he was about to be blocked, EEng arrived" is a falsehood and a statement that you would have known to be false had you actually read my comment. He had edited the article sporadically since 2016, had already made more significant edits in May, and started his edits on July 2, well before the block. Please stop casting false aspersions based on a false chronology. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you can explain why you're trying to divert attention away from Scottywong's behaviour? Eric Corbett 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • David, please look more carefully at the chronology. EEng's 2016 suggestion that the article was "over detailed" gained no support. Just before Eric's block, but after it became clear that Eric was about to be blocked, EEng's started cutting the article down. I accepted above that it might be coincidence. Another coincidence is Levivich, who spoke against Eric in the two AEs, arriving to do whatever EEng tells him. For example, Levivich was about to make some edit requests. EEng suggested that he not do it, because it would cement in the version EEng doesn't like. Levivich then announced that he had changed his mind. As I keep saying, Levivich is an editor I respect. But I think opposition to Eric is interfering with people's decisions about content. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • FWIW, I posted the list of [EEng's edits on the FAR this morning. I don't see any in May. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I misread the date; the May ones were actually May 2018. He did edit the article in February 2019 as well. And as I said, even earlier in November 2016. Regardless of the exact dates, the notion that he first arrived at the article on July 3 is nonsensical and wrongheaded.
          • [edit conflict] I did look carefully at the chronology and found from my careful look that your theories of a connection to Eric's block are nonsensical. Your continuing to push these falsified theories after you have been shown evidence that they are false does you no credit. I have to point out that the usual standard for accusations of editor misbehavior on Wikipedia are: diffs or go home. So: please provide a diff with positive evidence that EEng learned that Eric would be blocked (not merely that he might have happened across an AE thread proposing to block Eric, but that he actually did learn of an actual intent to block Eric, prior to beginning his batch of edits) or stop accusing EEng of collusion. As for Levivich, I imagine he might have learned of the Moors murders article issue from watching EEng's talk page (which has many watchers, including me), took a quick look over there to see what the fuss was about, and naively started participating in content improvement, without realizing what he'd stepped in. That same scenario more or less explains my own participation there, and (although I doubt she got there the same way) it looks like what happened to another newcomer, Victoriaearle. It requires no theories of conspiracy to commit harrassment to explain it. And it would have started and ended at trying to improve article content if only the longer-term editors of that article could put aside their battleground mentalities and their attitude that editor feelings trump content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • David, you were the reason I took the FAR off my watchlist, so I'll stop responding here too. I want to say only one thing. I repeatedly said above that harassment can be unintentional, in the sense that one doesn't always realize how one's actions come across, or how they are perceived by the target as part of the actions of a wider group. You have taken my posts and produced "theories of conspiracy to commit harrassment". I can't keep commenting when I'm accused of saying exactly the opposite of what I did say. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Is it normally considered acceptable for an administrator to make vague accusations of misbehavior against other editors on WP:AN, refuse to provide diffs when asked, and then walk away from the discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
                • This comment is not constructive and not a good way to establish a collegial collaboration, which is what's needed. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • That comment may have been infelicitously worded, but its intent was to get the focus away from editor personalities and back to where it should have been, article content and on the appropriate process needed to get the article content up to par. I think your recent edits to the FAR are very helpful in that respect, by the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• @SarahSV: Thank you for the kind words; you know I hold you and your deep well of experience in the highest regard, and I always enjoy working with you here. I'm bummed that our viewpoints on this one are so diametrically opposed. In rapid response to all of the above: there were three AE reports against EC since he returned in May, not two. The first one, I said nothing. The second one, I made a snippy "unblockables"-type comment. The third one I diff-bombed. The third one was about Moors murders, that's how I came upon the article. I posted at the third AE my comprehensive thoughts on EC's incivility since his return and on how EEng was treated at that article, and I don't want to take up space repeating that here. Suffice to say, I don't see how anyone can look at EC's contribs and conclude that he is the victim of anything, as opposed to the perpetrator. I think it was EEng, not EC, who was provoked, poked, baited, bullied, or however you want to put it–wronged. EC's first comment on the Moors murders thread was to call EEng's edits "childish" and other stuff. If you look at the time stamp, by the time I saw and responded to EEng's posting on my talk page, he had already struck the header, which is good enough for me (EC hasn't struck any of the offending comments in my AE diff bomb). And, tbh, I didn't say anything before, but I didn't not use edit request templates because I was unaware of them; I didn't use them because I didn't think it was a good idea. When you suggested it, I took that as a hint that that's what I should have been doing, but it wasn't EEng's comments that made me change my mind, it was the fact that the first "informal edit request" of mine that was made by an admin was challenged on the talk page (and the admin later reverted it). That, in my opinion, was a waste of the admin's time, and it convinced me that my initial inclination not to use the edit request tempalte was the better way. Anyway, I think Victoria and EEng have agreed on a way forward in the FAR that is probably the best bet for resolving the content dispute–I think the suggestion, below, of putting something else on Arbcom's plate is sheer insanity–and I'm happy to agree to disagree on how we view EC and all the rest. – Levivich 01:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

... back to the original topic

Whatever else may be relevant here, this remark: 'I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style".' by Scottywong to Eric, is inappropriate and unhelpful, especially for an admin. If I were voting for adminship, such behavior, were it shown to be more than a one off loss of temper, would lead me to vote against. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, per WP:NOTVOTE please consider amending the above as to not mislead others. —Sladen (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I though @Scottywong: was deysopped, I don't support his having advanced permissions. Admins have advanced authority here and as such they should be held to higher standards than users and if they are shown to be raising disruption they should have those advanced permissions removed post haste. Deysopping of admins should not only be done for admin actions but also for all their actions when they hold those advanced permissions, it is an admins duty, responsibility and requirement to reduce disruption not increase it whether it is using the advanced tools they hold or not.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit further, I'm also not pleased with Scottywong's lack of any apparent awareness or concern that his comment was inappropriate. I see this edit by Scottywong removing Cassianto's ANI notice with the edit summary: "lol", and his removal of another ANI notice by Bishonen, with the edit summary: "yawn, not interested". @Scottywong: would you please respond? Paul August ☎ 21:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, totally agree, lol, yawn not interested? His actions are a fail and a fail for a user with advanced authority on the project and if he is not prepared to stand up for those responsibilities he should have those advanced permissions removed straight away. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong, please comment here about this situation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the subject of advanced permissions, this is only resolvable by the Committee and honestly belongs there. Certainly the comment was not constructive. Onto the broader concern of Eric being harassed, which I believe there may be evidence of, the complexity of the situation when combined with the previous arbitration remedies just about requires arbitration to sort out. This is, after all, what the Committee was created to do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I believe that the comment was not constructive. I'd be happy to see our standards tightened so that deliberately-unconstructive statements intended to provoke (as this appears to have been) are considered uncivil. But if we do that many other editors than Scotty would fall afoul of such tighter standards; I think such a change needs a broad community education program rather than a sudden shift of the line that catches one of the people walking up to it by surprise. As it is, with the standards I've seen so far for other similar cases, I think this warrants no more than a trout for Scotty and a let's-pretend-nothing-happened-this-time for any reaction Eric may have had to Scotty's provocation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And what reaction might that have been? Why do you keep making stuff up? Eric Corbett 23:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I was just being careful in case there had been a reaction I didn't know about. If there wasn't one, so much the better. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • If you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? Eric Corbett 23:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • In a world where Scotty's comment would be sanctioned as unconstructive and inflammatory, so would that. Is that the world we want? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

David, I don't know what you mean exactly by "sanctioned", but at the very least we should express our disapprobation, for things like this. If enough editors did that, such actions would become less and less acceptable. Paul August ☎ 00:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bored now.

Can we punt this to ArbCom? It seems to be beyond our ability to fix here, and the user conduct issues are getting worse, not better, as people dig their heels in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree. The depth of the evidentiary issues being raised screams for a structured discussion at the very least. And there are, and have been, ongoing question as to how Eric's unique remedies need to function. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'll also note that Scottywong's responses to demands for a response have been less than impressive. See the edit summaries accompanying these removals of talk page notices of this discussion: "lol", "yawn, not interested", and a rollback. So there's definitely more than a single improper comment at Eric's user talk at issue here. Is it enough to open an ADMINACCT case at the Committee? Who knows. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• This message is to acknowledge that I'm aware of this discussion, however I politely decline to participate in it because I find it to be an immense waste of everyone's time, and frankly I have much better things to spend my time doing. I believe that the very brief comment I posted is self-explanatory and does not require any further interpretation by me (however, I will say that the assumption (of bad faith) by Cassianto that my intention was to "bait" Eric into doing something blockable was incorrect and unfounded). If the community believes that I shouldn't have access to the admin tools because of the single sentence that I posted, I'm happy to accept those consequences. However, I have to say that I find it comical how much discussion there has been above about trivial things like whether my use of quotation marks was uncivil, while just a few lines above my original comment, an editor is referring to other specific editors as "fucking morons". Somehow, these types of comments escape the civility police radar while my sentence about someone's "style" - (gasp!) - triggers an insta-tattle to AN and the predictable dramasplosion that follows. Anyway, I don't intend to fan the flames of drama by participating any further in this discussion. Please be sure to let me know if anything results from this discussion that I need to be aware of. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 23:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scottywong: thank you for responding. You say there was no intent on your part to bait Eric, OK what was your intent then? Paul August ☎ 00:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is the immaturity shown in Scottywong's need to poke an opponent yet again. See "admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric" (July 2014). That is after Scottywong indeffed Eric on 5 July 2013—six years is a long time to hold a grudge. The solution is a one-way interaction ban which would be readily achieved if the poking is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq I think you hit it on the head an Iban would probably help here if SW can not help themselves except further the acrimony 6 years later. It does rise close to a recall but probably falls short of that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m honestly not sure that goes far enough. SW’s comment was inflammatory, and there should be an examination by the Committee to determine if it was intentional, and if so, whether more serious sanctions are merited. And there are quite a few other cases of misconduct surrounding Eric that merit investigation (e.g., the curious early close of the last ARCA). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm personally not of the belief that one comment 5 years after the last "incident" is misconduct rising to a desysop case focused on one individual: an admonishment or IBAN is the most that would likely come of it, and well, to be honest, the community can do either or those on their own without the need for ArbCom.

That being said, you likely could have a case over the entire Moors Murder's saga and have this incorporated into it. Basically, this a full case for one comment is over the top, imo, but presenting evidence of it in another case would potentially make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I read this conversation, and I am rather frustrated by our inability to resolve this dispute. I've opened up Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett for comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, MJL, I'm shocked. Probably I should sit on my hands and not say it, but still, I'm shocked you felt you needed to do this. Now we have a full blown fire. Well done. Victoria (tk) 02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody please just indef User:MJL already. How much dramah does one editor need to cause in such a (hopefully) short career? ——SerialNumber54129 02:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I'll push back a bit here. I didn't cause this drama. (1) I did not make the comment that inspired this thread, (2) I didn't open this thread, (3) I've ignored the entire drama on the Murders page, and (4) I don't believe I knowingly have ever insulted another user.
If arbcom feels I otherwise acted improper, I'd rather they be the one to sanction me at this point. I opened up the report knowing full well that my own conduct would immediately be scrutinized. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Push back all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that in the same breath as you open an arbcom case you also admit to having no involvement in the case/people/subject. Whatsoever. ——SerialNumber54129 03:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I said that? I don't recall, but if I'm not mistaken I said I've ignored the entire drama on the Murders page (which is true). I make it pretty clear that I had poor run-ins with Eric in the past right there in the case request. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: [Thank you for the ping] No worries. It's a reasonable criticism to make that this may only escalate matters. In the short term, I have no doubt that would be true. However, I am a rather naïve believer in the process's ability to sort this out when given the chance. I struggled with this for awhile. My apologies for any disruption you feel this has caused in the meantime. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: [Thank you for linking to the page about the ping] do you mind changing "Eric" to "Eric Corbett" in your Arbitration document? You are well over the word limit, but surely adhering to that little but sometimes important formality won't make it much worse. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Though I just wrote like five minutes ago that I thought an Arbcom case was "insane" (and I don't know how they're going to make time for this), in fairness to MJL, it's not like they were the only one who thought a case was due, and if they hadn't filed it, someone else would have. Even before this AN, the suggestion of kicking it to Arbcom had been made at the prior AE cases (where the five-year-old sanctions have caused much friction in their application). @SN: that was an unnecessary PA. Every time I see you lately, you're sniping. – Levivich 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think so. Let me consider my response. ——SerialNumber54129 03:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: It's a template. I welcome a lot of new users who probably want to read that page. It's kind of a habit as a way of saying I like getting pinged. I trimmed already, but that would have been a good idea as well. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, this is not a good step to have taken. I said above that it was starting to look as if Eric was being harassed (and I'll stress again: without anyone necessarily intending to do that). One of the features of being at the centre of harassment is that, if you complain about your treatment, there will be further escalation against you. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I considered that as well. My understanding is that, though I have filed this request, arbcom may wish to accept it in whatever scope they so desire. In fact, part of my concern is that the community is unable to take that allegation seriously, so arbcom would be the best group to design modified sanctions to avoid that scenario. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is harassment, then it doubly needs to be handled by the Committee. I urge you to provide any evidence of this claim to the Committee via the proper channels. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how harassment can take place without mens rea. If it happens once it might be accidental (although by that token, not harassment, just hassle), but that can hardly apply on repeated occasions. ——SerialNumber54129 03:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that harassment should require intent. As I've said elsewhere, harassment is a crime in many jurisdictions, so saying "X harassed Y" may be libelous if you don't mean it in its proper, legal sense, which would absolutely require intent. Of course, others have complained that one needs to be a mind-reader to know someone's intent—this is untrue, of course, and I assure all here reading that I am not a mind-reader and neither is a jury. In reality, intent can be demonstrated circumstantially, by an objectively reasonable standard, to a reasonable standard of proof (e.g., "more likely than not" or "clearly and convincingly"; the latter is commonly used in sports, such as American football, as the standard required for a replay referee to overturn a field referee's decision). I think that if SV has evidence of harassment, her best move would be to provide that evidence to the Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Requesting an ARBCOM case against the apparent victim of this thread? Really? This seems to reward the apparent baiting of EC, and to be part of the apparent ongoing harassment of EC that other editors are seeing and complaining about above. I would strongly suggest that you remove your request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is yet another example of MJL, who is still a relatively new editor, involving himself in needless drama despite multiple attempts to get him to concentrate on building an encyclopedia. For how long is this going to be allowed to continue? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: *themselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Apologies. To my point though - a complicated case like this should be left to experienced editors or admins. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: The only negative impact me filing the case as opposed to any other editor doing so is that there are now calls for me to be banned. If it had been Sandstein or Scotty... wouldn't that just be proving the point that these users are just out to get him? There would be demands that they get desysopped for escalating the dramah.
That's to say nothing of the filer being someone who has history simply agreeing with Eric in these sorts of disputes. That filer would likely be charged with escalating as well and with trying to be rid of their perceived shared enemies. There was likely no ideal filer for this case request from my perspective. Am I wrong in these assumptions? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

... back to the original topic again

@Scottywong: I'm willing to AGF and accept that your intent wasn't to "bait" Eric Corbett. But I would still like to know what your intent was with regard to your: "I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style", on that user's talk page? Paul August ☎ 11:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that his intent was to show up and get in a dig while the opportunity was there. So, are you asking rhetorically? Whenever anyone brings up the trolling and lack of courtesy shown toward Eric, the conversation is redirected to be about things he's said, apparently to make us think he deserves whatever abuse is aimed at him. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

SW has backed away, EC hasn't taken the previous bait & a junior member of the community suddenly proposes an arbcom case. Must be something in the air, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2019 (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.

blanking for page move

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 accidentally recreated Juliano at Juliano (surname). Then I blanked Juliano (surname). I would like Juliano moved over (surname).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted the accidentally recreated page, now you can move the other one over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (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.

Account creations appear to be getting throttled to 2/day for editors

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T230521
Resolved

Hello all, if you are running in to this, it appears to be a temporary issue. Discussion and linked phab tickets are available at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#T230304_and_account_creation_being_blocked if you want to follow for more information as it becomes available. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There was an email to the ACC list a couple days ago indicating this was intentional, to fend off a spambot attack, and yes it's temporary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there was an insane amount of spambot registrations xwiki, including large projects. As an example of the sheer number, take a look at my deletion and block log here and registrations here. Not that it changes anything here but just to give an idea of the sheer number that various projects were dealing with. Praxidicae (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dang it! I'll have to create my evil sock army another day.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I just became the latest account creation at warwiki, simply by browsing your deletion/block log link. It also created my user page, copying it from meta. I don't know if this is intentional. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: yes, "autocreate" accounts are normal the first time you visit another WMF project. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

On all projects where you are registered and have no userpage your meta userpage, also known as your global userpage, is shown. For example, I have no userpage on enwiki and the global one is shown. Vermont (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, phab:T230521 rpeorts that the wgAccountCreationThrottle setting has been restored to 6/day. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:18, 15 August 2019 (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.

Unblock request by RussianDewey

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.

---

• RussianDewey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:

I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.

I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.

I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  endorse unblock-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks

• His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  That was in March. By June 9, things had changed.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time. Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're kidding!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  The edit was summary "bye". QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently NRP already [ran] a check and found nothing. Just below where he posted the request.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I’m not generally a fan of third chances. They tend to create unblockables. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Just curious, where does the idea of the third chance creating unblockables come from? Crazynas ^t 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are as a group cautious, which means that usually a new block after any unblock requires double the disruption for it to stick. My standard for unblocks is similar to what BrownHairedGirl below is saying: does the potential for benefits to the encyclopedia outweigh the known risk for disruption. Once someone gets to their second justified indef, the answer will almost always be No.
  Unblocking at that point means they'll just keep being disruptive and we'll ignore them for 6 months to a year before trying a bunch of sanctions that don't work until they eventually lose interest in the project or get blocked after years of frustration. I'm not going to name any names, but it's something I've noticed over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support given the length of the time they've been blocked for and some indication they may have changed attitude. If unblocked they'd better understand that any more battleground behaviour will be the end of their involvement with WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, with the strict understanding that there shall be zero tolerance for battlegrounding, incivility or harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. 41 mainspace edits, and a block log which isn't a whole lot shorter. Sockpuppetry, which wastes a lot of community time in cleanup. Note too that the sock was busy at ANI, from this dose of timewasting nitpicking on an admin's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=748686645#An_Inquiry

So I'm seeing a pile of negatives here on the conduct front.

But what positive things does this person bring to the project of building an encyclopedia? I see a poor command of the English language, which doesn't bode well for work on articles. Even if the new claims of good intent are sincere, they come without one of the pre-requisite skills.

Sorry, but I think this person has already wasted enough of the community's time. I don't see any point in trying again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the editor is young. Now that they are a bit older they want to come back and contribute. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock. I'd rather give them a try with a known account than throw away the key and have them sneak back with an undisclosed account. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock somewhat strongly, per [36] (Alexis Ivanov being RussianDewey's confirmed sock). After pulling a one-month block for personal attacks, they spent the next month and a bit harassing the blocking administrator, and after being told to knock it off ([37], especially [38]), didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with prominently listing that administrator's name as a vague "future project" on their user page. That earned them a six-month block before being discovered to be a sockpuppet. They have not addressed that incident at all in their unblock request, and I see no reason to believe they've learned anything from it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral: This may be a case that requires RussianDewey to work on a different project for a time without incident prior to returning to English Wikipedia. This could be another language variant of Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia), but could also be Commons or Wikisource. In particular, there would need to be evidence not merely of content creation without incident, but interaction with others without incident (i.e., work entirely within walled gardens that's gone under the radar, as is common on some low-traffic projects, would probably not suffice). As BHG notes, there are only 41 mainspace edits on this account, and all of those are in a two-month period in 2015. If we saw some more work elsewhere demonstrating a change, then perhaps those reticent to support an unblock would be more convinced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support 4 years since anything substantial other than talk page contributions? Wants another chance? Says he's learned his lesson? Let's give him a chance to prove us wrong. Should he prove us wrong, instant permaban. Edits would be easy to undo, so I don't see that being a significant problem. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral but the comments from Ivanvector give me pause. I give weight to the vote of administrators who have access to tools that I do not. I also appreciate that Swarm supports another chance with a zero tolerance expectation. I believe the editor has showed contrition. However BrownHairedGirl's assessment of the edit history is alarming. Tough decision for the closer. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• boldly moving comment to right sectionI would give him/her another chance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasoning of BrownHairedGirl.Krow750 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - last chance, I'm a believer. Also, @Mendaliv, Pudeo, and Buffs:, you refer to 41 edits / 4 years, but this editor's later sock account racked up over 3,500 edits until November 2016. [39] starship.paint (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don't you think that it's a bit odd to cite an editor's contributions while socking as an argument in support of their being unblocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: - I merely want to present that: to imply that this person has only 41 edits is misleading. We should be considering this from the standpoint that this person has 3,500+ edits. Yes, this editor socked, an offense, and both accounts were blocked. I believe in another chance at redemption. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint - Imho those 3,500 edits should not count as they were made from a sock account (Would you count the edits of a sockmaster who's ran 5 accounts as a justification for allowing them to stay? ofcourse you wouldn't - same should apply here - Sock accounts should count for nothing.) –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock per the user's own reasoning: "I know I did Sockpuppet activity...I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION...and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet."[40] I am concerned about this attitude. It's a time sink to gather diffs and write up SPI reports because "passionate" sockmasters flout policy, and lack concern for the time, energy, and well-being of their fellow Wikipedians. From what I see, his reasoning about why he won't sock again is primarily that he'll probably get caught; not that he's firmly opposed to violating policy. Users who think their passion for posting on the 'pedia is more important than WP policy, and more valuable than working admins' time, are causing burnout among the small number of admins who are actually doing the work in these areas. I'm not convinced unblocking would be a net positive to the community or the project. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - Socking is not "counter productive", socking is a danger to the project and an affront to the community, a giant middle finger. Also "socks will always be caught" is palpably untrue. There are socks posting on this very page, and getting away with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Only 41 edits to articlespace and the block list as long as my arm really wants me to oppose .... however all for we know the editor might have indeed changed their ways and might well becoming a good editor, The socking comment is a concern although I would put that down to the fact their not fluent in English (see below), Last chance - If they fuck it up indef with no more chances. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Replies from RussianDewey--

g/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RussianDewey&type=revision&diff=905724588&oldid=905717472&diffmode=source

I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

]  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Russian Dewey replied thusly (to @BrownHairedGirl:)--

I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Reality check, please. What you call your "main contribution" was actually only 41 edits to articles. In those 41 edits, I see you asserting several points of fact, but I don't see even one case of you adding a source for anything you write.

As to your claim to be expanding/creating templates, I see only three edits in template space[41], all to the same template. They consist of you edit-warring, and misusing edit summaries to insult a long-standing productive editor.

And despite making only small changes to text, you still seem envisage that you will need other editors to clean up after your unsourced edits.

So I see nothing positive in any of what you did, and plenty of problem even in those article/template edits. It is clear that you were a significant net negative even before you began the battleground conduct and the socking, and even before you abused the sock to waste so much of other people's time.

With nothing at all on the positive side of the balance sheet, and a long list of problems on the negative side, I can only say a firm "np". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• response to BHG belatedly carried over from talk page.

  :: I think there has been a little confusion with the Brown Haired Girl, majority of my work was not under this name rather the other one. Contributions and also unfinished researches Subpages. I also made contributions to non-English Wikipedia by the way. RussianDewey (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC

---

Replies from RussianDewey to @Beyond My Ken: and @CorbieVreccan: belatedly carried over by -- Dlohcierekim

In reply to "Beyond My Ken", I disagree, Socks will always get caught especially the amount of detailed articles I work with, I want to start in a legal manner and work my way up to gain the community to trust. I agree that socking is "is a danger to the project and an affront to the community" that's the whole point of this. RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

In response to "CorbieV", you say ""passionate" sockmasters" I think you paint me in a negative light, I'm not passionate about being a sockpuppet, I'm passionate about contributing to Wikipedia that's very different. Also I think you got my reasoning wrong, I recommend you read it again, I have two reasoning, one moral and one legality/punishment, the moral one is I want to do things the right way and the legality one is that sockpuppets at the end will always get caught and punished. I also never said my passion for Wikipedia comes before my respect for the WP Policy. I clearly stated "I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians" that includes following the Five pillars,Policies and guidelines and the Ethical Codes RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Support He seems sincere.

Sincerely, Humorous. (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing

I am about to close this thread as no consensus to unblock (currently 9-7 not counting neutrals, some unblock supports are weak, arguments are roughly same weight), but will wait for a day or to in case somebody wanted to comment but was postponing, or someone read other comments and changed their mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2019 (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.

on Oliver Langford

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.

---

Is he really worth a Wikipedia article? If so, is the article written by this new user has fulfill Wikipedia's BLP article standard? – Flix11 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality of the article aside, Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not mention football referees. For several sports, however, it does state that umpires who have officiated games at the highest national level of a sport are presumed notable. One could logically extend that to football, I guess, unless there is a reason I'm not aware of that it's only mentioned for a few sports specifically. Of course the general notability guideline still applies. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The NSPORTS guidelines don't cross sports because in some sports referees might be notable and in others they might not. That being said I have no idea for football specifically. If its not mentioned it just falls to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably best asking at the football project and take it from there. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. This is not a subject that requires any administrative intervention and should be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 20 August 2019 (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 look at this AfD for me please?

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, I have a query re this afd. After I completed some formatting I delved in as to why it was closed early. Am I right in saying it should not have been closed by the (now blocked) closer, IMO it should not have been draftified while at AfD? I have forgotten where to raise this closure so if soneone can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. Thanks Nightfury 07:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You could try WP:DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks Beyond My Ken. Nightfury 08:26, 21 August 2019 (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.

RFPP Backlog

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's a fair few articles currently pending consideration in RFPP, some of which have been there 12 hours (I think some consideration must be needed because there's quite a few further down dealt with)

The vandalism and aggression rate in the last hour has spiked up and so assistance at RFPP would be helpful. Cheers in advance. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry, @Abecedare: for the edit conflicts. El_C 22:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem, El_C. Just shows how prompt and responsive the admin brigade is (if you ignore the original message in this section ;-)). Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you and Ponyo! Nosebagbear (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2019 (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.

Runaway bold on protected page

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.

---

Protected page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence has a runaway bold problem. Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that everything is bold.

This is caused by the fact that the MediaWiki software was changed in such a way that signatures that turn on bold but don't turn it off make everything after the siganture bold. Before the bold would stop at the end of the sig.

This can easily be fixed by searching for "Dingo" and replacing all instances of the problem sig with this:

 [[User:Yellow Dingo|Yellow Dingo]] [[User talk:Yellow Dingo|(talk)]]

Could somebody please fix this? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and Bradv: since us proles aren't allowed to muck about with ARBCOM pages, perhaps one of you would address this? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guerillero, L235, Liz, and Miniapolis: I guess there's more of you, but not that many more. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resignation of Callanecc

Effective immediately and per his talk page statement[42], Callanecc (talk · contribs) has resigned from the Arbitration Committee. He has also relinquished the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service and wishes him well.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Worm^TT(talk) 10:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation of Callanecc

Proud Boys article

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 just wanted to say that not only is the proud boys article factually incorrect on dozens and dozens of assertions, it is blatantly biased. Instead of doing research and providing an unbiased report on the nature of the group and it's origins, the article lazily assumes most popular opinions which are wholly unresearched and driven by intense political agenda. I would like to know why the edit option for the article is locked and why no claims can be made to challenge the multiple misrepresentations made in the article. Wikipedia should be a non biased source of factual information which let's the users make their own opinions on the matter, but the article is anything but that. I have never seen such blatant mischaracterizations and smearing on multiple levels from such a relatively small piece of writing. it screams unprofessionalism and whoever wrote the article should be banned because that person does absolutely no research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.188.25 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, which is why sources are required, so readers can decide for themselves. Since Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about subjects, article content does not give equal weight to all points of view. In any event, the proper place to raise specific concerns with that article is its talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily - daily - there are Nazi sympathizers demanding that the article call them something other than what they are, or that we only use their website as a source, or whatever. I can't help but think that these are poor saps who joined the organization without reading the fine print. There is nothing actionable here.--Jorm (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2019 (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 respect of other is history

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, This person insults the previous change in comments [43] so I would like his comment in history about children write to be deleted. It have more respectful words to say that. Thank 207.236.125.84 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, IP, that isn't going to happen. The editor's comments were a) accurate and b) insulted no one in particular except whoever submitted the virtually unreadable copy. We do not "delete" (i.e., revdel or suppress) edit summaries unless they violate policy, and this one doesn't. General Ization ^Talk 17:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}} I assume you are talking about this specific edit by User:TheNameBrand's? I notice you failed to follow the very loud instruction on this noticeboard regarding informing that user about this discussion. That edit summary is a strongly worded but accurate assessment of both the editor's motivations and the nature of the article content being changed. It focuses directly on facts of the content. It is nowhere near the level of a WP:CIVIL violation IMO, let alone rising to WP:REVDEL. DMacks (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it’s him. I think that it’s strong, but it Mabye the person don’t write well in English because it’s not is main language. Normally the persons that edit the grammar say not something like that the time I view summaries about corrections of grammar. I think User:TheNameBrand would no more appear because I think he only wanted correct without knowing he is no force to join for edit. 207.236.125.84 (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't understand what you're trying to say. While it's possible that the previous editor was not a native speaker of English, it remains that this is the English Wikipedia and everything written in the encyclopedia's voice should be clearly readable and grammatically and syntactically correct in English. That being the case, the previous editor, whoever they were, may want to consider editing at an edition of Wikipedia written in a language in which they are more proficient. In any case, I'd suggest you move on from this issue, IP, to something more productive. General Ization ^Talk 17:34, 25 August 2019 (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.

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project

Hello all,

I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.

Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.

The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, they're really talking about retiring editing by IP addresses. Never thought I'd see that happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not really what it's about. You'll get a different bunch of random strings for a username instead of an IP address. Think "IP addresses without the ability to effectively block them". Talk page is over there... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not really what it's about. Seems to me it's exactly what it's about. Using privacy as a fig leaf, we're all but being told that we'll no longer see IP addresses for people editing anonymously. Instead there'll probably be the equivalent of an automatic checkuser every single time someone edits anonymously (e.g., it'll look for a cookie as well) and then the edits will get assigned to some random string of characters. I can see no reasonable justification for this absolute waste of money. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The talk page is on meta. Please give your input there. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

      Mendaliv, Retiring editing by IP addresses presumably means that unregistered editors are no longer allowed to edit. As that is not what is contemplated, I'd say it is not "exactly what it's about". Only in a hyper-technical can can we say that if non registered editors can still edit but their IP address will not be shown - then we won't have editing by IP addresses. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I went to comment, but after seeing that negative assessments were castigated as "not welcome here", I deleted my comment. The whole idea is stupid, and that you can't actually say that it is stupid on the talk page is even more stupid. I thought that my opinion of the WMF couldn't get any lower, but I was wrong -- what a group of bozos who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to edit. We need a wholesale makeover of the WMF to people who understand what it's like in the trenches. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I had that problem on meta some years ago and I don't think I've been back. It is a backslapper's echo chamber - (P.A removed ). - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's why I don't plan on going over there to comment on this "idea". I think we might need to adjourn to VP to get an RfC declaring the community's opposition to this latest usurpation of our local governance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• If the anti-vandalism (and anti-COI, etc…) tools are improved and automated enough, such that administrators are no longer needed, then this could be a good idea. Step 2 would be improving and automating the editing tools, such that editors are no longer needed. Κσυπ Cyp   05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• If you liked WP:FRAM, you'll love this. This has all the hallmarks of a WMF sham consultation - where the outcome has already been predetermined, dissent or being told "that's worse than useless" (which is what the proposal is) is not tolerated and the choice of a venue such that the out of touch WMF snowflakes get the feedback that they want to hear, not the feedback that they need to hear. If this garbage hits this project, the instigators should all be community banned - we regularly ban volunteer editors who do a lot less damage to the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• I encourage Beyond My Ken to go back to that page. I also encourage Mendaliv and Sitush to go to that page as well, as I did. Calmly, and using persuasive arguments based on logic and reason, explain why this is a bad idea, and propose alternative solutions. That would be a great service. Calling it "stupid" there and venting here is of very little value. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen, I would -- and I believe I am capable of mounting a cogent argument -- if I had any reason at all to believe that the proposers of the project are open not to suggestions for tweaking it, but listening to the reasons to completely abandon it. I do not think that is the case, it is much too connected to the (mistaken) ideological heart of the WMF, that it must allow anonymous editing. The whole idea flows from that preconception, and if they're not willing to abandon IP editing in the face of the evidence that it has done almost immeasurable harm to their projects, then I see no hope that they would listen to any argument to dump this god-forsaken idea. No, I'm afraid it will have to be someone less cynical then myself who makes that argument, I see the whole thing as a fait accompli, and their interest in criticism as purely superficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, this. You can see it by reading the "impact report". The need for this is presumed from the outset and all the counterarguments are presumed to be the equivalent of "old men whining about the good old days". I'm not going to demean myself by wasting my time on people like that, and I encourage you all to do something more productive with your time than more failed attempts to "work within the system". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK apparently doesn't apply there. That is a real shame. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I truly believe that the two of you are failing for some reason to take a very simple step to make our opposition crystal clear. But I respect your personal autonomy and so instead, I encourage anyone else reading this thread to go to that page and speak out on behalf of the English Wikipedia editors who fight 24/7/365 against vandalism, trolling, defamation and disinformation. This is really important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, it would be good to hide IP addresses given the amount of personal information they disclose, which is then kept forever in article histories which can be viewed by anybody (this often includes fairly precise information about where the editor lives, as well as information about who their employer is if they edited from work, etc). The way in which this is done needs to be optimised to support admins though. I'd suggest that people engage with the WMF's consultation process to point this out: the project is at a very early stage, and it looks like all options are on the table. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• None of which would be a problem if they were simply required to make an account. A supremely easy solution - and one that's not "on the table" because the WMF rejects it unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. I've said so in the discussion at Meta and will do so when I'm contacted for follow-up consultations in response to signing up for them. Requiring registered accounts seems to be the best, as well as the simplest, solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• That solution is currently disallowed by the meta:Founding principles which are just as important, and would require a very broad consensus to overturn. And the practical consequences are uncertain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, they'd have to change their principles... so? The practical consequences are obvious, and the benefit to the encyclopedia would be immediate. Instead, they choose to bend over backwards with their heads between their legs to keep something that the real world has outgrown many years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of trying to go to all this effort to try and hide IPs .... wouldn't it not be more sensible and more quicker just to do away with IP editing altogether ? ....Yup it goes against their Founding_principles but still IMHO IP editing is long outdated and no longer serves a purpose it once used to serve. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The WMF may see your lips moving, but they're not going to hear what you say. They've been deaf to the obvious for a long, long time now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• You can already see it on the meta talk page. Aside from trying to answer straightforward questions, the WMF staffers are only engaging with with people offering ideas on how to implement this project - they are ignoring people saying not to do it. WMF is giving us the illusion of choice. They'll accept our input on how to mask IPs and how to design new vandalism-fighting tools, but they've already decided that we are getting these features whether we want them or not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• My hope is that they are committed to either getting this right or dumping it, though I suppose the WMF's history doesn't back me up on this. From my impression, they are going to work on this up to a point - that point being a model for increasing anonymous user privacy and improving anti-abuse tools - and if at that point the solution appears non-viable then they won't do it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Has the WMF backed away from a WMF originated idea following substantial negative feedback without committing development resources before? But yes, it is becoming increasingly clear that this project is infeasible. MER-C 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• There have been a few times when the WMF has backed away from one of their ideas because it turned out to be infeasible, such as user merging. But I'm not sure if they ever have primarily due to negative feedback. That said, I also do see some value in what they are trying to do -- Tim Starling's comment identifies some limitations to the status quo that might be fix-able as part of this project. I'm curious to see what they end up proposing as a more operationalized solution. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well we may need a policy on EN:Wikipedia on what to do if it gets implemented. I would suggest that editing from a masked IP address be prohibited by policy here. But that IP editors who disclose their IP address be permitted. Otherwise it will be similar to editing though open proxies. It should be blockable via an edit filter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Do you really think that the WMF would allow us to override them like that? I doubt it, and we'd have another FRAMGATE on our hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• There have been similar situations where brinksmanship on the part of the community has forced them to back down a little (i.e., forced a compromise). Though in practice the Foundation has just slowly gotten its way. I don’t think it’s a valueless exercise insofar as the continued disrespect of the community by the Foundation just adds to the public record of their misdeeds and hopefully can be harnessed to impact their donation streams. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Switching to logged-in only editing would be good for privacy and for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

VPN editing

It gets worse. This is only one aspect of the latest We Make Failures "strategy" "plan":

m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health/Recommendations/Safety
> Supporting anonymizing technologies like TOR, VPNs for the users that would require the support.
(The next line is the proposal above.) Are the WMF seriously considering force-repealing WP:No open proxies? Who the hell is responsible for this stupidity? MER-C 14:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's probably along the lines of "provide support for editors in countries like China and Turkey". --Izno (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

They have not argued why IP block exempt isn't sufficient. And how does whoever administrating this tell between genuine editors in Turkey and socially engineering LTAs? MER-C 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

MER-C, I think machine learning tools could be used for that. Nevertheless, open proxies ban should stay in place, and checkusers should still be able to see IPs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on that aspect. ML/AI is not a silver bullet, especially in adversarial environments (e.g. algorithmic trading, cybersecurity). Like I said earlier, We Make Failures engineering needs to demonstrate competency in ordinary anti-abuse tools before they move on to one of the hardest aspects of data science. MER-C 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if WMF has technical expertise but it's not that hard (relatively) to create a learning program that can analyse patterns. Should be far better than the old CU tool. Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There was actually an interesting research paper presented by a university team at WikiMania that found that editors using Tor (before the individual proxies were blocked) averaged more positive contributions than standard IP editors. They looked at edits over about a 10 year period. They were trying to argue that there are valid reasons why these editors prized privacy and Wikipedia should consider allowing them to edit. Of course, it would make holding editors accountable for their edits a challenge but then many IP editors jump around an IP range. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

By motion, in accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary permissions and activity, these permissions are removed from the following users:

• Fox (talk · contribs) – Oversight
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – Oversight
• LFaraone (talk · contribs) – CheckUser and Oversight
• There'sNoTime (talk · contribs) – CheckUser and Oversight

Supporting: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Fox, HJ Mitchell, LFaraone, and There'sNoTime for their service. The Committee also extends its gratitude to the current CheckUser and Oversight permission holders for their contributions and service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to functionary team

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

User:Koavf adding thousands of AE templates

I’m on my phone after a power outage so I have to be brief: User:Koavf is adding thousands of edit notices announcing articles are in American English. This strikes me as a huge waste of server space and loading time. I do not see any consensus to go this. Moreover, the bot-like manner in which this happens strikes me as disruptive too. Koavf does not see this as problematic and waved off my concerns on their talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank god. When I saw the section heading I thought "AE" meant Arbitration Enforcement, and I thought, Verily the end is nigh. The Apocalypse is upon us. EEng 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No fun image to accompany this comment and lighten up the thread? I think the end may be nearer than we think! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Koavf has stopped for now. Last creation was a little over 20 minutes ago, after this discussion was started, so I don't think there's a need for an emergency block to stop the bot-like activity. I'm also not aware of a consensus to do this—though the "server space and loading time" concern was historically waved off with reference to some essay whose shortcut I've forgotten (basically that editors weren't supposed to concern themselves with infrastructure issues like that). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:Don't worry about performance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

But not of this? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

But what is the point of this? He is creating new pages like Template:Editnotices/Page/Africa_Peacekeeping_Program, with an edit summary claiming it is based on a template at the page (already). Why? Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is to keep his edit count growing at an incredible rate. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon, Exactly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah I agree, this needs discussion prior to implementation. I think what's happening is that Koavf is just adding editnotices to everything in Category:Use American English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, To alert editors that a particular page has a particular type of English used on it. That's the function of the template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Adding more notices/alerts/warnings etc, even when individually well-intentioned, just produces alert fatigue and trains editors to ignore even ones that are important. I can understand adding the {{American English}} template as an edit-notice to articles where EngVar has been demonstrated to be be a persistent and ongoing issue. But not in this manner, which I find to be disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Special:Nuke (limited to template namespace) may be a cleanup option here, unless these are generally considered useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'd generally support deleting these. Do we need a mass TfD? Or can this be done under G6? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the example of Africa Peacekeeping Program, picked at random from his contribs, is 1.5 lines long, & has had only 4 edits since creation in 2015, none contentious. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: agree, not really needed for editors there and the "per the existing template" argument is rather weak when that template looks to also be a drive-by without a need as well. Was added along with a use-date format template - when the article text doesn't actually contain a single date. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• This certainly appears to be an inappropriate use of tool-aided editing, as it is being done by a non-bot account at a high rate of speed, resulting in flooding of recent changes. If such a run is considered appropriate, WP:BOTREQ can handle it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Koavf, (without taking any viewpoint), please could a link to be shared, giving the background to this task proposal, and hopefully, demonstrating clear consensus to proceed? This will enable others to read + gain insight on the background. —Sladen (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Some scientists claim that hydro­gen, because it is so plen­ti­ful, is the basic building block of the uni­verse. I dispute that. I say there are more automated edits tinkering with categories and ENGVAR templates and wiki­proj­ect banners than hydro­gen, and that is the basic build­ing block of the uni­verse.

–Frank Zappa (+EEng)

• Koavf has a history of making mass edits without consensus to do so, and an unwillingness to respond to legitimate concerns when they are pointed out to him. I first came across this when he was adding WikiProject New York notices to articles which should properly have been tagged for WikiProject New York City. I asked him to watch out for this, and to fix the ones he'd already done, but he basically ignored me and I had to do it myself (by hand at the time). As Dicklyon said above, Koavf only really seems concerned about his edit count, which is over 2 million. There's no conceivable way he reached that level in 11 years without doing quite a lot automated editing, with or without consensus.
  I support mass deletion of these current edits. That edit notice should only be placed when there's been an actual problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I've never done any automated editing here and it's hurtful and rude to say that I'm only concerned about my edit count, when I've undone vandalism, created good and featured articles, amended templates, added alt text for accessibility, etc. What a mean thing to say. I don't recall this interaction about New York City templates and I'm sorry if I was dismissive: that's no excuse for you assuming bad faith on my part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I looked back in my talk... Do you mean here (which does not seem dismissive) or here (where you say, "your plan seems good")? I'm not seeing the part where I "basically ignored" you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I've never done any automated editing here". You just made 495 edits between 21:27 and 21:49 today, that's 22 minutes in which you made an average of 22.5 edits every minute, or an edit every 2.6667 second. However you were doing it, that is definitely automated editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I did semi-automated editing of pages that I also manually reviewed. E.g., that's how I edited at Talk:1:54. So are you going to ignore my question? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, I am not going to allow you to sidetrack the discussion. You made thousands of unnecessary edits without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is: you did not follow through on what you said you would do, and just continued doing the exact things you had been doing, and I just dropped the matter instead of making an issue about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Do you think the template should be brought up for discussion at WP:TFD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think you know that this is not about the existence of the template itself, but your mass use of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I don't really see a distinction on a practical level but either way, I'm asking someone else a yes or no question, so I'd like his answer. I don't see the purpose of having a template that we don't use or using a template but only every now and again, even if it's applicable many more times, etc. That makes no sense to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that there are many many templates that are used with very varying degrees of frequency, and that there has been no suggestion from anyone that this particular template should be deleted. You need to stop this disingenuous evasion and address the actual issue, which is your very rapid semi-automated adding of the template to so many pages. *That* is the only problem here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I did address the actual issue: I stopped doing that before this thread started, I responded to every question posed here to me, and I said that I wouldn't do what everyone objected to again: what more do you think I am supposed to do? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was more about what less you needed to do, which is the irrelevant sidetrack of whether the template should be deleted - it plainly shouldn't. Ideally you'd also understand why what you were doing was disruptive, but as long as you've stopped it then I'm satisfied with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sladen, There is no task proposal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Koavf, appreciations for the clear and unambiguous answer. Below is a #Mass Delete? sub-proposal started by others. Please consider joining the discussion and proposing a WP:G7 mass-deletion. —Sladen (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a growing consensus here that these edits are unproductive and should not continue. Koavf, will you respect that, or do we need to impose a formal restriction? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• In addition to the issues described above, he just gutted the cats at Penn & Teller. Please take away his Hotcat privileges. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Guy Macon, I am removing categories that apply to individuals rather than groups. Which ones should be re-added? Why did you revert me at Teller (magician)? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Holy crap! Why did these cat removals require eleven separate edits?? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Because if you did it in one edit, it would only add one edit to your edit count, duh. Fish+Karate 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  This editor is obsessed with his edit count, and his edits are less productive than they could be as a result. GiantSnowman 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  GiantSnowman, Nope. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Koavf: yep - you are livertally notable for the number of edits you make. GiantSnowman 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  GiantSnowman, And I livertally had nothing to do with that promotion: all of it was done by others. Not sure how you want me to disprove your theories about my state of mind but I've never done anything to make myself known for my number of Wikiepdia edits to anyone in my personal or professional life ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  You had nothing to do with that?!! The page statistics [44] show that you made the most edits to the Justin Knapp article of anyone (52, which is 31%), that you've added the second most text to the article (5,137 bytes or 36%) and that your percentage of authorship of the article is second at 20.4%. So the notion that you had absolutely no hand in the promotion of User:Koavf as a Wikipedia editor with an extremely high edit count is completely disingenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well, actually HotCat is convenient, and if I have to replace 10 categories it might as well take for me 10 edits (because it is a one-click procedure with feedback: it just does everything). However, removing categories with HotCat is two clicks: if you try to remove a category, it takes you to the editing mode, and you need to write an edit summary. Then it is of course easier to do it manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mendaliv, It didn't: it's just easier when I have open multiple tabs to do one click, go to another tab, allow that page to reload, and repeat. Plus, it allows visibility for exactly what was done in that edit and everyone can know what was removed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Which edits? Adding the editnotices with AWB? I stopped that before this thread started. Yes, I'm not doing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Just so that everyone is on the same page, can you confirm that you won't resume (at least, mass) editing of edit-notices in the future without first establishing consensus for the proposed changes and the target articles? Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of such a re-assurance, I support withdrawing AWB access and an editing restriction on mass tagging or page creation without consensus. –xeno^talk 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, I will not resume mass editing/creation of edit notices prior without any consensus to do so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thank you. (Your phrasing is a bit odd but I am AGFing that none of us wish to create or hunt for possible loopholes, or shift the burden of establishing a consensus.) Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, I'm trying to be as explicit as possible precisely so there is no "gotcha" here. Not sure how it's odd but there is no built-in loophole or something. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Ok, then I am assuming that you understand that the burden would be on you to establish consensus before you undertake mass-edits (for reasons Xeno, Xaosflux, Vanamonde and others have already explained). Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, Yes, that is correct. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've compiled a list of all edit notices that Koavf has created as part of this batch-tagging on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, it's yesterday that the passion for templating really kicked in, with about 8, 9/10ths on thta page (~1000?) being created since. An incredible amount in any case. Is there a batch-undo? ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

By batch-undo you mean mass deletion? Yes, one can mass-delete if there is consensus to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be misuse of the wp:template editor permission. –xeno^talk 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, I had this user right prior to template editor permissions. Template editor does not allow you to create edit notices. Template editor was not the permission that allowed this--you can see that I have made edit notices for years prior to the creation of this user right. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Koavf: I believe there was a technical change at some point. I think that a user without the permission could not have done what you did, if I'm wrong I will refactor. But now that you are aware, please be sure to follow the template editor guidelines when creating edit notices outside your own userspace. –xeno^talk 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, Thanks, duly noted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: edit-notice restrictions are part of the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The (tboverride) permission currently bundled with "Page movers" and "Template editors" allows non-administrators access to edit notices. Adding it to "page movers" was done more recently as an accepted side-effect. Koavf has access to this permission via both of these groups currently. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Isn't it about time this clown (pardon the expression) Koavf was blocked for at least a month? How about 6 months? Anyone who habitually places such substantial burdens on other editors needs much more of a wake-up call than he's previously gotten. I studied the block log, he's never stayed blocked more than 72 hours; he was blocked for 1 week once but unblocked the next day. Let him cool his heels for a more significant length of time. – Athaenara ✉ 17:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(Expression redacted per NOSPADE.) – Athaenara ✉ 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Athaenara et al, I don't support a block right now: the editor has stopped, the damage is under control. This does not take away from the fact that this was a pretty serious disruption, and it's in character--see the comments by User:Boing! said Zebedee, the rhetorical question by User:Mendaliv and the response by User:Fish and karate and User:GiantSnowman, etc. This is not good. Something needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a block per Drmies. I'm not too familiar with this editor's history, but an admin block at this point would be merely punitive rather than preventative. Also, I feel like the use of the phrase "this clown" was an inappropriate (if mild) personal attack and would respectfully suggest that Athaenara strike it - I recognize the editor is being frustrating, but the choice of words is unnecessarily inflammatory. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking, there is no current situation that needs to be stopped, and no indication that lesser measures (e.g. removal of user groups, removal of AWB access) wouldn't be effective if there is an ongoing future concern. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking at this time, but if someone else can have a go at explaining to koavf why they need to drop this particular stick, and why they should seek consensus before making the edits next time, it would be appreciated; I'm not getting through to them. Absent satisfactory assurances, I would support yanking AWB, and if necessary, template-editor/page-mover. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• a comment from the peanut gallery—this is kind of an amazing situation and I'm rather impressed by how the community is dealing with it through cool heads and editing-framework-guideline-based actions. Good community cohesion; good to see. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass Delete?

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.

---

Consolidated task discussion if these (and the then-orphaned associated talk pages) should be mass-deleted below. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'd generally support deleting these. Do we need a mass TfD? Or can this be done under G6? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• I support mass deletion of these current edits. That edit notice should only be placed when there's been an actual problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support mass deletion (if possible) - As noted by someone above the template should only be used where Engvar is an issue ..... You don't add them on every single American article on the site ..... I would also support warning them that any future time-wasting edits such as these will result in a block. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support this to provide the consensus Ymblanter mentions above, thanks for that btw. ——SerialNumber54129 15:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Make sure to delete the talk pages also. –xeno^talk 15:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Which talk pages do you mean? The edit notices do not have talk pages as far as I see (and should not have any).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Suchlike Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Penn & Teller. –xeno^talk 15:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  They'd all be G8's anyway at that time. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please delete. Placing edit-noticies, which are supposed to serve administrative purpose, under wiki-project purview is akin to slapping on, say, the {{WikiProject India}} template across the WP:ARBIP pages. More broadly: right now we only have a how-to place guideline about edit-notices, probably because it is assumed that administrators, page-movers and template editors will act conservatively, respect current practices, and use their best judgment. I hope Koavf actions in that space are an isolated event and do not necessitate writing down of detailed guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support mass deletion. I believe that consensus at this AN should be sufficient for such action but will leave the bureaucratic/technical mechanics to admins better versed than I in those aspects. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Mass delete Whether automated or not, these are too fast to have had any consideration paid to them. If they were that obvious ("Towns in Kansas" or "Drummers from California" would be reasonable for automatic tagging) then do we really need the tags? If the tags have any value as stopping argument, that's only possible if we have real faith in their accuracy and consensus to respect that. If Koavf can demonstrate their algorithm here as to how they were tagged, then maybe – but as is, we're better off without. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, There wasn't an algorithm: these were already tagged with the invisible {{Use American English}}. I don't think we should have that template and it serves a different function from {{AmE}}. I thought there was nothing controversial about saying that an article should be in American English when we already say that it should be in American English, hence, I was surprised that anyone objected. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• So what was your algorithm for doing this? (of course there was one). If it was "If {{Use American English}} is already on the main page, then add {{AmE}} to the talk: page" then I could support that (and it doesn't mean that either of these are unneeded). But was this the case for all of them? Do you have examples? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, Okay, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "algorithm" but I think I've answered your question as best I understand it. My thinking or mental algorithm was: every article that has the invisible {{Use American English}} tracking template should have the visible edit notice {{American English}}. Again, that's what I don't see as being controversial. Obviously, there are some who are objecting to me doing this without prior approval because of its scope but it seems like there are also users who disagree with that and I don't understand their reasoning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• If I'm not to advocate an indef block under COMPETENCE here, then I need to understand what you actually did. I haven't seen this. I can't see it in your editing history. Your comment immediately above suggests that you adding a tag template to the talk: pages of articles which already had the main article tagged. But it actually looks as if you were creating editnotices (i.e. separate entities) for these. That's quite a different situation.

If you don't understand the difference, if you can't explain that, if you don't realise why that sort of massive million-article change requires serious consensus (and maybe even a change to MediaWiki!) then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no need to go to the editnotice level of complexity here and adding such to only a tiny handful of articles (two thousand is tiny as a proportion of articles) just makes them bizarrely distinct from other articles. This is such a bad change, and you seem to have no comprehension of that (and every time I've ever encountered you, I've been given the exact same impression of considerable naivety).

If you don't just know this stuff already, then you just shouldn't be trusted with tools for bulk editing like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, I can't understand you. "I need to understand what you actually did". I thought I've said this many times--what is unclear? "Your comment immediately above suggests that you adding a tag template to the talk: pages of articles..." I never said anything about talk pages. I don't know where you are getting this information. "[i]t actually looks as if you were creating editnotices" Yes, that is exactly what happened: I didn't realize that is somehow unclear. How is an engvar editnotice being on <1% of articles different than {{Use American English}} (or some similar engvar equivlanet) being on <1% of articles? Yes, ideally all articles would have this explained, as well as the citation style and the date format to be used (as well as any other particularities) but Rome wasn't built in a day. What in principle would be the alternative? It seems like you're calling this naivete or some kind of incompetence but I'm striving to make myself as explicit as possible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• We don't use editnotices for such a minor purpose. To change that is an extremely major change, or else an inconsistent one. We don't make such changes without discussion first. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, These are created as editnotices. Not sure what you mean that we don't use them for that--we do.

• Only to comment on the need of two templates: the "in article wikitext" one is extremely helpful for any full page/offline editing or, at least in the case of the equivalent for date formats (like {{use dmy dates}}, for semi-automated scripting. You don't get the editnotice header in these cases, but the template there at the start is extremely useful in these cases. I definitely would not duplicate those templates to editheaders unless the language of the article has been in serious dispute and talk page consensus has resulted in some decision one way or another. --Masem (t) 18:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've deleted the 2285 pages that were mass created in the AWB run (8/19 and 8/20). There were so many, the nuke extension died 80% of the way thru. Without prejudice to deletion of the earlier ones. –xeno^talk 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• I've deleted the rest. Consensus here is clear that these should not be placed unless and until there's an ENGVAR issue on the pages; no evidence of such has been demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation of those that meet this criterion, suggested by several people above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:xeno and Vanamonde. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • +1 Thank you User:xeno and Vanamonde doing this. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, Can you please either put language to that effect at the template's documentation or have some kind of RfC to confirm that the community agrees that we should only include engvar editnotices in cases where there is or is likely to be some dispute about the variation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• User:Koavf, no--or NO. This should be obvious to anyone, and I think it is obvious to everyone who is here to write and maintain articles. That you would ask this question makes me doubt your purpose here. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies, What does that mean? Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice? That doesn't seem obvious to me. What do you think my "purpose" is? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• User:Koavf, put the straw man aside, please: it is not obvious to me that an article "should have" either one. I do not think that all articles need edit notices. I think that very few articles need edit notices. Someone in this thread noted that a plethora of edit notices makes all edit notices less visible; you should maybe give that some thought. It is clear to me that you a. either think all articles do or b. you didn't care and didn't give it a thought but you saw an opportunity to drop 2,500 or more templates into articles. If I hadn't placed a note on your talk page and here, how many would you have by now? I don't want to guess too much at your intentions, but you are awfully pleased at your edit count and the coverage you get for it; the editor who noted that it took you almost a dozen edits to make a couple of changes simply noticed what I noticed years ago: that you do things in many edits what others do in a single edit.

  And here you are, bickering about common sense things after you've been hauled to AN and someone had to go and delete 2,500 of your creations (2,500--that's already crazy), and complaining to other editors about them deleting this or that individual edit notice. How can you even talk about an individual edit notice when you were churning them out at, what was it, Beyond My Ken, 20 templates per minute? You're seriously asking about Template:Editnotices/Page/1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game? Did anyone ever write something in BE in an American college basketball article?

  So I see a bunch of problems: first of all, the mass creation of unnecessary templates without prior discussion, let alone approval. The speed with which these creations were dumped into our articles. The lack of care with which they were inserted, willy-nilly. Finally, what I can only see as a complete denial of the community concerns. People here are proposing yanking one or more or all of your privileges, and you're asking about an edit notice for Keith Flint--one might wonder if that question isn't psychosomatic addict insane. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: 22.5 edits every minute, or an edit every 2.6667 second. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies, What strawman? Please stop making weird guesses about my beliefs or attitudes and just stick to facts like what I have done. Please show me what on this page displays a "complete denial of the community concerns".

• Pretty much every single one of your responses has been a denial of the community's concern, expressed by multiple editors in mutliple ways. You have shown zero appreciation of the problems here, either from IDHT or a lack of understanding, I cannot guess which. I agree with Drmies that your primary concern appears to be racking up edits and getting your numbers up, without any real concern for whether your edits are necessary or not.
  Your "beliefs and attitudes" are important, because we've moved beyond the obvious facts about the thousands of unnecessary and disruptive edits you made, and into questions about why you did it, whether you're likely to do it again, and what steps should be taken to prevent that. Removing AWB seems to be the logical step to take, but if you cannot clearly and cogently tell the community your purpose in making those edits, show that you understand why the community sees them as unnecesary and disruptive, and make a clear statement that you will not do any mass editing ever again without a clear consensus from the community, then other steps may need to be taken as well. up to and including a WP:CIR block.
  You cannot keep stuff-arming away the criticism that is being aimed at you, you must start to show some understanding of why it's coming your way. So far, I have not seen that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken As I have pointed out several times, there are two things I have seen: one is a problem of rate/volume and another is some problem in principle with the engvar editnotices. I genuinely had no expectation that adding engvar templates to articles that already had engvar templates would be a problem. I have no clue what "IDHT" is. If you care about my beliefs and attitudes, then you can ask me instead of guessing or making up lies (both of which are in this thread): it's not that hard and I'll answer every question posed in this thread, just like I have so far to everyone who has pinged me. It's confusing to me why you think I haven't clearly and cogently told the community my purpose in making those edits because I have multiple times here: it was to tell editors which variety of English should be used on a page when he goes to edit that page. I never expected prior to this that anyone would find that unnecessary (seems valuable to me) or disruptive (it isn't editing in the main namespace or in any way conflicting with existing content), so my edits were a good faith attempt to do something to enhance the encyclopedia. Evidently, others disagreed and they have since explained themselves as to why/how: I would have had no clue that it would be so contentious (if I did, I wouldn't have done it--I've spent a lot of time here answering questions, etc. that was not exactly what I had in mind or fun for me). The only mass editing I will do is mass editing that is already based on a community consensus of what is expected in articles--i.e. I will not add any innovative feature to any article (or other piece of the encyclopedia--it's not namespace-specific) that is not what others would typically expect from the standard settings of AWB, the outcome of some kind of discussion, or a request that someone made to me. The only mass editing I would do in the future would be edits that have a prior implicit or explicit consensus. Again, no idea what "stuff-arming" is: I keep on coming here to address every question, concern, and complaint that every individual makes directly, including when someone uses some language that makes no sense or presumes some special knowledge of my state of mind that is just used as a slur. Is there any objection here that I haven't addressed in some way? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Koavf; (IDHT = "I didn't hear that" = WP:IDHT). —Sladen (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sladen, Thanks.―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Koavf, are you joking? Didn't you just say, "Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice?" And I never said "an article should have {{Use American English}}"? Seriously. But again, here we go: you focus on the one little thing where you think you have something on me (and you don't), and you skip over litterally everything else. And how do you even make one edit every 2.67 seconds? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies, Will you stop acting outraged and please just have a discussion? I cannot ignore your strawman if I have no clue what you mean. If you explain yourself, I can at least try to talk to you. I don't understand you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lesigh. Hard to have a discussion with you. Alright. "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." I said "those AmE edit notices are unnecessary". You say "Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice?" The "argument that was not presented by that opponent" (me) is "an article should have {{Use American English}}". I am saying this not really for your benefit, because you either understand this perfectly but are just playing dumb, or you really don't understand it, which begs the question of WP:CIR (I know, that's not the old-fashioned use of "begging the question", since there is no "initial point", as required by the term petitio principii, but that's by the by); I am saying this, I repeat, not so much for you, but to have the record show that a good-faith effort was made to explain things to you.

  I do not think we should have your edit notices in every article, or in random articles. I also don't think we need to have that other template in random articles. I think your dropping these templates into random articles was a boneheaded move. There was no purpose to it, and no consensus for it, and given what it is that you do here (which isn't really writing content), I suppose I understand why you don't see that it is useless. But that it was disruptive, that should have been clear to you, and you will, I hope, have to live with a ban/restriction/sanction, because here we are again, at 10PM on a Tuesday night, when there are so many better things to do. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  If I can't understand what you mean because you refuse to say what you mean, then I don't know what you think that elucidates. Over and over again, you've hinted at some special, secret meaning that only you know with a wink but you're then explicit about things you cannot possibly know or are just inaccurate and rude otherwise. Maybe it's because it's late--what do I know? The fact that you can't understand why I placed these notices when I have explained why several times is telling. Also, I don't make one edit every 2.67 seconds but if I did, it would be logged at my contributions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• You did indeed edit at that rate, it comes directly from your contributions log. The number of edits in a set period of time was counted and simple arithmetical operations were performed on that data. You cannot deny it, that was your average rate of editing for that period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken 4.34×10^8 seconds/2,280,554 does not equal 2.67. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• (1) Stop pinging me, you've become an annoyance.
  (2) My math is here, and it is as clear as a bell. I never daid that you edited at that rate for the entire time you were making your unnecessary and disruptive mass edits, I gave a specific period of time (the first page of your contributions log at that moment) and calculated the rate during that time period. That you choose to try to obfuscate the matter instead of just owning up to results of simple mathematics seems to me to be typical for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• One more thing: three times in this thread you have said "I don't understand", and once "I can't understand". I find that telling in the contexts in which these statements were uttered. Also, please don't ping me anymore; I've done all the explaining I can do regarding my statements. Any time you want to explain why you placed these notices, besides the unenlightening "because I could", that would be interesting. Also, how you make one edit every 2.67 seconds. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I don't understand" and its variations come frequently from Koavf:

• To Andy Dingley: "Okay, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by 'algorithm'"
• To Andy Dingley: "Obviously, there are some who are objecting to me doing this without prior approval because of its scope but it seems like there are also users who disagree with that and I don't understand their reasoning."
• To Andy Dingley: "I can't understand you."
• To Drmies: "I don't understand you. "
• To Drmies: "If I can't understand what you mean because you refuse to say what you mean, then I don't know what you think that elucidates."
• To Drmies: "I cannot ignore your strawman if I have no clue what you mean."
• To Vanamonde93: "The argument against it in principle rather than the volume or speed of creation is something that I didn't anticipate and don't understand."

If an editor shows repeatedly that they don't or can't understand what other editors are explaining to them, even when it's explained multiple times and simplified as much as possible, then I think there is a larger problem which may need to be dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken And again, you resort to some vague generalities "there is a larger problem": this is a perfect example of something that's not intelligible. Just say what you mean, and it's not so obscure. Somehow, the "problem" is that I don't know about algorithms? That someone doesn't state what his strawman is and I'm on the hook for his argument about a logical fallacy? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• You may find that you're the subject of a sanction for something that to you is "not intelligible" (which equals "I don't understand", yet again). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, Why did you delete ones like (e.g.) Template:Editnotices/Page/Keith Flint? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Koavf: because there's consensus here for a mass deletion. I think you need to re-calibrate your approach here; you're asking "why not?" with respect to edit-notices, whereas the question you should be asking is "why"? Edit-notices are a little-used tool. For a long time, we have only used them on articles where disruption is known to occur, to provide warnings to stop that disruption. I'm not interested in having an RFC; you're the one seeking to change this practice; if anyone needs to start an RFC, it's you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, There was a consensus for mass deletion of the edit notices that were added in the past couple of days but deleting every edit notice I've created seems outside that scope. Maybe I'm misreading it. I don't know of any policy (guideline, more, etc.) about edit notices only being in the case of controversies about that particular issue any more than there is a policy about not adding {{Use American English}}. If that can be added without there being a pre-existing controversy, then why not {{American English}}? Yes, my attitude is one that if things aren't prohibited, they are allowed. If I know of any convention, rule, guideline, law, etc. then that would show it's prohibited or otherwise discouraged. I would never have expected that tagging an article to use a certain variety of English when it already has a tag to use that variety of English would have been controversial. The argument against it in principle rather than the volume or speed of creation is something that I didn't anticipate and don't understand. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  There was little to nothing in this discussion about timeframe; most of the objections are about needless additions, specifically, additions of EngVar templates to articles without an EngVar dispute. If there are other edit-notices you have created, I can undelete them; but every one I spot-checked was an EngVar notice. There are many things on Wikipedia that are allowed but are still a bad idea. You've been here long enough that you ought to have realized this was a bad idea; but even if you didn't, your response to Drmies on your talk page was quite sub-par. The argument against it has already been presented to you, so I don't know why I need to reiterate it, but in any case; they will build edit-notice fatigue, which is a problem because most other edit-notices are used for quite serious warnings. Also, there have been concerns raised with respect to high-speed editing above that Xaosflux or someone else is better placed to explain to you, but which you are expected to understand in any case if you're going to be carrying out high-speed edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, Please undo your indiscriminate deletion from prior to the past 48 hours. Edit notices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/Ghislaine Maxwell actually do address articles where there is confusion about the variety of English to be used. Your assumption shouldn't be "I'll just delete everything out of scope of this conversation from the past six years, figure it out": please restrict the deletions to the ones that were the focus of the conversation in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  The deleted talk page of the edit notice suggests that there was opposition to having an edit notice there already before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Jo-Jo Eumerus, Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell#American_English_but_DMY_dates? implies that there is a need, since this topic has both American and British bases.

  @Koavf: Sorry, but no. First off, in the example you link, the edit-notice isn't helping anything. Second, and more importantly, the formal deletion proposal above was for the pages linked to on Jo-Jo Eumerus's subpage. Everything I deleted was within scope. I'm happy to undelete any non-EngVar edit-notices, because the discussion didn't go into those in detail; but though I asked you above, you haven't pointed me to any. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, I have, in fact, made non-engvar editnotices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game (which you did not delete). I don't know what all of them are because you deleted several thousand, so I'm sure there are some in there that fall outside the scope of this discussion, even if you disagree that it's bound by a timeframe.

  I doubt it very much; perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus will tell us exactly how he generated his list, but it was intended to be a list of edit-notices that only included the EngVar templates. And (I really don't know why you're not getting this) the mass deletion proposal was about that list. At this point I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'm stepping away. If you want to open a discussion here challenging my actions, feel free; I doubt it will go anywhere. Also, FTR, I made about 900 deletions, including talk pages, so of the order of 500 editnotices. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  What I did was a) to compile a list of all templates that Koavf had created through Special:Contributions/Koavf, in batches of 500 (i.e this URL), b) stripped out all the non-editnotice templates, c) double-checked for non-EngVar edit notices and d) stripped out all formatting other than the links to the edit notices and the dates so that people could if necessary restrict any action to editnotices within a specified timeframe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I did go back to December 2018 and no further as there was no indication of any batch or mass addition of editnotices before that time and it's quite some time back too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  The Bot Policy (WP:ASSISTED) spells out that Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired.. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• ″Yes, ideally all articles would have this explained, as well as the citation style and the date format to be used (as well as any other particularities) but Rome wasn't built in a day.″. These have historically been some of the contentious areas of Wikipedia editing, and we do not need to see them turned into a giant land rush. That way, conflict and ill-feeling lie. If there's no trouble about this at an article in the first place, do not start it by slapping on templates and edit notices. This history of these disputes, and of other ways in which people have variously staked claims to articles over the years, should teach that the approach to this should be reactive, not proactive. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Uncle G, "the approach to this should be reactive, not proactive" I'm not seeing how/why you drew this conclusion. Stating date formats, citation styles, and English variants at the outset would stop petty edit-warring about that later. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please read WP:BEANS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• John M Wolfson How is adding {{use list-defined references}} and {{use mdy dates}} at the top of an article when you first create it "stuffing beans up your nose"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• A) This isn't about those templates, this is about your editnotices.

B) An editnotice might entice those with mischievous intent to disobey it, especially if it doesn't have pre-existing consensus. I agree that the chances of that are fairly low, but all the same proactive warnings run the risk of reverse psychology. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just another indication that Koavf simply doesn't understand the simplest of concepts, and apparently feels that making mass disruptive and controversial edits now will avoid "petty edit-warring" later. Never mind that we'll have go through World War III first, as long as Koavf gets his edit count increased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Again, I never thought that it would be controversial to add a template to an article that already has a template stating the same thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I never thought that it would be controversial to add a template to an article that already has a template stating the same thing. Isn't that related to CFORK? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• John M Wolfson Not sure how: what do you mean? I suggested deleting the templates like {{Use American English}} in favor of the style like {{AmE}} but the community decided to keep both. What am I supposed to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I see, so the problem is not your making unnecessary and disruptive mass edits without consensus to do so, the problem is that the template exists. Apparently, the mere existence of the template makes it imperative that Koavf place that template on every conceivable article it might apply to, regardless of whether doing so is justified or useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (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.

Noting here for confused editors that I've moved the list of edit notices which was previously on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng to User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Koavf's response

Can we talk about Koavf's response (including initial lack thereof). Even now he still seems not to see the problem? GiantSnowman 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• My general opinion from the start has been AWB should be revoked until a time where Koavf understands what they did wrong and promises not to repeat it, I'm not really seeing an understanding above but ofcourse I'm probably a minority on this. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm generally in agreement that AWB probably should be revoked until Koavf demonstrates an understanding of what sorts of mass (semi-)automated edits are uncontroversial and what sorts require a discussion first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • There's also a question of template editor permissions which is what allows the creation of edit notices in the first place. The mass creation of edit notices without prior consensus seems to fall under WP:TPEREVOKE 1 and maybe 2. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC) So it turns out pagemover also allows creation of editnotices, and removing both TPE and PMR just to prevent changes to editnotices would definitely not be a good idea. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      • It might. I’d want to see more evidence of the pattern element of TPEREVOKE #1, rather than a single run of mass creations. I’m also not as sure whether by “editing protected templates” they mean creating editnotices. I know the TPE userright is needed to create them, but I feel like that criterion is referring more to, say, editing templates with lots of transclusions in an obviously controversial way rather than creating editnotices. But just my thoughts, I could be wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I think that is a reasonable reading. What I'm mulling over is whether the issue is automated editing or using advanced permissions to make changes that are hard for other users to revert. If Koavf is generally productive with AWB, and the issue is using it to create edit notices, I think it would be better to keep AWB and remove TPE. On the other hand, if they are generally productive in editing templates and edit notices, but the issue is semi-automated editing, then revoking AWB and keeping TPE might be better. I haven't looked through the contribution history thoroughly to have an opinion yet. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Ah, right. Odds are it’s probably not appropriate to pull both AWB and TPE, at least not on the strength of this single incident. Good catch. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I would consider creating edit notices, "editing protected templates". A single large run doesn't necessarily constitute "a pattern" though. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Davey 2010 Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Support revocation of AWB per Mendaliv.one of the permissions, although I'm not sure which one at this point. He seems to be usually competent enough at AWB from looking at his contributions, but his attitude above and the testimony of others leads me to suspect that he might not have the temperament for it. I don't know enough about his TPE history to comment about it at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I would bear in mind that a revocation isn't permanent. Like I don't even think it'd be a particularly uphill battle to get AWB back with some time, and I'm sure Koavf would have tasks to do and experience using AWB on other wikis uncontroversially to point us to. Wugapodes raises an interesting point, that in order to block creation of editnotices, we'd have to revoke both template editor and pagemover. My thought though is that the touchstone of this problem is that Koavf was using automation to do it. Had it just been a pagenotice here or there it wouldn't have been such a bother, and if it did get someone's attention eventually, it would've been handled without much hubbub. But once you throw AWB into the mix, you have the recipe for torches and pitchforks. So I think pulling AWB would be best, unless there's a compelling reason not to. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and modified accordingly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, I support removing AWB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• I support removing whatever enables this editor to do this kind of thing, including AWB. I do not see, in the responses here, that this editor is blessed with a lot of common sense, but one cannot mandate that, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) We cannot mandate WP:Common sense, per se, but WP:Competency is required and WP:Communication is required.
  "Competency" doesn't simply mean knowing how to use the tools of Wikipedia, it also means knowing how they should be used, when they should be used, and what limitations the community places on their use or are obvious to anyone with common sense.
  Similiarly, "communication" doesn't mean simply typing words, it means understanding what is being told to you and acting upon that understanding. If an editor cannot understand what other editors are trying to explain to them, and says, over and over again, "I don't understand", "I can't understand", or "that's not intelligible", then they're not communicating, no matter how many comments they post, and regardless of how many millions of edits they've managed to rack up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I support removing whatever enables this editor to do this kind of thing, including AWB." Amen to that, @Drmies: exactly what I wanted to say. – Athaenara ✉ 04:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC) and 03:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of all advanced rights and AWB access and, if possible, access to Hotcat (possibly a topic ban for that). A collaborative person would have looked at this enormous discussion and thought "omg, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but this is causing an immense of trouble so I will stop immediately". Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal of AWB as the user doesn't appear to understand what might be controversial use of it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment; if people are leaning towards AWB (ie. automation/semi-automation) removal, would the following work:
  • Automated edits may be performed from a bot account, with a bot flag, and with tasks subject to clear consensus + WP:BOTREQ mechanism.
  • Automated edits must not be performed via main Koavf account + with proviso that "Anything that appears to be automation shall be deemed to be so"
  Something like this worked out reasonably well in the long-term for another editor, in a similar situation in the past—there is the freedom to contribute + perform manual edits (per all the normal processes/guidelines); and there is the freedom to contribute + perform semi-automated edits (per all the normal processes/guidelines). Koavf, would you be comfortable with something like this? ie. clear separation of human vs. bot/semi-bot activities? —Sladen (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Sladen: anyone can apply for a bot account, even if they just are going to use it with AWB to do certain things. BOTREQ is a place where you can request bots do something; actually doing something with a bot requires a WP:BRFA to approve each specific task. Tasks don't get approved for "general" stuff, but that would certainly be the way to do something like "add 100,000 edit notices" or "add a million templates". The BRFA process has checks in place to make sure there is actually community consensus for tasks, and the bigger the task the more the BRFA approvers usually seek. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  If you take a look at BRFA you can see recent reqeusts and their statuses, sometimes they are "easy" but along the line of "make these 3000 edits", sometimes they are complex "like make about 10000 edits a month related to some process". — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sladen, Of course, that's fair. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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.

---

Taking Koavf's many assertions above that they "don't understand" at their word, this editor lacks the competence (see Drmies' "one cannot mandate that" comment above) to wield these Engvar, date format, and other hidden style recommendation templates and editnotices in an appropriate fashion, and furthermore is unable (assuming good faith) to understand the criticism offered to them in the threads above. As many editors have observed their actions as being disruptive, I propose: Koavf is topic-banned from (1) placing, removing, or modifying any edit notice on any page on English Wikipedia, excepting in their own user space; (2) placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of any national variety of English, any date format, or any other optional style format, without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis; (3) any change to multiple articles (a "mass edit"), with or without the use of semi-automated tools, without seeking prior consensus for the mass changes.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector: perhaps add a prohibition on mass creation of pages regardless of editing method, in any namespace without specific consensus to perform that task? –xeno^talk 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: I'm of two minds: on one hand I think that's covered by "any change to multiple articles" (although you said pages), but also I don't see that that's been identified as a problem. Unless you're saying that would be a simpler restriction to enforce? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:: Prefer pages and to be more explicit, as this is a stronger mass creation prohibition than exists at WP:MASSCREATION (which only addresses "reader-facing" items). –xeno^talk 11:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I "understand the criticism offered to [me] in the threads above": they were about volume/velocity of edits and the assertion that engvar templates were not needed and since they were not needed, shouldn't have been added. Is there something I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  It was not a mere "assertion", it was the clear, unambiguous, and unanimous judgment of the community that the templates weren't needed and shouldn't have been added. It's not a matter for debate, so that the next time you can say "Well, that was just an assertion, I don't understand what's wrong with what I just did." What we're trying for here is some guarantee, or at least a reasonable assurance, that there won't be a next time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, You make it a sport to make the worst possible reading of what I write. Please stop. Latching onto the word "assertion" for your outrage is just petty. The problem was "He doesn't get it" so then I explained it. If you don't like the word "assert" (which means to to declare with assurance or plainly and strongly; to state positively.) then just insert whatever other word you want here. I don't know why you're so hostile to me personally with every word in my posts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  You pinged me again - I asked you to stop that.

  You have no one to blame except yourself for questions being raised about your statements. As with several other things you have said in this discussion, the phrasing of your statement above and the addition of unnecessary quotation marks makes it appear that you are crafting loopholes to use in the future; other editors have commented on this. There's also the number of times you claim not to be able to understand what other editors are saying, even when it's perfectly clear to other participants in the discussion. You seem incapable of making a clear, cogent, unambiguous statement, so it's hardly odd for others to question exactly what you mean when you finally do say something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  You have actually got to be kidding me: I've been as explicit as possible and said, "I'm saying this so there are no gotchas or loopholes" and have been thanked in this thread for being direct. If I don't understand what someone means by an algorithm or a strawman that he doesn't explain or when someone says, "Well, this all implies a bigger problem, *wink-wink*" cryptically tacked onto the end of a message, that is all irrelevant noise to complain about later. The actual issue that was raised above was "Does he understand why we're objecting" and I gave the two things that I understood them to be. Do you have anything to add to that or are you going to keep on complaining that I don't know anything about algorithms?―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  <facepalm> (*sigh*) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  So, again, since you didn't answer my actual question: is there anything that I'm missing about what the complaints were about my behavior? My guess is no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, here are all the times in this discussion where you've explicitly stated "I don't understand" or some variation indicating you did not comprehend what was being plainly explained: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. This is what I mean by taking you at your word that you don't understand. I think you also don't understand the magnitude of the cleanup job you handed administrators by mass-adding thousands of unnecessary editnotice pages. You suggested on your talk page that you planned to add these to every page using American English ({{Use American English}} currently has 18,582 transclusions) and then planned to move on to British and Canadian English as well (205,283 and 5,068 transclusions respectively). That's just shy of a quarter million pages, though from the discussion above it seems you stopped at about 2,500 when Drmies intervened. Even that number took two administrators with advanced scripts and another reviewing the list manually most of a day to clean up. We banned Neelix when they hit something like 80,000 redirects, which took several years to clean up. You were going for more than three times that number of unnecessary page creations. Presumably after that you may have moved on to {{use mdy dates}} (171,388) and dmy (991,749) for another million and a bit pages. It's ridiculous that it did not occur to you to ask if that was a good idea first. WP:MASSCREATION prohibits this, since you're looking for a guideline, but Drmies' "common sense" argument certainly also applies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, And did any of those times contradict, misinterpret, or otherwise distort what the community was complaining about? Which is (again, feel free to correct me): a large volume/high velocity of edits and a conclusion/assertion/assessment/consensus (so there's no "gotchas" here) that the edits in and of themselves weren't helpful (/necessary/needed/required/demanded/etc.)? Is there anything else I'm missing when I say "I don't understand what you mean when you say that you doubt my purpose here or where I don't know of any policy or guideline about something and there is, in fact no policy or guideline about that thing or I never studied algorithms in math class (but I clearly explained my reasoning and method already) or I don't know what strawman someone claims because he never explained it (twice). None of those is saying, "I don't know why this thread was called" they are all saying, "I don't know what an algorithm is" or "You didn't say what you mean when you say 'there is a larger problem' without explaining yourself". The "IDHT" argument is, "I refuse to listen to your complaints" which is 100% not true here. What is happening here in everything I just linked is someone saying something that is tangential to the complaint about my behavior (like asking if template creation is CFORK when it's not and I didn't even make the templates in question). Groping around for the most desperate bad-faith reading of what I wrote is something that I would not expect from admins, and yet here we are. Yes, I acknowledge the community's concerns as addressed several times here: 1.) too much editing in too short a time (without any explicit consensus for that editing) and 2.) the actual substance of the edits not being appropriate. There is not "I refuse to listen", there is "I don't know what weird side-eyed complaints you have about me personally when you say, 'there's a bigger problem here' or 'strawman' or 'algorithm' and don't actually say what you mean". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  The combative nature of your comments suggested (to me, and apparently to many other editors) that either you did not understand how you were causing disruption, or you did understand but were defending your actions (implying that you intended to continue). Your insistence that commenters here are "groping around for the most desperate bad-faith reading of what I wrote" suggests the latter: my impression is that you're being defensive and don't intend to take any of this as valid criticism but as a personalized attack on your editing. To be honest some of what has been written here is much more personal than I would like to see. I don't really care one bit (or several million bits) if you make many trivial edits when you could have made one comprehensive edit, and I care even less if you do it intentionally to inflate your edit count, or whatever else has been alleged. The editor who called you a clown should have been blocked, I'm sorry I was not around when that happened. But there is valid criticism here. I do see and I do appreciate that you're explaining now how you understand, notwithstanding that there are guidelines about all of these things (many of which you're expected to be familiar with before getting access to AWB, but many userrights are handed out like candy around here) but nonetheless it took a small army of editors stepping in to try to explain things before you acknowledged that anything might have been wrong in the first place. And that's why I proposed a ban, because it really didn't seem like you were getting it.

  As an effort to demonstrate that you understand, could you go through the three points I proposed in my ban, and discuss why I would have proposed those points in particular and what you will do differently if the ban is not enacted? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ivanvector Your topic ban proposal is good, and I support it, but I also agree with xeno that a prohibition on mass creation of pages is needed as well, and I continue to believe that removal of AWB is called for. If I recall correctly, don't the AWB rules call for it not to be used in any controversial way? Well, judging from the length of this discussion, this was controversial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sorry as I too agree with Xeno and BMK - Given the amount of mass-created edit notices a mass creation prohibition would be good here, I'm also in agreement with BMK in that AWB should be revoked from them. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support in addition to any and all other sanctions that might be imposed by the community in this thread. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support all proposed sanctions. The user means well, we assume, but the inability to see that Wikipedia is not about having the most trivial edits is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal and topic bans proposed above until Justin figures out what was explained at length here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal and topic bans proposed above. This conversation includes plenty of the "I didn't hear that" and the passive-aggressive style of response that indicate a serious problem. Far better to make tens of thousands of thoughtful, careful edits, rather than millions of rapidfire edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal, the topic ban Ivanvector proposes, and a topic-ban on mass creation, as Xeno proposes. The unwillingness to listen in the discussion here has been quite unfortunate. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 100%. – Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just a note: if there is broad support for xeno's page creation ban, point (3) of my proposal can be modified to read "(3) any change to or creation of multiple articles pages ...". Such a restriction would also inherently prohibit the use of AWB. I support this modification. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal and proposed TBANs, I'm saddened that we're proposing sanctions on such a prolific editor but I would likewise expect such an editor to understand why the community sees their actions as a problem (and to have thought about this mass-edit more before taking action). If their response had been "sorry, I thought it was a useful addition, my bad, I'll make sure to get consensus next time" I would be inclined to let them off with a slap on the wrist, but they either can't or won't understand the problem, so sanction away. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal and TBANs, per the disingenuous and apparently deliberate inability to understand the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support AWB removal and TBANs. Have seen several unnecessary mass edits from Koavf over the years that I could only assume were to rack up an edit count, so this is long overdue. Ss112 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 on AWB removal. No strong opinion on TBANs, I see the bulk aspect as being the problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support all generally. I'd prefer to see a carve-out for #3 that makes clear that repetitive types of edits that are routinely made by other editors shouldn't be problematic (e.g., using Twinkle to tag articles or nominate articles for deletion). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:21, 23 August 2019 (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.

Post-closure note to Sandstein: you should almost certainly make it clear whether "any change to multiple articles" will include scripts like User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper. (I'm a non-participant in the above thread and have no opinion on this, but I've noticed Koavf using that script since the topic ban was enacted and don't want him inadvertently getting into trouble if you did intend your topic ban to cover all automation scripts rather than just specifically WP:AWB.) ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not "my" topic ban, but the community's, and accordingly I'm not better suited than any other user to determine this. Sandstein 09:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I worded that poorly. I meant making the same change to many articles in one go (e.g. with AWB) or in a rapid batch (e.g. adding the same template to all members of some category indiscriminately). Shortdesc helper is one-by-one, and I don't think it should be covered by this ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Maya Rani Paul and Jogesh Chandra Barman or, RHaworth and speedy deletions

Recently, my two stub articles were deleted. Maya Rani Paul was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Jogesh Chandra Barman was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and ex Minister of West Bengal Provincial Government. According to Wikipedia's notablity guidelines, they are notable. I have given proper references in these article too. But an user put a speedy deletion tag and the pages were deleted. I want these pages to be rescued.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll cover admin request and DELREV on the user's talk page. no need for ANI action Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: No, please, don't do that. These were severely inappropriate deletions, and I for one would like to hear what RHaworth has to say about them. RHaworth: I cannot see how you can have decided to delete those pages after reading them, which, to me, means that you didn't read them, and used the batch-delete function on CAT:CSD. I have, incidentally, reversed the deletions as being inappropriate applications of CSD. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: RHaworth has made 488,273 page deletions. They are #2 behind MZMcBride's 805,727 deletions, who I believe ran automated process to delete pages (their history is very hard to follow). Similarly, it would be very concerning if RHaworth also used automated processes to delete pages, depending on what they are and how they are used. For example, massdelete per G5 is not uncommon, at least not in my line of business. I was looking at RHaworth's recent deletion log, and I noticed many times where the deletions come at a very rapid clip. For example, look at 18:06-07, 20 August 2019 (UTC) where there are I think 21 deletions of IP Talk pages for vandalism. I'm not contesting the merits of the deletions as I only looked at a couple, but the question is did RHaworth review the tags before deleting. I don't know how to tell the process that was used from the log (someone more technical might). There are other parts of the log where pages are deleted quickly, but that was the most glaring I noticed (I didn't go back any further). I also find the idea of deleting an article that is tagged by an apparent disruptive account without review to be ass backwards. When I come across a tag from such a user, my immediate inclination is not to delete, but I certainly review it with additional scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, yes, indeed. I'm less concerned with "borderline" decisions; the number of those is always going to be proportional to the number of deletions they've made. The critical question to me is whether they are examining the articles they are deleting. To my mind there are very few circumstances in which even a basic examination isn't required, and failing to perform it isn't the same as an overzealous deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Another way to look at this is that RHaworth has been volunteering here for many years, helping keep this place free of trash on a scale that most other administrators don't come anywhere near. Out of literally hundreds of thousands of deletions, there are occasional misfires, but I imagine his error rate is a lot lower than most. And deletions are easy enough to reverse if needed. That all said, I completely agree that it's disheartening and frustrating to write a new article only to have it be speedily deleted. I agree with Dicklyon that indefinitely blocking SHUBHAM SARITA is possibly overkill at this time, even if the bulk of this mess lies with SHUBHAM SARITA's actions. It depends whether SHUBHAM SARITA was also socking and causing other disruption. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: To be clear, I don't expect admins to be perfect; we're human; mistakes happen. But there's a variety of mistakes. There's many errors that are perfectly understandable and excusable, even though they're errors; deleting a CSD#A1 as an A3 instead; deleting something as a copyvio even though it was a source that copied from Wikipedia; deleting something as an A7 because you didn't know that winning X award was a big deal; deleting something as an A7 because you searched for source but mistyped the name; deleting something as a G11 that could have been rescued because there was an older, non-promotional, version that you missed because you were tired and grumpy. I've made some of these mistakes. Between those of us here, we've made them all. But I think it's clear that any admin, reading either of these pages, would never have hit the delete button; and therefore, RHaworth deleted them without reading the pages. That is not an excusable mistake, that's an egregious error of judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you @Vanamonde93: for pinging me before I'd finished writing to Nazmus. I've dropped notice to RHaworth. Neither of these articles looks like an appropriate CSD at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: No problem; if you want to handle the conversation with the user who placed the tags, feel free; I have as much newbie conversation as I can handle on my hands at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I did, but in the meantime the user was indef blocked for WP:CIR. My timing is clearly off tonight Nosebagbear (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  That seems oddly harsh, to indef block for incompetence, without apparent discussion to attempt to coach toward something more productive. Sure, his tags were inappropriate and vindictive, so give him a few days to think it over and see where he goes. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think another factor to consider is the conduct of SHUBHAM SARITA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who nominated the pages for speedy deletion. I'm not sure if the taggings by this user are innocently misguided or intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point after pages they created got speedy deleted. That doesn't excuse bad review of the tags, of course, but admins sometimes have bad days. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I see that the fleet-footed Ponyo has indeffed them while I was still digging through their contributions, and it was a justified block. I did, however, come across this tag (sorry, admins only), placed by the blocked user and also deleted by RHaworth, which wasn't necessarily a bad deletion, but wasn't a CSD#G1 page; the subject was clearly identifiable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Due to a substantial history of socking regarding this topic, I was already looking very closely at SHUBHAM SARITA's edits when this thread was opened. The CSD tags added were inapplicable and disruptive. It doesn't appear they were reviewed prior to the "delete" button being engaged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't usually do A7's anymore. They don't look A7able to me too often.-- Deepfriedokra 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  There's not much point in debating an a7 deletion since neither were a7'd....Praxidicae (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• These were blatantly inappropriate speedy deletions, neither was at all promotional, they didn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason, and I don't see how someone could conclude that they were candidates for deletion. Hut 8.5 21:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Concur on "not promotional" and I am reminded of past discussions on RHaworth's deletion practices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Concur as well, A1 and G11 were not appropriate speedies (and I say this as someone who can be trigger-happy with the G11). Also not A7, they meet NPOLITICIAN. I hate to say it, but these were bad speedy deletes. creffett (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• May be connected to their self-acknowledged "shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach" - see here. I wonder if there is a way to determine how many CSD nominations someone has denied? - suspect not. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  I take an extremely dim view of the way that this matter was taken straight to ANI without giving me a chance to rectify things myself. My reaction is: OK, I made two mistakes. Both were corrected within half an hour. Why do we need a long discussion? The deletions were three minutes apart - they were not done using the batch deletion tool. In each case I saw a very short article where the only references to English language sources were to purely formal listings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  RHaworth, The article creator brought this here, because they were understandably piqued; and your mistakes were only fixed in half an hour because they were brought here. If you say you're not using batch-delete, fine; but then these are rather egregious errors. CSD#A1 is for articles where the subject is not identifiable. A biography that just has a full name wouldn't qualify. I don't think anybody wants to escalate this, but after three similar AN discussions in a few months time, you need to give us more than just "oops". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  RHaworth English sources are not and should not be a requirement for notability, and deficient sourcing of any type is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. These are bad excuses for bad deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Like Dicklyon I think an indef block may be too severe for SHUBHAM SARITA - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. They should be required to demonstrate their competence by making an unblock request. Any reasonably well worded request should be accepted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's a credible case for sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive, Special:Undelete/Vivek Verma (Singer). In a totally-not coincidence, Kundaliniwar created Draft:Vivek Verma two days ago with identical content. I also suspect UPE here - reaching for Twinkle and patrolling new pages, ostensibly to infiltrate NPP, is getting more common. Checkuser needed. MER-C 11:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's no need for a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned about RHaworth's CSD history. For example, this one discussed at length in this thread. Another user tagged it for deletion with a patently invalid reason. Even a cursory look would have told RHayworth that this was incorrectly tagged, but he deleted it anyway. That's not an honest mistake, it's just careless. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • RoySmith, did RHaworth respond there? I may have missed it--it's almost nap time. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked him to restore it, and he did, but only after blaming the victim. He also moved it to another title without leaving a redirect. Not sure why he did that; it left the original author with no way to locate their missing sandbox. I had to go create the redirect myself. The default for Special:MovePage is to leave a redirect. To not leave a redirect you have to go out of your way to uncheck the box. I'm mystified why somebody would go out of their way to take the less helpful option. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

CSD isn't the half of it... ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been brought to my attention three different ways already. Risker has already asked for a response, but Praxidicae said she saw it as a joke. I'm baffled, honestly, by their general inability to take feedback seriously, though they're not unique in that respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's creepy and inappropriate, particularly for an administrator. Just my two cents. If a non-administrator said that I think we'd be looking at sanctions. At any rate, I've had issues with RHaworth deleting things speedily that should go through the normal AFD process, although in my case he was pretty easy going and sent me a copy of the page after I asked. I don't think he's a bad person, just needs to think before he hits "publish changes" -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like the instigation of that post was this arbitration motion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• RHaworth, so far as I can tell, you have made more than 50 edits since last participating here; why haven't you returned to this discussion? There's many experienced editors asking, or implying, that you need to, at the very least, promise to be more careful. By refusing to participate, you're making it more likely that someone will seek formal sanction; don't let this escalate more than it has to. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I consider that my knuckles have been thoroughly rapped. I promise to be more careful in future. Is there anything else you want me to say? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, but I'm going to assume that you really mean that, in which case it's quite enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• @RHaworth: I'm pretty sure you've said this before. Please, please be more careful in the future. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The article, Samastha is currently misleading

The Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama was an Islamic organisation in the State of Kerala. The parent organization has been split up several times and finally divided into EK Faction and AP Faction. Actually Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama is not active but the name Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama is now used by both groups. This article is currently misleading. Because this article talks about the two organisations mixed, Undivided Samastha (the parent organisation was live till 1989) and EK Faction (one of the factions). Let me tell you some examples: No Current members for Mushawara, executive bodies, members and headquarters for Undivided Samastha but they have available for EK Faction and AP Faction. The contents are related with EK Faction was moved to the correct destination, EK Faction.

Can any admins explain for me, Why my edits was reverted? Kutyava (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Without saying anything about the content itself, this is not the place to settle a content dispute. I suggest you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard or the village pump to get this sorted out. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs,User: Kutyava, User:GorgeCustersSabre gave you explicit reasoning here and administrator User:Drmies advised you to discuss your addition on the talk page. Essentially, you were bold, GeorgeCustersSabre recerted, now you need to discuss, like it says on WP:BRD. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, isn't the village pump for ideas, policies and stuff? Kutyava, note that Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. Irrespective of that, admins don't have a veto on content. You might find the BRD cycle of Wikipedia editing helpful, as suggested above. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article

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'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more" and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable," had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.

The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [56], [57] and [58] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Response by closer,

• It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
• The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
• The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
  • MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
  • MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
  • Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP: [The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.[59]
• The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
  • It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure: ... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states ... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs. However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.

This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should "make readers want to learn more". That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead?

As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The "guideline based arguements" were quotes taken out of the fuller context and, which you acknowledge, do not comment on the order of paragraphs or ideas. That the matters are "interesting and vital"! are a matter of personal opinion or preference. The interesting and vital nature (compare with other elements in the lead) that would make these paramount is not established by objective criteria. Who says these are more important than anything else? Presenting such evidence would have established the matter was more than a personal opinion that was being expressed. On the other hand, articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles. This falls to WP:BLUE, if nothing else. The way that ideas are organisised may be a matter of personal preference, however; the arguement made was that the proposal disorganises the structure that has been adopted. That arguement is not a matter of opinion or personal preference but falls to objective criteria. Of course, the proposal might have rewritten the lead (rather then just a cut-and-paste) where there was another "good organisation" that presented the ideas in other than a chronological order. That would be another question altogether. But then, I have pretty much said all of this already. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No Wikilawyering please. Multiple users said the paragraph on the terrorist and cult designation was important to them, so why did you simply ignored their comments. Moreover, it's pretty much clear that one of the most important landmarks regarding the group is that it was once designated as a terrorist organization, so, yes, it's "interesting and vital"! You see, none of the users objected the fact that the paragraph in question contained important and interesting materials (this is only YOU who is comparing it with other elements!!!). They, the objecting users, just used the chrono order as a pretext to object. The rest of your comment is also wikilawyering; the quote you misused, i.e. articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles, is just a general comment on the overall narration which should govern the article, which is clearly right. That said, it's not saying how the lead should be framed. So, nothing changed; You ignored various "guideline based arguments" and closed the discussion in favor of those who had not guideline to support them. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The arguement appears to be that the lead should not follow good organizational and writing principles and that guidelines which are silent on the order of paragraphs somehow give weight to the matter of ordering paragraphs since Multiple users said the paragraph on the terrorist and cult designation was important to them [emphasis added] even though other multiple editors disagreed, thinking that good organisation was actually important? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The point which you ignore is that 'good organization' was not in danger with my suggestion. To put it another way, saving the chrono order is not the best way for having a 'good organization'. Some time you need to show why the subject is worthy of attention; this is just what the guideline says explicitly: "make readers want to learn more." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Revert closure and topic ban Cinderella157 - This is the second poorly executed RfC closure by User:Cinderella157 that I've come across in the last few days (the first was this one, which also prompted a closure review directly above this thread). I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems like a pattern to me. Either way, it's becoming clear to me that Cinderella157 doesn't understand a few key things about closing controversial consensus discussions:

1. These discussions often take place over a long period of time, and involve a large number of editors. A lot of time and effort goes into these discussions; participants feel invested in the discussion. To close such a discussion with a very brief and unclear closing statement can be very disappointing to the dozens of participants, and it represents a lack of respect for the time and effort that was put into thoroughly discussing the topic at hand. In short, these kinds of contentious discussions deserve a thoughtful and clear closure.
2. Even when a discussion ends in no consensus, the closing statement can still provide an important summation of the salient points of the discussion. It can point out aspects of the discussion where agreement was found, and other aspects where it was not. In many cases, this closing statement serves as a historical record of the overall results of the discussion, and future discussions will often point to this historical record as a way to review the path that consensus has taken on this topic over time. To close such a discussion with a brief and unclear closing statement obscures this historical record, making it more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus.

I don't have the time or interest to study Cinderella157's contribution history to see if he has been closing many other discussions in the same manner. If he has, I would support a topic ban on Cinderella157, preventing him from closing any discussions. Even if these two closures are outliers, I would still encourage Cinderella157 to avoid closing discussions and find other tasks instead.

I'm also not sure I agree with the result of the closure either. I briefly scanned the discussion and my hunch is that I'd lean towards finding consensus for the "Second" argument (opposite of Cinderella's closure) at best, or closing it as "no consensus" at worst. If anything, at least the voters supporting the "Second" result actually provide relevant guidelines and policies that support their decision. Not a single voter on the "Last" side provided any relevant guidelines or policies in support of their position; they simply expressed their personal preference for the order of the lead. Cinderella157 writes that he finds the argument for a chronologically-ordered lead to be "compelling", but provides no explanation for why he finds it more compelling than the policy-based rationales on the other side. He even admits in this very discussion above that there are no policies or guidelines that require the lead of an article to describe the subject in chronological order. If I were the closing admin, I would have likely closed this discussion much differently. I'd recommend that the closure is reverted, and an uninvolved administrator is asked to provide a real closure. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mind ye, two crap closures does not make a crap closer: with no pattern established, I suggest that a topic ban would be overkill to say the least. If a pattern does emerge this can and should be revisited, but until then, no cause. ——SerialNumber54129 17:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Neither the close review nor the proposal subsequently made have garnered any particular interest and a considerable amount of time has past since either were put forward. Such a proposal (and other comments made with it about this particular close) should be made with more than than the acknowledged "scant" consideration given. For the record, the other close review referred to is now archived here. My closes may have been brief but there is little space given by the close templates to give a fully reasoned rationale for a close (see my response above). I have, however, been quite prepared to give a fuller rationale for a close, when asked. If anyone sees any substance in either the review or proposal, I could respond in detail (noting I will be away for about a week) but otherwise, I think it is time to put this to rest. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

But the other discussion also said the RFC was closed by you improperly. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This close was well explained and substantiated. Cinderella157 is a good editor, and this seems a pretty unfair report against him. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying that Cinderella157 isn't a good editor, but I'm saying that there seems to be evidence piling up that he/she is not a particularly good closer of consensus discussions. Non-admin closures of contentious discussions need to be good. Even WP:NAC says "A non-admin closure is not appropriate [if] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." This RfC involved around 15 different editors, and the outcome was a close call, and it was somewhat controversial. If the closure was properly explained and well-reasoned, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. But, Cinderella157 simply said "I found this argument compelling" without even explaining why it was more compelling than the other side's argument. If I had participated in this RfC, I would've been upset by this closure. There is clearly very little interest in this closure review by anyone else, so it's unlikely anything will happen as a result of it. My advice to Cinderella157 would be to stay away from non-admin closures of discussions when the consensus isn't relatively obvious. ‑Scottywong| confer || 02:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the RfC Mhhossein is referring to, I find Cinderella157 presented a well-thought out argument for his close. It wasn't an easy RfC, so kudos to him. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2019 (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.

Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24

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.

---

• Note: The below appeal has been posted on behalf of User:Darkfrog24 for review by the community. For the purposes of this appeal, Darkfrog24 will have their user talk page access restored for use for the sole purpose of the appeal.

I am writing to appeal an indefinite block from June 7, 2018. It started as an AE/DS block, but the enforcing admin then left Wikipedia. No one else had the authority to lift or change it until its one year of AE/DS-ness expired.

I think the immediate cause was this post: [60]. It looked to me like admin Spartaz asked me a question just then, but it was actually posted a few hours earlier before the appeal closed.[61]

I replied on my talk page. I now recognize that I was not permitted to answer him. I also understand that I am not permitted to refer even indirectly to anyone with whom I am under an IBAN. I did not intend the word "someone" to mean anyone specific, but I guess the admin didn't know that. I will report any escalation through formal channels. In the future I will avoid making any similar posts on Wikipedia.

I plan to focus on the same main areas as last time I was unblocked: updating articles using material written for Wikinews, helping at RSN and 3O, and so on.

These were constructive, uncontested, noncontroversial edits. As you can see from my edit history before the appeal, I was an asset to Wikipedia during this period, with no complaints, accusations, or fights. I also never interacted with the editor with whom I am now under an IBAN – a voluntary decision on my part.

I am a lead reporter in Wikinews, having drafted over a hundred now-published articles. This often leads me to new material not yet in Wikipedia. If my edit count seems low it's because I often add large amounts of text to mainspace with a single edit e.g. [62] and I was splitting my time across many parts of Project Wiki. Notable activity:

• Imported material to mainspace from 61 articles I originally wrote for the Spanish Wikipedia. [63] See my contributions [64] under "(translated from Spanish Wikipedia)".
• Updated several Wikipedia articles with new content from Wikinews. [65]
• One of the facts I added from Wikinews[66] made "Did you know?" [67]
• Over 100 contributions to RSN. [68]
• One RfC. [69]
• Three 3O cases. [70]
• Two ARCA cases, for one of which I was awarded a diplomacy barnstar. [71] in recognition of [72]

For future appeals of the 2016 topic ban, it is my understanding that the admins recognize that I reject the original accusations but as of June 2018 do not merely advise but require me not to present evidence about this. Instead I am required to focus on present and future positive contributions.

Please inform me if there's something I haven't understood, or if you want me to add or change anything. If you decide not to lift the block, I hope you will consider restoring talk page access. I will respond to any other issues the admins think necessary upon request. Because I am not permitted to reply here, please place questions and comments on my talk page. Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 responses

• Copied across from usertalk page at Darkfrog24's request -- Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but I guess I didn't:

I will continue to stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

I see others among you saying that their biggest concern with my user access being restored is that I would immediately return to what they call relitigating the original accusations against me. As GoldenRing points out, I've been clearly ordered not to. I will not discuss the matter on Wikipedia outside legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as we are engaging in right now.

My plan for the topic ban appeal, a year from now, to prevent relitigation, is to list my plans for future contributions but add a line at the end, "If any admin here wishes me to address the original accusations, I am prepared to do so." I don't expect anyone will take me up on it, and if so, that's the end of it.

Is that acceptable?

In my time since the original sanction was imposed, I have also taken several steps to explore conflict resolution and deescalation, with noted success at 3O and noticeboards, as you can see from my edit history during the previous six months when I was unblocked.

Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures.

I have edited Wikipedia in a conflict free way in all the topic areas mentioned in the appeal (mainly RSN, and adding material from Wikinews and the Spanish Wiki). I have shown I am an asset to the encyclopedia, as you can tell from the six-month history before the last appeal.

These topics are also far from MoS with no gray-area issues. An AE admin made it clear that I am permitted to do style edits (wikignoming) of Wikipedia articles generally, so long as I don't discuss the edits, and in practice that caused no problems.

Seraphimblade, do you feel I have addressed your concerns?

If there is something else I haven't addressed here please ask and I will respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Community comments

Where is the link to the actual AE/DS block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically, reading backwards through Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log, Darkfrog warned of discrentionary sanctions in 2015, topic banned in January 2016, topic ban expanded in February 2016, indefinitely banned later the same month, after discussion here. Related arbcom motion here. Appealed again in 2018 declined. Indeffed (again) here (oversight only diff). There is some weird shit in there, and arbcom might know more. There are also a half dozen declined UTRS appeals, btw. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means, and will stay far away from it. The entire previous disruption was the endless requests for "clarification" regarding it. No more "clarification", stay far, far away from that area, doing nothing that could even be remotely construed as touching on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with and share Seraphimblade's concern. I am glad that the user found usefulness elsewhere, but until they recognize that their behavior was wrong, we would be reinforcing these same impulses - which would recur. I suspect the user is playing along, checking the boxes she needs to get unblocked, and will likely try to avoid trouble. But not for long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think they’re a good guy, but based on my interactions with them, they are the type who will never get the point and honestly in good faith will think whatever disruptive behaviour they’re engaging in is helpful. While that doesn’t make them a bad person, it does make them a bad fit for the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Strictly speaking, for a petition for relief of sanctions (this really isn’t an “appeal” in the proper sense, which challenges the correctness or propriety of the original action), I don’t usually think it’s necessary to admit wrongdoing, though it can be persuasive. After all, there may be cases where there is a legitimate difference of opinion with the blocking admin. I’m not saying that’s the case here—actually it’s hard to tell what the whole story is from Darkfrog’s explanation, which I actually do find problematic. As such I’m in much the same boat as Someguy1221; there’s some weird stuff here that I don’t really understand. Moreover, seeing as there are suppressed diffs connected to blocks (per Someguy1221), I think we may want an oversight person to give an opinion on whether this request adequately addresses the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The suppressed diff is just a block notice. Doesn't appear related to the reason suppression at first glance, but I haven't looked closely. To clarify my stance above, yeah, it's similar to yours: he's rambly and doesn't really ever get to a point. I revoked his email access because he was sending multiple followup emails to a reviewing admin from UTRS via the email user function and they appeared to find it very frustrating. I'd put him fairly firmly in "Well meaning but bad fit for the project who doesn't get why." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The "weird stuff" was added to the page before the block notice, and removed afterwards. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, I was looking just at the diff you linked the block notice in. I think I remember there being a discussion on the list about this at one point. Anyway, having looked more closely at the suppressed material, I think it falls in line with my general impression here that this is someone who may have issues that are not best addressed through noticeboard discussions and that this may cause concerns in the future. I'm not really sure how else to put that, but yeah, I think it's likely to cause issues in the future... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
        • In light of this further information and discussion, I oppose the request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - No convincing rationale provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni who analyzes the situation persuasively and provides the right amount of additional information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support - appreciate above that there are quite a few issues. I don't necessarily agree that someone blocked should stay blocked forever. I think the standard offer should apply here, with a clear understanding that a) They must stay away from absolutely everything to do with the Manual of Style, in any description, and drop the subject about their topic ban. It's not exactly necessary to admit fault here, just a commitment to avoid the behaviour in future. Violations can be dealt with swiftly with blocks/reimposition of indef, but I think given their proposed work on Wikipedia I'd be open to them at least having a conditional unblock, perhaps with namespace restrictions if really seen as necessary. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The main problem that led to this block was the interminable relitigation of the topic ban (trying to appeal to AE after being rejected at ARCA twice and various other venues). It seems from this request that Darkfrog24 acknowledges that further relitigation is not acceptable. The conditions of the topic ban (according to AELOG) are that it may not be appealed until twelve months after an unblock, and their IBAN may not be appealed until the TBAN is successfully appealed. I'm happy to see an unblock under those conditions; any TBAN violation or attempt to relitigate the ban should be met with an immediate re-block. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tony but also the idea that "if someone violates again, they'll be swiftly reblocked" is patently untrue around here, it's often harder to re-ban and undo the damage that's been done in situations like this. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: In general you might have a point (though actually I see this said a lot but don't really see it happen), however this topic ban is under ARBATC and any admin can unilaterally block for violations. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Other communications and behavior from the user in question lead me to believe that he is incapable of working collaboratively and actually listening. I'll leave it at that. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced that will not re-enter the relitigation of the original topic ban, furthermore, based on their behaviour on IRC, where they repeatedly appealed their block (to the extent they were banned from the unblock channel) I have no confidence that they will not engage in obsessive litigious behaviour concerning disputed edits to content. I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned, is likely to result in significant disruption and excessive use of administrator time to manage. Nick (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've watched this case for a long time. While I do agree that Darkfrog's reaction to the original topic ban was less than ideal, I believe they understand that it will not be accepted. That said, all the subsequent issues stem from what was a blatant guideline-violating load of near-libelous BS that should have resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG block and almost amounted to harassment. Even the current block was an overreaction to Darkfrog asking for help to prevent further interaction with the slinger of false accusations. The fact is, Darkfrog was severely wronged, and their reaction since then is not only understandable, it's outright justified. The continued punishment (and at this point that's all it is, as it prevents nothing) of the wrong person is outright ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tony, "I don't get it" springs to mind when reading their unblock request, Also getting yourself blocked from the IRC unblock channel is worth a block alone. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I second the comments by oknazevad, User:Steven Crossin, and GoldenRing, on these two principles: 1) him apparently having learned his lesson about his original mistakes including spilling gasoline on the campfire and 2) excessive sanctions. Admins should seriously research the background of GoldenRing's comments because they indicate a lot of wrongful conviction and harassment, aside from whatever actual transgression. I met Darkfrog24 a few weeks ago in #wikipedia-en on IRC, where he spends all his time building people up, and showing the utmost respect for the project. Never a bad word about anyone or anything, just a joy to be around all day. He's given editors careful, detailed, general advice when they ask. When the topic of blocking has come up, maybe if someone else jokes about getting blocked, Darkfrog24 was speaking of the remorseful regretful longsuffering for his block status. He has advocated to people not to get blocked, and explained the ways to generally avoid it. Generally speaking, based on that first impression, if I saw someone with that kind of personal attitude, that kind of a heart for the public works, that kind of eagerness to contribute ASAP, that kind of hurting for being unable to contribute, and with those academic credentials seen on his User page, I'd be seriously wanting that person as a contributor to public works. And then seeing his outstanding quality of writing on at least one article, I'd be wanting to drag that person in to Wikipedia. Being blocked for a year, and being unable to even appeal it for a year at a time, is like a sockpuppet parole or like a murder or burglary parole in real life. Speaking of which, I know people are saying that he was severely annoying in the past and climbing the walls about his block, but I believe his lack of sockpuppetry and his suffering over it shows a commitment to justice. He didn't ask for my comment but I looked this AN up and I just can't do nothing. Please find a justly sized parole sanction, and review his interim contributions. Thank you! — Smuckola(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I decided to review this with "would I support if he'd never mentioned his old cases in his appeals or now?", and with Steve as a mentor below, I think it's reasonable. It can certainly be irritating if someone wants to relitigate issues constantly, but they've been prohibited from that. I still feel that requiring people to concede every accusation before allowing them back in is unfair and just tests editors' lying skills. There are differences here from what we have seen before. Any attempt to relitigate should (re)trigger the indef, but factoring in the IBAN, TBAN and mentoring I think rope is legitimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• OpposeRight off the bat, Darkfrog24 has been incredibly persistent in their requests for unblock. In most cases, this persistence would simply be annoying, but in this case shows that Darkfrog24 has not understood the reason for their blocks. I believe that they are contributing in good faith but can not learn to drop the stick. The mentorship proposal is not encouraging to me either. Unblocks with mentoring only really work when the mentor is ready and willing to impose sanctions and when the mentee has already made strides toward resolving the issue that lead to the block. I don't see either of that in this case. Darkfrog24, I encourage you to continue working on other projects. Show that you know when it is appropriate to be persistent and when it is appropriate to back away from the horse carcass. Come back in no less than 6 months and make exactly one unblock request. Do not discuss it off-wiki except for a single request to restore talkpage access if necessary. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  AntiCompositeNumber (talk · contribs), I've made some suggestions below on namespace restrictions if they're unblocked under a mentorship agreement. While I don't have access to the block button, I won't be one to give them much rope, and any problems that occur, I'll be the first one to bring them right back here. Past editors that I've mentored can attest to my firmness, let's just say that. I definitely appreciate that it seems more value than it's worth to unblock, even on a very short leash, but if they are put on a short leash with the understanding a violation will lead to a swift re-block, I think they maybe should be given a chance. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tony, mainly, but if he is unblocked then there must be an incredibly short leash - mentorship or no - with an immediate reblock if the mere thought of another "clarification" even begins to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing his mind. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I would offer the suggestion that if someone wants to take responsibility for Darkfrog's editing behavior here, I'd go along with it. However, the sole caveat is that whoever decides to take that responsibility gets precisely the same block as Darkfrog when/if she goes off the rails and tries to reframe the rules again. Now the question becomes - whoever chooses to back Darkfrog -v are they confident enough in Darkfrog's restraint to put their own editing freedom at risk? If not, you shouldn't support turning her loose in the wiki. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Would not be willing to accept such a suggestion. Offering to guide a user to ensure they keep their nose clean is one thing, being subject to sanctions if the user fails is another. For the record, I also think that if such a rule was ever imposed on a mentor, it would make them excessively punitive and harsh as their own neck is on the line, which I think would be counter productive. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  The responsibilities of a mentor include pulling the plug on the mentoree, but does not include being a legal guarantor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perennially disruptive editor with a ridiculous number of unblock requests. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not an admin, but this seems to be a competent, good faith editor. Benjamin (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support: My support here is also reflected in comments of support in the Mentorship suggestion section below. I realize that unless that section is revisited by editors that commented with "no support here" (maybe by being asked?) this will likely be a token but I went into this very negative. Another "VERY" negative editor, User:TonyBallioni, with whom most comments I totally agree with stated, "do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption."[?], and I think they may. A supposed fact brought up by User:Softlavender might be reasonable but I don't feel in this case the Darkfrog is gaming the system and seems to have a genuine desire to contribute without future conflicts. For that reason I can overlook his hounding for another chance. Considering the proposed mentor will agree to a very [very] short leash and considering a big "fan" (User:Smuckola) of the subject has given support and I feel may even "keep and extra set of eyes on things", as well as would likely be sorely disappointed in being let down should Darkfrog fail to comply. I am sure some others invested here like User:SmokeyJoe, and I am really sure User:AntiCompositeNumber would be looking.

• @Mkdw: (for the Arbitration committee) seems to have made it clear in point #3 (directed to Darkfrog24) "You will have the option to accept the community's decision/conditions for an unblock should it be offered, or you shall remain blocked under the previous block settings.". I would think a primary "condition" would be an agreement of a block reinstatement should one of the admins here deem it appropriate and needed. I do not know of one here, even among those in opposition, that would not examine a complaint with fair scrutiny (there could be frivolous attacks or complaints from some future "opponent") or an immediate block reinstatement should the mentor decide it appropriate or other clear evidence is shown. Please See: User:JzG's oppose comments and "condition" "an immediate reblock if the mere thought of another "clarification" even begins to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing his mind.". This "condition" would be to follow policies and guidelines and not try to change, interpret, or seek "clarification". If in doubt, leave it out, or alone.

This might be an allowed experiment (strict conditions) that would actually involve a mentor and an adhoc "committee" of editors and admins for oversight. This would surely be accepted by ArbCom since it could involve an immediate block reinstatement as such an "agreed upon condition" for reinstatement. I think this would alleviate fears of some possible damage because of slow procedures per User:Praxidicae or such as the mentioned "excessive use of administrator time to manage" per User:Nick, that did state "I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned,...". TonyBallioni does not seem to have a bad personal opinion of Darkfrog24, just that he will not be able to conform or that mentoring works. "IF" the conditions are so strict (very, very short leash), and he could see the possibilities if successful, and possibly agree as another "condition" to be the or a lead admin (with all the extra eyes for help) it would either prove his point or prove that there can be exceptions. I hope a consensus can evolve to give this a try. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee agreed to temporarily restore Darkfrog24's user talk page access for the purposes of the appeal only. A definitive affirmative consensus by the community would be needed to permanently restore Darkfrog24's user talk page access. Mkdw ^talk 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand that (to Mkdw) and also the reasoning. I have not had any negative interaction with the subject but his being allowed to offer, ramble, or maybe even rant, would not help in the least that I can see. It might help in the future (I saw 6 months) but likely not. We are hamstrung and either he can maybe or hopefully "get it", that his past actions WILL NOT WORK, or he needs to be forever blocked if we can do that. I want other editors to understand the frustration that there is secrecy and gag-orders, that might very well be of the utmost importance, but how it hampers those of us that do not know "the whole story", and it just makes it crazy. If it were not for the mandate he (or anyone) discuss anything of the case mentioned I would just have agreed he does not belong. He has done something evidently serious and was "punished", is seeking to possibly "right that wrong", cannot defend himself, and "we" (that don't have access to that private information or any of the past actions that resulted in the punishment), must work within the realm of simply not knowing. The subject may very well not deserve another chance ---BUT--- I am at a lost as to why it would be fought against so hard when I see evidence that an editor (and several others) are agreeing to step in to try to see if it can work. They are either really gullible, or there must be some glimmer of redeeming qualities. I do not even see he is talked bad about personally. It seems it is thought he is generally a good person that cannot be involved in Wikipedia. Why not throw him one last rope. I won't have to worry in 6 months or a year because he will either have figured it out or hopefully be permanently gone (as there would then be bad things some could point to not under a gag) unless he resumes under a sock or something. Otr500 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I've not had any interaction with Darkfrog24, and I was neutral on this until I read their Wikinews talk page, linked below by Ca2james. Taking into account that Ca2james is one of the participants, the conversation from November through April is enough to convince me that Darkfrog24 is not ready to return to Wikipedia, and may never be. I see argument, quite a lot of sarcasm (e.g. here), and use of language such as not your little bitch, Obey your master, dog!, obey like a dog/slave/servant, and servile in discussions of working with others. Also discouraging, considering their problems with the Manual of style here, is that Darkfrog24 is disputing matters covered by the Wikinews equivalent. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Six months of rope with mentorship. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentorship suggestion

Coming to the community with a possible idea. In the past, I have mentored editors that have had somewhat problematic pasts after a discussion at AN, ANI or an RFC - (here and here). Acknowledging that there are issues presented above, I do think Darkfrog is sincere about trying to do better here and keep his nose clean. I'm wondering if the community would be open to an unblock if they're placed under mentorship, perhaps with similar conditions to the ones Knowledgkid87 was put under (and in addition to their current topic ban?). Appreciating that some may feel it's not worth the effort, I am willing to take this on in order so this user can be given another chance. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, I would think that a namespace restriction would help Darkfrog prove they can keep their nose clean - I'd recommend starting with mainspace, mainspace talk, their own user space, file and category space, and a select few other Wikipedia namespaces they wish to work in (Third opinion and RSN I think is fine). Over time they could approach their mentor if they wanted to edit other spaces - the exception being their MOS topic ban obviously. Of course, the community may feel that this is too much trouble, but in the past this responsibility has been delegated to the mentor so the user isn't a constant burden on the community as a result of their unblock. If there's a problem, I'll be the first to drag them back here, or to ArbCom if I see fit. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Steve has had luck in the past working with users that have run into difficulty - I'm willing to support him here. — Ched :  ?  — 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely - I've already !voted above in a general sene, conditional on this, but I wanted to push that I think it would be worthwhile. It's not always helpful but I think mentoring seems a reasonable use here, if Steven is willing to take it on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose no. There are many issues with this proposal: the first being, as I indicated above, Darkfrog24 likely has issues that cannot be resolved through discussion and mentorship. I don't really know how much more explicit I can be than that while still respecting him. This proposal would not be able to address those, because he's indicated by his behaviour that he is incompatible with the English Wikipedia
  Then there is also the issue that "Mentorship" is Wikipedia code for People who I will use to prevent me from being sanctioned again even if I am exceptionally disruptive and who will do nothing to actually change my behaviour. I have never seen a mentorship proposal work, and like many who are finally coming around to see that "reblocks are easy" is a fantasy, I'd argue that the idea of mentorship as an unblock condition that works is a hallucination. If someone is unable to edit on their own without the need for handholding they should not be unblocked. Pure and simple. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I very strongly oppose this and perhaps I'm missing something here but mentorship from an editor who is fresh off a 7 year break doesn't exactly seem ideal, especially given Wikipedia's changes over the last five years with regard to policy, consensus and general community standards. That aside, what exactly will mentoring do? I'm also concerned about the IRC canvassing that has happened here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• *shrug* It's worked before (mentorship). Nor was I one that cut the people I mentored slack - the user made a commitment to do X and that user failing to hold up their end would have been a poor reflection of me. I do disagree with your characterisation of me not being here for 7 years and thus not knowing my way around here or being familiar enough with policy and consensus - while my edits haven't been overly frequent until recently, I was somewhat active in 2018, 2017, 2016 etc and think I've demonstrated I still know how things work here. Nevertheless, Darkfrog here is asking for a chance. I'm here because I think they should get one, but at the same time, I don't know the user and I'm really not vested in this conversation. I'm not going to start an angry mob over this discussion if the status quo remains. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you and that is okay. However, I believe that Darkfrog was given ample chances and threw them away, however the bigger issue here is, as Davey2010 said, is "I don't get it/WP:IDHT" behavior I don't see any evidence that they understand the reasons that they are currently indeffed or the opposition here. Mentoring doesn't help bullheadedness. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair point re bullheadedness, mentorship is not very effective in those situations. I guess the only other question I have is, in situations where a user is indeffed, what would one need to do to be unblocked? My understanding of the standard offer (of course, this isn't given to everyone) is that one doesn't necessarily need to apologise, but commit to avoiding the problematic behaviour in future, which seems to be the case here. If this request is indeed declined, what does it take for a user to regain the confidence of the community in future? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The question on unblocks is simple: do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption. It is not about regaining trust, it is about whether or not the community is willing to take a risk to let you work to regain that trust. There is nothing here that suggest that would be anything other than a horrible idea in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)r

• Oppose as per Tony and Praxidicae - I have a saying in my head but out of respect for DarkFrog I won't say it ... so in polite terms I'll say "Mentoring won't fix it". –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• You'll get no arguments from me - sorry I stumbled onto an AN thread anyway. — Ched :  ?  — 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per TonyBallioni. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Some froggies change their spots. Steve is generous and experienced, and is commended just for offering. — Smuckola(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per others above, especially TonyBallioni. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Mentoring works, if done properly. I trust Steven Crossin (talk · contribs). I trust that he knows what it means, and the responsibilities. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comments (alternate: Food for thought): I just happened on this because I left a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page, saw it, and visited. WOW! I haven't reviewed the history so only know what I see. The subject apparently isn't allowed to respond here so I would have to bounce back and forth to his user page to glean possible information or seek third-party inquiries, and I have not. Two editors (one admin) that I respect opposed any "reprieve". TonyBallioni is adamant it is a lost cause ("horrible idea"), is very convincing as to reasoning so much that other editors just agree with what was stated, and I believe it is well thought out and "maybe" even possibly prophetic. User:SmokeyJoe has swung to supporting a reprieve with a mentor. On that note I see that User:Steven Crossin has some earned respect and I don't think "time away" is relevant because changes mentioned won't hinder the goal of "keeping someone away from the well they have a need to jump into." The subject stated "Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures. That is a concern. Why not find a new playground and "stay the hell away from the one that got you into trouble?" If Darkfrog24 is interested in returning to Wikipedia I would wonder why a permanent T-ban would not be placed on the table? Anyway, if a conditional reprieve didn't work everyone involved would be less forgiving in another instant of 3rd chance and I would just comment "agree with whatever Tony said". Also, everyone would have to acknowledge "I told you so" would be deserved. If successful I am sure he would not really mind being wrong as "exceptions" can occur. The issue of slow justice should the subject run for the well, seems to be answered satisfactorily. I am sure there would be enough eyes on the subject should a transgression occur or the mentor screams "pull the plug". I am really on the fence, and the wind was leaning me to the prophetic side, but a surprise would be a welcome change bolstered by the equalizing wind of SmokeyJoe's comments. Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Otr500 (talk · contribs), I agree with your concerns regarding their topic ban. As I understand it, the topic ban is indefinite but not permanent. I disagree that a topic ban should ever be for life without any ability to appeal, however. People can change their ways. Perhaps instead of allowing an automatic appeal after one year since the last topic ban appeal, they must satisfy to the mentor in some way their contributions to the community first, and also give a rationale for why they want to edit in the topic banned area, before it can be considered. Once that time comes, restrictions could possibly be relaxed slightly and gradually, rather than all at once. I am not necessarily saying that this will be an overnight thing, and I will be encouraging (and restricting them) to certain activities, so they can gradually re-cement themselves as a member of the community. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply: I suppose it is a good thing I have ADHD. I can work in an area or not and bounce around. I am just wondering! What timeline would this normally involve and how long would you commit? Even the wording "overnight" brings images of short term failure. I am trying to wrap my head around how it would successfully work considering the negative rationale of User:TonyBallioni, User:Praxidicae, and User:Davey2010 that it won't work. Conditions would have to be discussed, and agreed upon by Darkfrog24 per User_talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access (point 3). These should include:

1. A minimum length of time you agree to, as discretionary is too unsure,
2. A definitive length of time on the T-ban,
3. A review at the end of your timeline (or the minimum) if this is deemed appropriate.

I hope at least the three names I just mentioned would agree to give input on restriction/condition discussions if consensus does determine a reinstatement. The reason for the review is to ensure not only that others agree when you feel a release is appropriate, but since a comment was made about mentor responsibility I think if all the criterion has been met then that is all that could be asked.

"IF" a reinstatement with a mentor finds consensus and at a minimum the above is acceptable I would support such a move. If a consensus determines no then at least I tried. Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say at least a 6 months to year as a minimum, I'm open to either. The topic ban at the moment on MOS should remain in place until that period is over. I think a review at the end of that period would be appropriate. It's up to the community here. I'm happy to take this on if the community is, but I of course understand the reservations here too. I've been inactive in the past for some periods, but I've come right back and I think my judgment is as good as it was back then. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would be alright with a year if others were. I had to leave some comments on his talk page before I even think about getting on board. There was just some issues and I needed some resolution on. I have a lot of reservations also with what I have read. I would think with his credentials and a change of attitude (if possible) he could make some great contributions in his field without ever thinking about MOS. I am glad I was more blessed with common sense because to me it seems really smart people can sometimes make really bad decisions.

I also randomly looked at one of his contributions and he added 959 bytes to an article (Thermococci) with no reference or inline cite. The article has only one reference and possible referenced through the "Further reading" section. It was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Although he may have the knowledge to know the information is correct most of the rest of us (maybe excepting the other 27 editors involved) still consider unsourced material as possible WP:OR. I don't know if this will go anywhere but commend you for volunteering. I can only imagine it could be a challenge. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support (comments also in above section): I did not intend to get this involved. I suppose the block discussion ban meant I would be somewhat in the dark that is perplexing, but a main reason is the support of one editor to be a mentor and several other editors to "assist" in keeping an eye on things. A fact that there were some serious issues did not seem to present that any were egregious so lacking that I think that conditions can be laid out, extremely strict, and that the mentor will oversee a program to help ensure compliance. This will either work or prove to be an experiment in vain. I think "ANY" risk can be minimized through the use of the "conditions" and an immediate block reinstatement for failure to comply. With that I hope others will give this a try. Otr500 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry, but I've seen no evidence that DarkFrog is prepared to listen and work with an experienced mentor. They were given an enormous amount of advice in the best possible faith when they were going through their numerous attempts to relitigate their previous sanctions, and prior to that, they were given an enormous amount of advice when they were causing the trouble that resulted in those original sanctions. They ignored all of that advice and continued with their disruptive behaviour. We have a situation where DarkFrog is fundamentally unsuited to collaborative editing and I cannot envisage any way around that, other than perhaps confining them to editing in their own user space, I suppose. Nick (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And those of us that wasn't initially involved, now because of a gag order, cannot know these "previous" things, how a first time was related to the second, and what actually was the problem. You surely have to see how that places a hamstring on things. It amounts to "he did something wrong, was sanctioned, we (or he) can't talk about it". He is an otherwise nice person, possibly means well, but is incorrigible --"trust us". That he did things that crossed lines and rubbed some of the wrong people the wrong way is not questionable, enough that I would surmise the comments I saw hinting at narcissism (gaslighting) might even be shared. I just think if he was given this very last chance and could not figure out how to conform with a parole agent, a warden and host of "guards" looking over his shoulder, then I would expect all involved (even any "fans") to jump on a bandwagon of supporting a permanent, lifetime (+20 without the possibility of parole), truly indefinite block. Tony made a statement that mentoring doesn't work and that an editor than needs one shouldn't be here. I am sure he meant a problematic editor as it would be absurd to take that with a literal meaning that even a new editor could not use and benefit from one.

Some would also not have to then continually worry about warning him not to discuss the previous case that is under the gag order as he would be permanently gagged. I did inadvertently (by true accident) bait him on that. He was adamant that even if he wanted to share anything he couldn't so it does appear he can learn. Should he fail I think I would, as nice as possible, suggest to him that he seek psychiatric help for NPD as it would be clear even to a layman.

I also want to disclose that I can see strong evidence of comments that assert that DarkFrog would assuredly fail. I see a pretty long list of editors willing to "take a chance" and invest and possible waste time, but I also see any possible "damage" to Wikipedia would be negated. From what I see it would be their time and admin involvement would be limited to "pushing a block button". Without knowing "the rest of the story" I can only go by 1)- he committed serious infractions. 2)- some editors are convinced he is a "lost cause", and yet some editors would like to "give it one last shot", and finally, 3)- I am struggling to see why WP:ROPE (I can't tell if it has been used before) would be so hard fought against when an editor above with 47 edits and a list of blocks that rival his edits, is more deserving. This editors seem to have proven he can make constructive contributions and if "somehow" we can figure out a way (hell make the "probation" time two years) to stop his apparently combative ways he could be an asset. All I can do is try and I have invested enough time on that aspect so you guys figure it out. Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Mentorship is probably not a bad idea for Darkfrog. While I do think they were wronged, their way of dealing with it has obviously ruffled many feathers, so a mentor to help keep them on an even keel would help with future interactions, allowing them to do the work they are good at while reducing the drama. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Things have gone somewhat quiet here, and I'm not seeing a clear consensus form either way for the block staying in place or Darkfrog being unblocked. Might I ask if anyone else has an opinion on their request, and subsequent suggestions, as I assume an unblock, even with restrictions, can only proceed with a clear consensus in the affirmative? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Darkfrog24's behaviour has not been an issue when things are going well; it's when Darkfrog disagrees with some process or thing that things have historically gone south. This pattern has continued on Wikinews, as can be seen on their talk page (there was much more discussion on failed news articles but those are routinely deleted), with respect to the reviewer-reporter relationship, use of past tense in reporting, and attribution. See this section, for example, or this one. Darkfrog24 comes across as very stubborn and I'm not sure that a mentor will make a difference in their behaviour.
  Also it seems that in this edit on their Talk page (later struck), Darkfrog24 said One accusation was that asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I'm the one who says it. I was genuinely concerned about someone I'd worked with for more than five years who'd been acting weird, so I asked if they wanted to talk about it, and I got accused of trying to hurt them. To the accuser's credit, he later withdrew that accusation, but even after that at least one admin still insisted it was true. This is in reference to this comment; "the accused" is the editor with whom Darkfrog24 is banned from interacting.
  I won't formally oppose but I'm not sure Darkfrog24 should be unblocked. Ca2james (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this info. I'll have a read tomorrow and mull over - late here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• The appeal should follow the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Arbitration enforcement bans. Specifically:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

In this case, the Arbitration Committee has referred the matter to the wider community here (at AN) on the agreed upon conditions listed at User talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access. Mkdw ^talk 04:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Secondary request to restore user talk page access

• Copied from User talk:Darkfrog24#Secondary request. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to draw the community's attention to my secondary request. It's clear that if I become unblocked it will be with restrictions. I thought about it, and that might actually be better: I want to show the community what I'm made of, so the more people who are looking, the better. I aspire to bore you all to delight. But consider my request to just restore talk page access. The AE admin who revoked it said he would revisit it after three months, but then he left Wikipedia and no one else had the authority to make any changes. Restoration of talk page access was all I was asking for in those three UTRS requests anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. The entire problem with the UTRS requests was that this was someone who was not appealing his block, could not follow instructions, and then emailed a UTRS admin four times in one night trying to clarify his position. No, let’s please close this as there obviously isn’t affirmative consensus to unblock and we shouldn’t have to deal with one person dragging out the process to get some result they will then use to wikilawyer to another result by sheer force of will because the community is exhausted and doesn’t care to follow. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Emailing a UTRS admin four times in one night is just the kind of behavior that DF manifested in the past in wikilawyering their block, and among the reasons cited above for not unblocking them. I suggest that this entire request has run its course and should be closed as "No consensus to unblock", and TPA removed again. Enough is enough. The user is beyond the usually negligible effects of mentoring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion has likely run its course and that there's unlikely to be a clear consensus to unblock at this time as the discussion stands. While I've seen an improvement in how they handle conversations with other editors since the discussions cited above, and their strategies for conversation in future do seem reasonable and possibly effective, I would recommend that Darkfrog continues their work on other wikis, and when their time comes that they can appeal again, to do so only once, via email to arbcom-l, and a discussion here takes place where hopefully their good contributions elsewhere will shine through so well that an extensive discussion here would result in an unblock. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Regretfully I will have to concur that consensus mandates no change at present and agree with and support Steven Crossin's comments. Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2019 (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.

SlimVirgin's use of full protection at Moors murders

SlimVirgin has full protected the article to prevent improvements and demanded that any discussion take place according to Featured Article rules. Individual wikiprojects do not dictate content, how articles are edited, or what improvements can be made. Apart from locking the article in their preferred version, SlimVirgin demanding that discussion take place elsewhere is an egregious abuse of admin power over article content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is SlimVirgin's preferred version; they don't seem to have edited that article in that article's past 1000 edits. Can you please clarify as to why specifically you think this is SlimVirgin's preferred version? --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

She last edited the article in 2010, before protecting today. I'm struggling to see her "preferred version". I'm also struggling to see where FA is defined as a "wikiproject", any more the GA, B-Class, C-class are... - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(EC)See the discussion. "I've protected the page for 24 hours. I can lift or extend that according to whatever the editors who are working on it at FAR prefer." That is stating a preference for one group of editors contributions over another in order to control content on an article. I described FA as a wikiproject as its a kinder description than others have used. 'Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria' doesnt roll off the tongue as easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

1. It doesn't state a preference for one group over another, just one process over another: anyone can partake at FAR, even all those who have been on the article's talk page. 2. "Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria"? thanks for the incivility, and/or your personal take on the FA process. We have a grading system and FA is part of it. If you don't like it, open an RfC to overturn it and see how far it gets you, but please don't insult the many, many editors who put so much effort into writing articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: in fairness here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. I'm also pretty sure, with a few exceptions, anyone can participate in any WikiProject. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat and Yamla: They expressed an opinion that a certain version was better without the tags [73] "Tag bombing (subject heading) This needs to stop because it's making the page unreadable". They then protected at the version [74] about 30 minutes later. Someone doesn't need to edit an article to have a preferred version. It may not have been their intention to protect their preferred version, but they did so, and therefore as I said below, at a minimum this creates a perception they are abusing their tools to protect their preferred version. The way this can be avoided is by not using your tools when you are involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Only in death, I decided to remove the tags & the red error messages because I strongly believe our readers deserve better and randomly chose the previously protected version [75] to revert to, [76]. I don't have a dog in the fight, haven't even been following and haven't a clue whose is the "preferred version". EEng reverted, [77], and I reverted a second time, [78] and honestly would have kept going even if I got my first block. It's no way to treat an article, regardless of what anyone thinks of the content or the editors. SlimVirgin protected, which was probably wise. Just thought I'd set the record straight. If you have an issue with my actions, fine, I'll take the hit. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I, for one, don't think there is anything wrong with SlimVirgin's actions here. The article was clearly undergoing a slow motion edit war for which protection was an appropriate response. She may well have protected it in the wrong version but that's normal for this sort of action. I am not impressed by the head-in-the-sand reaction of some of the other editors of that article over claims that the article has sourcing errors, but I don't see SV's protection as taking sides in that debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• First, FA is not a Wikiproject, and anyone is welcome to edit FAs, including FAs at FAR, bearing WP:STEWARDSHIP in mind, which is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." I said I would lift protection early, or extend it, if the people working on the article wanted it. It's not unusual for me to say that when I add full protection. I protected for 24 hours because EEng had reverted three times to his extensive use of {{failed verification span}}, which was making the article hard to read; see this section for example. I suggested that, if he wanted to make heavy use of that template, he should post the article to a sandbox and do it there, which would be just as useful for editors. The FAR is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1. Input there would be helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Good protection. The behaviour of established, respected editors at the talk page of that article is shocking. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I disagreed with SlimVirgin's actions, and told her as much, but I don't see them as being outside admin discretion, nor do I see evidence that she is abusing her authority. This discussion is only increasing the heat-to-light ratio; I'm getting sick of saying this, but really the only reasonable way ought of this mess involves us focusing on the specifics of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I fully support the good call to protect the article. The talk page discussion says it all, and also the fact that this was brought to this noticeboard also proves how infected this situation is. If anything the protection is too short and the edit disputes will continue for sure as soon as the protection is gone. BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse protection; I've also just extended that protection by another week out of an abundance of caution. Please let me know if a resolution is reached before then. El_C 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think either side of this dispute is completely in the right here, but given that there is clearly edit-warring going on here, +1 good protection. I also suggest that Only in death not go accusing people of abusing tools to force "their" version of the article without evidence, it smacks of casting aspersions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse protection and support El C extension as well.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Can we also acknowledge the quite bad timing of the FA status review nom of Moors murders. In the middle of a huge edit dispute.BabbaQ (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @BabbaQ, huh? That's precisely the time an article should be taken to FAR; it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day is explicitly necessary for an article to remain FA. ‑ Iridescent 06:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I see the FAR as an opportunity to depersonalize this mess and refocus on the actual article content. This sort of thing is what FAR is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• IMO it was right for the article to be protected. It was wrong for SlimSV to do so, because they had already expressed an opinion on their preferred version and protected it at that version and there was no emergency requiring an involved admin to act. While everyone admin would have protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION and of course it's quite common for someone to request protection just after they've reverted to their preferred version, an admin protecting at their preferred version at a minimum causes unnecessary ill feeling and perceptions that admins are entitled to use their tools to further their views in a dispute. Note that because the article should be protected, and because this is only a single instance there's actually nothing we can do here which is unfortunate. We're now at a situation where people are going to reasonably feel aggrieved and there's nothing we can do about it. This is precisely why involved admins should not act in an administrative capacity except in exceptional circumstances. If SlimSV had just waited for an uninvolved admin to act, e.g. El C or anyone at WP:RFPP perhaps people wouldn't be entirely happy, but I think most experienced editors will feel it's fair enough and the way things go. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  BTW, in case people think this is something to do with me being unhappy because my preferred version wasn't protected, I only looked at the article after I wrote all above precisely because it didn't matter. Now that I've looked, I am of the opinion that the extensive tagging was not the best way to handle the concerns and it was better to revert and deal with them in some other way. There may have been a decent chance we could reach consensus on removing them on the article talk page. Or alternatively an uninvolved admin may have returned to the version when protection expired or protected at the wrong version by chance. Yet even if this didn't happen and we were stuck with the the tagged version for a while, this would not be a big deal and a far better scenario than an involved admin protecting at their preferred version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  This only serves to air a grievance that was I thought others judged to be spurious, how was SV somehow "involved" in their unobjectionable administrative action? [ec] At least there is a clear admission that you thought it was the "wrong version", which provides some context to assuming a COI in others. There is an FAR for improving the article, if there is a problem with the version. ~ cygnis insignis 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Cygnis insignis: I don't know how explain more clearly whatever I've already said 2 times now. When someone expresses an opinion that they prefer a version of an article and fully protects it, their are involved, and their actions are objectionable. Also when I said "wrong version" I assumed it was clear I meant WP:WRONGVERSION especially since I already linked to it in the first reply. Every single version is the wrong version, that's the whole point. That's such a basic concept in administrative discussions, that frankly even if I hadn't linked it once I would have assumed it understood.

  I admit I should have said "the right wrong version by chance", but reading it feel my point is still somewhat clear. I do think it was preferable to return to the version without the extensive tagging which yes, despite my preference is clearly by definition the wrong version, as is the version with tags since they are all the wrong version. As I see it, there are at least 3 ways we could have gotten there which would have been acceptable. By chance an uninvolved admin (rather than an admin who'd already said they preferred the version without tagging) protecting it at that version. By consensus i.e. at a community level. Or by an admin making an decision to return to the version of last protection without deciding which version seemed better.

  What is not acceptable is for an involved admin, who had clearly expressed an opinion on which version was subjectively better to be the one protecting. And especially not if they were going to protect at the version they preferred. Even if they just protected without considering which version it was, this is impossible to prove and so still gives editors the impression that perhaps they are using their tools to advance their preference. I would add they continued to express the opinion that the version without tags was better, in case there was any suggestion their view was only that more tagging was inappropriate but they had no clear preference on the already added tags.

  Rereading Cygnis insignis's reply maybe I should say this as well. In case there's still confusion I re-iterate again that the version SarahSV protected was my preferred version. The reason I'm arguing against what they did is not because I'm unhappy with the outcome. I already said there are several ways we may have gotten there but if we didn't it would still be preferable if we got there the correct way. This is one of the cases where there was no urgency and so process matters since it harms the community and causes unnecessary ill-feeling and unhappiness when it isn't followed. And so SarahSV should not have protected any version let alone their preferred version. The fact it's also my preferred version is in my mind at least further evidence this isn't a case of "sour grapes because you didn't protect my wrong version" but rather "IMO we shouldn't do this, it causes harm for no benefit since it's not super urgent so we could just wait for someone who doesn't clearly prefer one version to protect". Also I should mention I do not know and frankly never cared in either this reply or my earlier replies about whether there was any other difference between the contested versions other than the tags since that was beside my point.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be enough concerns at FAR to justify the tags on the article. Additionally, I don't see evidence of a need to pp something when only one person is reverting wholesale without discussion (actions directed towards such individuals is preferred to blocking whole pages). SV and El_C didn't need to do this. That said, discussion is happening in FAR and the talk page after such actions have happened and it seems that, ultimately, the desired outcome will be determined in an appropriate manner/venue. I think this should be closed and we all move along. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we range block on this type of behavior?

I have found a very odd IP editor who's only edits across different IPs have been to add the claim that some old Just Dance game titles are coming to modern video game systems, a claim I can't even find in user forums to validate, nor would it make sense. Reverting is usually done and the editor disappears for a few days then comes back and adds it again to a few articles. They don't editor warring (reverting the removal) they don't respond to anything talk page released and don't do anything else.

Unfortunately they have a shifting IP:

• 201.189.208.150 [79]
• 201.189.209.63 [80]
• 201.189.230.186 [81]
• 201.189.212.49 [82]

All these appear to be out of Santiago Chile. Doing the rough hostmask calculations shows it would be something like 201.189.192.0/18.

These are more annoying than disruptive so the questions are: are these something we can block a range of IP addresses to prevent, and if this range is too large for this situation. --Masem (t) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit more disruption than that. GMG^talk 00:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I had tried identify if that's a school or what, but had no such luck (I would hate to want to block all access from a school), and the repeating of several of the same pages look like this is only a handful of individuals. --Masem (t) 00:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't hate blocking this range at all, and if you look at the history of Ha*Ash, besides all the other stuff, there's really no choice. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done!-- Deepfriedokra 03:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Putting on the CU hat, the rangeblock appears to be appropriate in both range and duration. There is more to look at from the CU perspective, but I'm heading to bed so either I will continue to look at it tomorrow, or one of my colleagues might step up. Risker (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why anyone would worry about a school being blocked. Most libraries in the US are IP blocked and the entirety of T-mobile in the US is too. ♟♙ (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's at least partly historical convention for blocking, that school IPs tend to get used by a lot of people and in almost all cases whatever abuser is behind the need for a particular block is often gone and graduated at the end of the school year. The fact that most libraries are blocked and an entire major mobile ISP is blocked are both actually concerning—in my view more concerning than school blocks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  So you just assume that what EnPassant says is correct?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  It is correct. T-mobile is IP blocked nationally because of the "Dog and Rapper Vandal". If you'd like evidence I'm happy to post a screenshot of what I've seen in various places in the country. ♟♙ (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, see user:TonyBallioni/2607:fb90::/32 for the history. It’s also globally blocked on all Wikimedia projects frequently, currently through October. Anyway, I did a collateral check last night on the range under discussion in the OP and the block looks fine: I was debating adding ACC ignore to it, but I don’t see the need for that currently. Multiple CUs have looked at this and none of us have seen a need to change the settings on Drmies block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• If they are working on a narrow group of pages, wouldn't semi-protection be better? DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends, IMO, on the collateral damage, indicated here by the "other" edits made from the range. On this range, those are negligible. Drmies (talk)
• School blocks I've seen and done wind up escalating to comparatively long times because of the volume and chronicity of vandalism and the paucity of constructive edits. One can always apply "anon only" and allow account creation in case there is someone who wishes to edit constructively.-- Deepfriedokra 06:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletection

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 page 3 pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangeeta Music, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Music, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spondon Audio Visual Center should have been complete delection conversation or relisted but @JJMC89: deleted page without end of the conversaton or relisted. Im really surprised about it, accually i want to know why this? — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 09:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably would have been better to await there reply on their talk page. You must notify them of posting here.-- Deepfriedokra 09:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I bring to your attention that Masum Ibn Musa was the creator of all three. Based on strength of policy arguments, I agree with the deletions.-- Deepfriedokra 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: But JJMC89 deleted the page just like CSD. Delection conversaton was not complete yet, Should have been Relisted to ensure complete conversation. I want to restor again all three page. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 10:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussions were each open a little over a week, had participants (two had two respondants, one had one, all making multiple policy/guideline arguments), and no comments within the past 24 hours. I do not see any on-going discussion that was cut off. If you are objecting to the close-process itself, I endorse that they were closed. This is not the proper place to dispute the grounds for the closure (whether there was consensus)...go to WP:DR for that. But as a preview, I agree with Deepfriedokra that this was also the proper outcome. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, WP:DRV...got my fingers tangled from commons. DMacks (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You can appeal at WP:DRV. And no, he did not delete like CSD. CSD's are done without discusson. There was discussion here. AfD's typically run for seven days, and these did.-- Deepfriedokra 10:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I have placed small notes in some of the AFD discussions where this person was attempting to stuff the nonexistent ballot box through sockpuppet accounts. See Riazul Islam BD (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masum Ibn Musa. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Apparently deletection isn't a word, but it ought to be. EEng 03:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary Null

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 one of you first? I'll fight you both together if you want! I'll fight you with one paw tied behind my back! I'll fight you standing on one foot!

-EEng

Nice sharp desirable portrait for article about Bishzilla. Compare terrible portrait of Gary Null!

At least two admins are in receipt of legal threats on behalf of Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr. Null is unhappy that we have an article - or at least one that views him from a reality-based standpoint. Please watchlist the article and talk page. If you are also contacted, please email me and I will put you in touch with the other affected admin. WMF Legal are aware. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The article is now on my watchlist and I will resist any efforts to whitewash it. He can sue me easily since I disclose my real world identity. If he shuts down my business, I will just retire since I am 67 years old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm watching as well. I don't much care for people trying to intimidate Wikipedia editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'll sic the ghost of Phineas Gage on them. EEng 18:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'd much prefer reviewing the content for legal actionability and for source-content mismatch. Please join the discussion on the talk page with the goal of improving it from a BLP standpoint.-- Deepfriedokra 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• It's on my watchlist too :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• If there's one certainty in life, it's that asking for eyes on an article here will ensure that some dumbass picture is immediately slapped in the middle of an otherwise productive discussion. ——SerialNumber54129 08:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mon dieu! Who would do such a thing!?-- Deepfriedokra 08:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Don't be cranky. EEng's little pix lighten things up. It's like turning the page of a used book you've bought and finding that someone has pressed a leaf the previous owner left there, a pleasant surprise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Depends on the book. Childish scrawls in the margins of a Janet and John?  Done In the Encyclopedia Britannica?  Not done IMHO/YMMV, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  We'd say Dick and Jane on this side of the pond. You've got to admit, though, that sometimes AN and AN/I are a lot more like a child's primer then they are an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support dumbass picture per my interpretation of some policy I'm too tired to look up but I'm totally sure exists creffett (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support dumbass picture per still having two weeks left on my brigading contract with EEng. – Levivich 15:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support dumbass picture per the fact that if dumbassery is outlawed on Wikipedia, I'd have to do something productive with my time. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Speaking of dumbass pictures, the portrait in the article is dreadfully blurry. The image page states that there's "no higher resolution available",[83] but that's not exactly the way I'd put it; clearly the resolution on the very image page, 306 × 345 px (size 31 KB) isn't available either — the image doesn't have enough information for it — and it looks like the infobox has imported that resolution straight off. Scroll down the image page and you'll see the tiny thumbnails look a lot better, especially the one adjusted by Beyond My Ken. Can't we use that, or does the infobox itself force the larger image? I might sue Wikipedia myself if they had a portrait like that in an article about me. (Desirable portrait on the right.) Bishonen | talk 16:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

  Bishonen I've dropped the infobox image size down to 175px. Does that read better to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Definitely! Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

• Added to my watchlist too, Only thing he'll be getting off me is a good slap!. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to officially welcome all the newbies to "Project:Talk:Gary Null" -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) (project Clerk)

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.

---

• @Ivanvector: FYI, my remark was directed at the idiotic image placed on the article talkpage. It doesn't matter what happens in a backstairs area like this, but on a talkpage which might theoretically become centrepiece to a legal dispute? Now that's dumbass. ——SerialNumber54129 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to comment but this got closed before then: this is my concern as well. EEng's pictures are fine when they're meant to mock silly editor debates, but we're on a BLP that has claimed their page is biased. We need a bit more decorum there (mostly on the talk page but to some degree on AN too), otherwise, I could see them trying to take some legal action, and we should be above the line of opening mocking a BLP who is not an editor of WP, per WP:BLP. --Masem (t) 13:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Close edited to clarify I was referring to the Cowardly Lion image here. I was not aware there was more happening on the talk page, and I agree that more restraint is warranted there. Courtesy ping EEng. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, and I should have thought of that. However, the Cowardly Lion represents all us brave editors, not the subject of the article, and when the talk page discussion runs

Editor A: better to remove it

Editor B: source is quite sufficient

Editor C: And I will revert it

Editor D: Please do not re-add challenged content

Editor E: As an admin, you know that's not how things work

then I'm not sure a image of snarling dogs suggests anything not already obvious. I might add that it was I who made the edit which broke the logjam, so my participation was not entirely flippant. EEng 14:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't snarling!! I was sipping a nice cuppa by the fireplace while reading Eminent Victorians when I posted that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it a PA if BMK calls BMK a merkin?

-EEng

Yo! BMK, your a 'merkin, you ain't no Brit! Beyond My Ken (talk)

Oh right... Ah... I was chugging a Bud and eatin' a burger while watching real 'merkin football on TV when I posted that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Lord. Now we have BMK talking to himself.-- Deepfriedokra 21:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mental health professions say that talking to oneself isn't concerning. It's when you start answering back that it gets dicey. EEng 22:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Who removed EEng's picture of a merkin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Restored. It's not an example of "sexual objectification:, it's an example of a merkin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "sexual objectification" was confused with "sexual object". – Levivich 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I see the nannies and killjoys still roam the countryside, nannying and killing joy. EEng 12:34, 28 August 2019 (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.

Improper WP:RFC closure on Talk:Richard B. Spencer.

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:Tvx1 closed an WP:RFC on whether to reflect reliable sources calling Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi in the lead of his article; in doing so, he both ignored an unequivocal consensus to include and "found" a consensus for a compromise that had almost no support (by my count, it is nearly two-to-one in favor of inclusion in some form compatible with the current version - which was the only question at hand - vs. those favoring exclusion.) The discussion was very lopsided in favor of inclusion, and many of the opposes were SPAs or cited things unrelated to policy. I'll also point out that in closing the discussions, Tvx1 ignored a specific request for an admin closure in Requests for Closure; while of course admin closures are not required, I feel that it's reasonable to respect a request for one when it's made, and that stepping into a situation that they themselves admitted was complex, while ignoring a clear request that the discussions be closed by an administrator, was clearly ill-considered. Finally, when I asked them for clarification and to explain their closure on talk, their explanation made it clear that this was a clear-cut WP:SUPERVOTE - they focused primarily on objections that had not been raised on talk (eg. Another factor I had to take into account is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person here. Natural precaution is taken with adding such a significant label to such an article., which is something for discussion to consider, but not something a closing admin can use to discount such a lopsided consensus to include, at least not in terms of assessing consensus - in certain cases, WP:BLP can trump local consensus, but misstating the consensus like this is not the way to go about it. Note that only a single opinion in the discussion, excluding the closer, directly cited WP:BLP concerns, so this was not them summarizing discussion, it was them expressing their own concerns about the material via WP:SUPERVOTE. That's the sort of objection that, if they had it and don't feel it was adequately discussed in the WP:RFC, they should have made as a contributor to the RFC rather than trying to force it through with a close.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I still stand by my reading of the discussion. I'm a completely uninvolved and neutral person on this subject and have no personal interest in the outcome being either way. I certainly did not WP:SUPERVOTE. I carefully weighed the arguments and presented sources. The arguments presented in support are actually no as strong as this user considers them to be. Also on closer inspection, the sources purported to support the proposal strongly did not turn out to actually do so. So after weighing up everything the balance between the different sides of the argument turned out be much closer than this user claims it to be. I also reject the claim that "many of the opposes were SPA's". Checking the contributions of the participants did indeed reveal SPA's in the RFC. They were present on both side though and only one such participant opposed the proposal. So that claim is simply false. Having stated that, I have no prejudice against my closure being reverted in favor of an admin closure if it is deemed necessary.Tvx1 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It looks like a proper no-consensus close to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and clear consensus, and neither was present in that discussion. What sources were put forward were pretty well discounted (for being in opinion pieces, marginal RS, just in the headline, or other reasons). There were some obvious socks or SPAs or whathaveyou, but even discounting those votes, what's left doesn't look like consensus to include to me. On the other hand, WP:BADNAC 2, likely to be controversial. – Levivich 18:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that, as a general rule, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence if we were to call a member of the U.S. Senate a neo-Nazi we'd need extraordinary evidence. But it's hardly extraordinary for a self-identified white supremacist (yes, he actually calls himself a white supremacist and imperialist) to be a neo-Nazi. Many white supremacists in America are also neo-Nazis. So in this case, the evidence we have presented is sufficient. GergisBaki (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any RfC in this subject area should only be closed by an uninvolved neutral administrator. While non-admins can close RfCs, closes in controversial subject areas are likely to be controversial themselves, and having an admin close them significantly reduces the possibility of controversy. I recommend that the RfC be re-opened, and an univolved admin examine the RfC and close it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That is true of extraordinary claims. Widely sourced claims that are in line witht he observed facts, not so much. Multiple reliable sources are presented to show he's a neo-Nazi. WP:CRYBLP doesn't overcome that. I don't doubt your good faith, but I think you were excessively deferential to an invalid policy argument. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I read the discussion as no clear consensus either. No consensus does mean that the article should stay as it is pending further discussion, I wouldn't support making changes to the content in question until an RFC does manage to garner a clear consensus, one way or the other. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• I reverted the close. Not doubting good faith, but a disputed NAC is usually reversed pending closure by uninvolved admins. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @JzG: that's not true at all. At DRV and MRV the established practice is to keep the close in place until consensus exists to overturn it, unless there are exceptional reasons otherwise. And I'm not aware that a different standard applies for RFC closes. That applies whatever the admin status of the closer. Please revert your reopening.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I see that you've then gone on to support the motion, making your reopening WP:INVOLVED. Allowing further contributions in this fashion while a review discussion is taking place clearly muddies the waters. Put the close back, and let's assess it on its own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  It is true. From the beginning, a non admin close can be summarily reverted by any non involved admin. An RfC later clarified the obvious, that the reversion can’t be merely because the close was a nonadmin. A good reason to overturn the nonadmin close was that it was a BADNAC. Since MRV became official, once a disputed RM was listed, uninvolved admins became timid to boldly revert, preferring to let the MRV play out. This is less so at DRV, where NACs are frequently boldly reverted by DRV admin regulars. Reverting the RfC close was the right thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Becoming INVOLVED, by !voting, is not retrospective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The close is being reviewed (this discussion), nothing should be done with it until this discussion concludes. But there's no sense wheel warring about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Quite, and I'm aware that I'm involved myself, which is why JzG should reinstate the close. Uninvolved Admins reviewing this close should be able to do so without the complication of the RFC being reopened and new votes coming in.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

They can read this, that's what I did. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I read the arguments, noticed that the close doesn't reflect them, and reverted because (a) it's a controversial NAC and (b) as above, and as per my own readong, it doesn't reflect the balance of the discussion. In the process, I was convinced by the arguments that the merits favour inclusion. That's a sepaarte issue. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close - having read the discussion, there is clearly not consensus on whether or not to directly describe Spencer as "a neo-Nazi" in the lede. There is however clear consensus that his close associations with neo-Nazis and his endorsements by neo-Nazis should be mentioned somehow, and exactly how to do that should be the subject of a new discussion. Any comments added subsequent to Tvx1's original close should be removed, and the editors who added them advised to add their comments to a new discussion. This RfC has been going since April and has as conclusive a result as it's likely to get, there's little sense in overturning and relisting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

About that. Quick count (may be a couple out, I didn't keep the scratchpad where I toted this up before)

Yes, Include, Keep if supported by sources (which it is): 18; No but go white supremacist (potentially including ties to neo-Nazism): 3; Clear no: 6.

Of the No !votes, a couple seem to be arguing that he's not even alt-right, which is an absurd position given the sources.

I would actually have suggested a second RfC offering (a) is a neo-Nazi; (b) is a white spuremacist with ties to the neo-Nazi movement or (c) exclude. I suspect that b would gain supermajority support. But to argue, as some did, that nobody calls him a neo-Nazi, seems to be wishful thinking. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that sounds like a reasonable RFC to launch to me, and I'd support (2) myself. I see you have in fact launched it already, which is all the more reason not to have the original one running concurrently. The close by Tvx1 explicitly said "which exact sentence should be included can be decided in a new discussion", which is basically what the fresh RfC is. Can we now reinstate that original close, comment in the new RFC, and move on with our lives?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do a head count, I rarely do. I read the comments and saw a pattern emerging, having discounted the poor "nobody calls him a neo-Nazi" arguments and the equally poor "of course he's a neo-Nazi, duh" ones. What was left matches Tvx1's reading pretty closely. I endorse relaunching as a subsequent discussion, but suggest the original should remain closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Aquillion, I think you and I have agreed more frequently than we have disagreed, but I think you maybe need to recalibrate here. This is more or less how I would have closed this discussion, because, and this is crucial, local consensus cannot trump BLP. Ever. Any reasonable closure needs to weight the arguments by policy, and there is a substantial difference between "has expressed support for neo-nazi ideology" and "is a neo-nazi". There needs to be very substantial support in the source material for the second option over the first, for the second to gain consensus. Note that I'm not endorsing either position here; I'm no fan of Spencer, but I haven't looked into this enough to have an opinion on this question. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP is absolutely able to override a local consensus; it does not, however, determine a local consensus. If Tvx1 (or you yourself) wanted to argue that, despite a clear consensus that the sources justified that wording, the people saying so were wrong enough that their consensus went against WP:BLP and that that consensus therefore had to be discarded, the appropriate thing to do is to say so directly, not to intentionally misstate what the local consensus was. Doing so only serves to confuse discussions by pushing them into an incorrect venue and wasting the time of everyone involved - if you or Tvx1 are asserting that this is such a BLP issue that it overrules a clear consensus to include, then we should be having this discussion on eg. WP:BLPN. And while BLP can be invoked to override a local consensus, you recognize, I assume, that doing so is a fairly serious and unusual step that requires a stronger argument than just mis-stating the consensus (in a close, I'll note, that didn't even mention WP:BLP, for a discussion in which only a single contributor explicitly felt that WP:BLP applied.) There are correct and incorrect ways to raise BLP concerns about an article; this is not the right way to go about it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Local consensus determines how the BLP policy is to be enforced in any particular case. Waving one's hands mystically and intoning "BLP" is not how the policy works. The community in a consensus discussion has to determine how it is to be interpreted. If the local consensus seems to some editors to violate BLP, the issue can be taken to the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP doesn't dictate binary outcomes, though. It implies that the standards of sourcing and of demonstrating due weight are higher than they would be otherwise. I'll admit that Tvx1 could have done a better job of explaining that, but the result was correct. This is water under bridge now, though, because it's been reopened...oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC) (Added post EC); BMK, I can't tell you you're responding to, but if you really think I'm waving my hands and intoning "BLP", feel free to take it up on my talk page, because this discussion has run its course. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who made a blanket statement that local consensus cannot trump BLP, when, in fact, local consensus determines how BLP is to be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to note that a new RFC has been started in the mean time, but the first RFC's was close was undone and is also still receiving new input following that undo. Both RFC's are thus receiving input simultaneously which has been noted to be confusing by a participant to the later RFC.Tvx1 23:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That sort of confusion is the inevitable result of a bad close, and is one of the many reasons complex RFCs like this are better left to admins, especially when an admin closure has been specifically requested. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: Do you or anyone else have any objections to me, as a completely uninvolved admin, re-instating Tvx1's close of the original RFC with a neutral note linking to this discussion, and letting the second RFC decide the exact language? That seems to be the sensible way forward without getting into issues of what constitutes wheel-warring, how to resolve the two concurrently running RFCs etc... Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I object to your "re-instating Tvx1's close", since that close was not an accurate determination of consensus, but essentially a supervote, and there has been additional input since the RfC was re-opened, which I see no policy reason to ignore them. If you want to make your own close, unprejudiced by Tvx1's close and with your own evaluation of the consensus, that would be fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: When I had left the above note I had read only the discussion at this AN page in detail and made the proposal with the aim of moving the process forward more smoothly. Since then I have made the 'mistake' of reading the RFC discussion and all the cited sources and have formed opinions that I can't be sure are based on the former alone. So I'll rule myself out from the closing the RFCs, although I may participate in the second RFC if I believe my input will be helpful. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstating Tvx1's close. While not wrong, it was not a good close. It missed some important elements of the discussion, drew a weak conclusion, and merely shifted the real reading of consensus down the road. As a dubious close, and a BADNAC, it fails to provide confidence, and is therefore worse than having done nothing. The nonadmin closer's refusal to revert their closure when challenged is itself an immediate point of evidence of their poor judgement. NACloses are suppose to help processes, not create further drama requiring further processes. The UNINVOLVED admin's summary reversion of the bad close was the right thing to do. I am very confident that a subsequent close by an UNINVOLVED experienced closer with be much better than the reverted close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Even among the people who think the close should be overturned, there seems to be agreement that no consensus is not an incorrect close, just that the summary of the discussion was inadequate and the optics weren't great. Given that there are now two RfCs going on this, maybe we should reduce that number to one? Could we re-close the first as simply "no consensus" with links to this discussion and to the second RfC so that discussion doesn't get any more fragmented? Wug·a·po·des​ 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Current situation is untenable

• Uninvolved admin attention required - since starting this discussion, the original RfC has been reopened (by JzG) and has attracted new attention, and simultaneously a second RfC has been opened on the same page (also by JzG) reframing and asking the same question, which is just causing confusion. One of them needs to be closed but thus far JzG has declined to do so. Will an admin who has not already tried to do something here please intervene? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reclosed the original RfC. I won't point to it as my greatest close ever, but it resolves the immediate process issue and defers judgement to consensus here and content questions to the new RfC, leaving (I think) everything tidy. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (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.

Compromised account?

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.

---

Um, in this edit, Humorous1234 said that they weren't the one who vandalised the Simple English Wikipedia. Was their account compromised? Nigos (talk • Contribs) 05:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ask a checkuser on Simple English Wikipedia. Simple:Special:ListUsers/checkuser. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism on Simple indicates the global account is compromised, which means it's also compromised here on EN wiki. It falls within English Wikipedia CheckUsers' jurisdiction to determine if the account is actually compromised or not. If it is, block. 2.58.194.132 (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's their only edit; there's likely nothing for a simplewiki checkuser to compare. Vermont (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Either they're flat out lying or bizarrely it was comprised ..... I would've assumed Simple would be the last place on someones mind to vandalise given it's not well known compared to EN...... –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not compromised. He's just a vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2019 (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.

Blocking IPv6 range?

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.

---

Over on Talk:2019 Brazil wildfires, an IP Editor, originally from an IPv4, was clearly vandalizing the page (eg [84]). After I blocked that, that same likely editor moved to an IPv6 address [85] and another one after first was blocked ([86]

Is is possible to block on a IPv6 range? --Masem (t) 20:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know the answer, but I protected the page for 12h so that it could be discussed quietly.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That ISP seems to reliably keep users on a single /64 for at least days at a time, so I put a 72-hour block on this one. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's possible. The range is typically 132:132:132:123::/64. In this case, it's Special:Contributions/2804:431:B70C:127::/64 EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Documentation's at mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. —Cryptic 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:/64 Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:40, 27 August 2019 (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.

Help creating a subpage

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 want to create a subpage for myself called User:Melofors/List of most popular Minecraft servers. When I try, however, I get an error saying:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

Melofors (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Melofors: That's because of people spamming links to their Minecraft servers. I created the page for you. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Melofors (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2019 (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.

Saaho talk

• Saaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting other administrators to participate on the Saaho language issue, I am very skeptic about the administrator Cyphoidbomb to be teaming up with others editors like Fylindfotberserk, DeluxeVegan and Panda619 as seen on Indian_cinema_task_force requesting opinions and comments there and always coming in support of them on multiple occasions on different articles, there by tilting scales in their favor. I would request that Cyphoidbomb completely stay away from any indian film related discussions. He seems biased.Ripapart (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ripapart, please hit edit to reply to my comment and then notice the gold box that states "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." It will tell you how to do that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I am doing so as mentioned. Ripapart (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ripapart: The task force exists for reasons such as this: to allow editors to raise concerns to a group of editors with an interest in the topic. Maybe the mention of POV-pushing isn't best practices, but I don't see anything along the lines of canvassing or other inappropriate behaviour. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Firstly, although I'm happy if other admins care enough about Saaho to participate in the "was it shot in two or three languages" fiasco, no extra administrators are required at Saaho. It's a fairly basic content dispute that can be solved by regular members of the community engaging in discussion. I was asked to comment, likely because I am extraordinarily familiar with Indian film articles and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I don't believe that I was asked to administrate, and my first comment was actually an attempt to form a compromise between the differing opinions on the media's idiotically inconsistent information. You certainly seemed fine with me making a decision here, although I opted not to participate in changing information about the languages. Not sure how you'd even remotely consider that bias.

Secondly you are using an administrative noticeboard to try to silence a voice in a dispute you are actively engaged in. This could be construed as highly unethical, especially when you have provided zero indication that I have been engaged in any sort of biased behavior other than your vague suspicion. My comments at WT:ICTF don't prove "teaming up", they prove that I participate in discussion with other editors. That's what we're supposed to be doing, and WP:ICTF is the appropriate place to have general discussions about Indian film articles. So if you have specific accusations to make, make them, provide evidence, and I will address them. If you don't, then you should withdraw this unfounded complaint. But accusing someone of bias and trying to silence them just because they may not agree with your perspective is not how things work around here. Oh, and to address your other baseless accusation canvassing,[87][88][89] I am not leading any "teaming" effort or trying to "tilt" any opinion. The debate about the filming language existed before I was asked to comment, so it's ludicrous that you'd suggest that I am manipulating the discussion. At least do basic research before you accuse someone of something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Calling other people biased for calling a spade a spade is rather ironic when Ripapart is unwilling to accept even the producer's official link [90] as valid, calls it 'hypothetical'. What can be more biased than this? Blatant ethnic POV pushing can be seen here, here. Not to mention, they've resorted to personal attacks in the past. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronrubin7/sandbox

Anyone recognize this? I remember seeing a slew of Bitcoin-related articles being created by new editors a while ago, and they were deleted and the editors blocked. Hey User:Ronrubin7, how are you doing. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronrubin7 is me. Hi! What can I do to help you? Ronrubin7 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronrubin7, you've declared a coi with the RSK platform. Have you edited here in the past with any other account? If yes, can you please list them all out? Thanks, Lourdes 05:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk: Ronrubin7 a good place to ask that, Ronrubin7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as an advertising-only account. – Athaenara ✉ 09:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June - close needed (or can I?)

Hi all. I often work through backlogs, and have spotted these two Move Reviews are over two months old. I've read through both myself and have determined how I would close them, and while I frequent RM very often, my understanding is closing a move review could be frowned upon. Could I ask a sysop to take a look at these and determine an outcome (or alternatively, clarify whether non-admins can indeed close these discussions). Thanks. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've spoken with Steven Crossin and discussed his proposed closes. I am happy to endorse both of his proposals: he is an experienced editor in good standing who does a lot of good work behind the scenes and I see no reason why he should not close these two stale reviews – there is nothing in the close that requires an admin's tools, just their judgement, and my judgement aligns with Steve's. If for procedure's sake anyone wants me to add my name to the closes, please ping me and I'll do so. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2019

Appeal my Deletion TBan

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 have my Deletion TBan appealed. In the past, I was obsessed with the deletion process and even put an AFD list on my userpage as a scoreboard to flaunt my "achievements", but that is no longer the case. Over the course of the past year, I have been editing constructively to my topics of interest (anime, voice actors and video games) and fighting off vandals by reporting them to WP:ARV. I think I am ready to have my editing restrictions removed; I humbly request that my appeal be accepted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Some past discussions: Sk8erPrince was banned from deletion processes in December 2016 (discussion), unbanned in July 2017 (discussion), and then had the ban reimposed about 18 days later (discussion). There are a number of other AN/ANI threads since the ban was reinstated involving Sk8erPrince of some concern (March 2019 and June 2019), and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince exists (Sk8erPrince was indeffed from March to September 2018). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the timeline. I admit to having socked before, and it was extremely foolish of me to have done so. That mistake almost cost my final chance in regaining most of my editing privileges, so I am thankful to the unblocking admin for giving me a final chance at redeeming myself. I would like to think that during this time (from September 2018-August 2019), I have done a good job at regaining the community's trust, with very little to no issues. Nowadays, I try my absolute best to communicate with other users when content disputes arise instead of deleting their messages off of my talkpage. While there were issues in the past regarding my attitude with AFDs, I can assure that it will not continue to prove to be a problem in the event that the TBan gets successfully appealed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• If the TBAN is removed what do you plan to do around deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I intend to nominate articles that fail our notability guidelines for deletion, and vote to keep articles that I believe are worth keeping, giving valid rationales that is in line with the AFD guidelines. I would also place speedy delete tags on blatant spam in accordance to G1 and G3. I will not keep a scoreboard if the articles I've nommed for deletion end up getting deleted. Instead, I would place the deleted articles on my watchlist to prevent them from being recreated unless the article has been improved exponentially since. Otherwise, I would place a G4 tag. Some of my issues in the past in regards to AFD include exhibiting a battleground mentality and biting at anyone that does not agree with my rationale (which is bigotry; I now understand that is *not* welcome on Wikipedia). I will be open to different perspectives and rationales, even I happen to disagree with them. With this, I hope that the community assumes good faith that I would contribute efficiently and effectively in that area if my TBan does get lifted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I say remove the ban and give him a chance per WP:ROPE. The above sounds heartfelt, and I am reminded of how disruptive I was when I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know.... I am a bit concerned about how Prince is with IPs recently [91], [92], [93]. He was also involved recently in an argument about the removal of maintenance tags from articles with no just cause. He also technically violated his T-ban here [94]. If he is going to lose his temper with IPs, then what is stopping him from doing the same at AfD? Actions speak louder than words and I encourage the deciding admin to look at recent past behavior before making a decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to clarify something. I did not violate my TBan. Let me quote it for you: Sk8erPrince is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia, broadly construed. User is permitted to cast a single !vote for each of the pages created individually if they are listed for deletion, with no exception otherwise. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure.

Unless I'm understanding the restriction wrong, it says that I could cast only one vote for AFDs. And that's what I did. I just cast the one vote, and nothing else. But if I'm wrong, then I would like to clarify that it wasn't an intentional violation, and I will not be casting any more votes in AFDs until this discussion is finished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

PS: I'm not exactly "losing" my temper with IPs if they're engaging in long term disruptive editing. A good majority of the IPs I report end up getting blocked. I'd say it's more than 80% of them. The Sailor Moon one in particular even got rangeblocked. I even brought up this issue on WT:Anime to inquire for advice before I even reported them, because I wasn't really sure what to do with their constant edit warring and reverting without any edit summaries. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You are correct in that the wording would need clarification per the original ban in 2016 saying AfDs created by you. As for IPs just dont feed the trolls, if an IP is trolling then just don't respond. Not providing an edit summary in these situations is better and more acceptable than exploding in edit summaries. For the record I have no problem with the T-ban being lifted if lingering behavior is addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, for the sake of this discussion as well as the current TBan in place, I can totally refrain from participating in any more AFDs to avoid potential complications. I might have misunderstood the wording, after all. But yeah, you have my word on that. I can also assure you that I'm not feeding the trolls, since I mainly just hand out warnings and report them when I spot them. But you're right - your suggestion is more sound, and it speeds up the troll disposal process even faster. Anyway, I intend to participate in AFDs with an open mind - not everyone's gonna agree with my perspective, and I am not gonna expect that everyone that participates in the discussion to vote for "Delete". And if they vote for Keep, I'm not gonna lose my temper because of that. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. My failure in recognizing that simple fact in the past was why I got the Tban in the first place. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edit summaries say otherwise.... you are losing your temper in your edit summaries, and are giving them what they want by doing so. I can picture in my head you using something like "When are you going to STOP slamming citation needed tags? Do you honestly think refbombing THE HELL out of this article benefits anyone? JUST STOP. PLEASE." in an edit summary or during discussion dealing with an AfD. I want you to change my mind here as this is my stance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I will let others weigh in here, I just don't want to see you lose your temper again knowingly or not at an AfD and get banned for it. Nobody wants that as you do make good edits to the encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that your suggestion for dealing with trolls in the future is more sound. That was not a good edit summary. In the future, I would revert troll edits and report them right away, instead of feeding them. Also, thanks for acknowledging my contributions to the project ever since I got unblocked. I am trying my best. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• So the ban was implemented over a year ago, you have continued to edit constructively, and you are asking to have your TBan removed? Seems fair if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The last discussion was over 2 years ago and alot can change in that time .... I'm willing to support as per rope however if they screw it up and go back to their previous behaviour then the tban will be re-implemented for indefinitely and longer blocks may well apply but I'm sure that won't happen. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE. The only way to test future behavior after a long period of decent behavior under a Tban is to remove the ban and be wary for further problems. --loupgarous (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Please don't make me regret this decision, I really hope you have learned from your past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - in one of your comments above, you said you would tag blatant spam for speedy deletion under the G1 or G3 criteria. Can you please review that comment and see if you can find what's wrong with it? I'm concerned that your understanding of speedy deletion criteria is going to create a headache for administrators. Also, just a general observation: there is no need to keep a scorecard of your deletion activity. If you use Twinkle (and maybe similar tools?) it can be configured to automatically populate your CSD and PROD logs, and for AfD there's a tool for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can. My apologies. I just looked over the criteria for speedy deletion once again, and I realized that G11 is actually the right tag for dealing with spam, not G1 or G3. G1 is for patent nonsense, such as utter gibberish like this; while G3 is for hoaxes - articles that are written to deliberately trick the reader into believing conspiracy theories and false information. I've struck my own mistake. I checked out the AFD tool as well, and I honestly find it way better than putting up a scoreboard, since the tool automatically updates the list for me. The community has also expressed disapproval of me putting a scoreboard on my userpage, and I agree with what they said. It's pointless; the tool serves the exact same purpose, and it is even more detailed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - seems as though they understand. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just in case my previous comment was vague, I support too. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Sk8erPrince, your statement that I honestly find (the AFD tool) way better than putting up a scoreboard, since the tool automatically updates the list for me. The community has also expressed disapproval of me putting a scoreboard on my userpage... the tool serves the exact same purpose, and it is even more detailed. leads me to believe that you are still very interested in 'keeping score' with your AFD stats. Am I reading this wrong? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I'm not interested in keeping score. The comment above is just to express how impressed I am with the tool and its functions. My only desire is to abide by deletion policy in a constructive manner, which means no mass AFD nominations; that was one of the issues I had in the past. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It seems Sk8erPrince is giving this a fair amount of thought, and they'll have plenty of eyes on them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• weak oppose I generally like to AGF and put a lot of stock in ROPE. But best case I see is him "skating the line". I still see a battleground mentality still continuing. I think we'll have the same problems, just done at a slower rate and with a slightly more politically correct touch. Weak because it has been a while and ROPE. Hobit (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hobit What do you mean by "skating the line"? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I mean I expect the same problems as in the past, just at a lower rate and done a bit more politely. I sense the same battleground behavior is likely. For the record, I'd be thrilled if I'm wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. Give him a chance. If he "skates the line" and stays on the "right side", then there isn't a problem there. If he "crosses into the grey" or over the line, then we have an issue and proportional consequences should follow. Buffs (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2019 (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.

Indefinite block of Shevonsilva

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.

---

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

I would like to inform the community that I just blocked Shevonsilva for an indefinite duration. The problem with this user is that they create a large amount of short articles, and this was going already for a decade (I will post ANI links shortly), but recently most of their creations get speedy deleted or get moved to draft where they get speedy deleted after 6 months. Since the user removes all speedy / draft move warnings from their talk page, the talk page history is relevant for those who want to evaluate the situation. This wastes an enormous amount of time of new page patrollers, speedy deleting admins, and draft reviewers, as well as other good-faith editors, and I am afraid the benefit of those few articles they recently created which survived do not outweigh this time waste. I advised them to post an unblock request detailing how they want to modify their workflow to avoid having a majority of their creations to be speedy deleted, but if someone knows how to address the situation differently, or if someone thinks I should not be the blocking admin, please feel free to intervene. I do not object lifting my block, but please appreciate that the problem is real.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is a selection of ANI topics. There was also one started by me last year, but somehow I can not find it. (Note: posted after the below comment of Johnuniq)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit) / Articles by Shevonsilva

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#User:Shevonsilva

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Shevonsilva

• Endorse block I have watched with horror since December 2014 when I first encountered their amazing ability to create pointless articles from nothing more than a mention. Too much time has been wasted and this remedy is required. An English language problem is evident at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Dunno about you, but is anyone else's WP:PAID-toe twitching a little? Check it: SAP Simple Finance (SAP Simple Finance is a tool of the software company SAP SE to provide an account solution), SAP Smart Forms (SAP Smart Forms is a technology of the software company SAP SE), SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD) is a tool of the software company SAP SE...you get the picture. And SAP (whoever they are) have been honored with at least eleven other articles, all effectively providing a catalogue entry and little else. And there is, of course, many more like it. ——SerialNumber54129 10:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably not. I'd expect a higher level of English language competency for paid articles, but not necessarily on talk pages. MER-C 11:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Normally I'd agree, but those catalogue entries hardly need any English at all  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The pattern of editing is absolutely consistent with previous efforts: find a list somewhere of subentities xn of entity X, then for each n write "xn is a [whatever] of X". Paste in boilerplate. Move on to next article. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: whoever they are really? SAP SE has $28B annual revenue, $147B market cap. Among the biggest software companies. How many articles are there for Oracle Corporation ($40B rev, $177B cap.) products and divisions? Not that there isn't a problem with the stubs, just defending notability. If you were kidding, you got me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, because the modus operandi for the creation of these articles is to copy the promotional blurbs into Wikipedia, after a single-line introduction with a whole bunch of sources, most of which should be further reading. They look promotional because they are copies of these blurbs. SAP Simple Finance#Products is straight from the thing that it is sourced to, observe. SAP Smart Forms#Features is a cut down version of what it is sourced to, in broken English.

    This is down to copying instead of writing rather than paid editing, it seems to me. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Commons DbUtils for the reaction to my pointing out that Apache Commons DbUtils is pretty much the software's own blurb on its main WWW page. Compare Twitter marketing, Pinterest Marketing, Instagram Marketing, and Facebook marketing. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree they do not appear to have the proficiency in written English needed to contribute constructively. See e.g. Special:Permanentlink/911871567#Getting_English_right. MER-C 11:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I endorse this block. MER-C 19:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• I declined the first unblock request. As an aside, can someone please explain to me how to fix the unblock template. I must be missing something simple. El_C 11:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • El C: Fixed. You needed to remove the {{subst: }} bit, as shown. In your edit you basically tried to substitute [[Template:You fail to reassure us that problematic editing, overall, will not persist. Please make sure to address the totality of concerns expressed with respect to your editing in a substantive (and dare I say, reflective) manner. El_C 11:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)]], which obviously doesn't exist. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Just didn't need the {{subst: in your decline, s'll. ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why it's there in the first place... Thanks for the fix, K6ka! El_C 12:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: It's there so that, if you simply copy and paste the code as provided by the template, it will substitute the contents of Template:Decline reason here, a generic decline message. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, I learned something new. El_C 12:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block Forever. Although I had wondered if it is possible just to block him from creating articles, which is the problem. (Nearly 3000 of them) Although I see no sign of bad faith, Shevonsilva has just been non-cooperative to an extreme. Not following talk page etiquette, still not learning how to sign talk page comments, removing an AfD template because of a self-perceived superexpertise allowing him to tell us whether his article is necessary. Ultimately a problem of competence. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse- I agree with Imaginatorium. Although I think Shevonsilva has been trying to act in good faith, unfortunately competence is required and this user hasn't got any. This should not rule out an early unblock if they show they've developed a bit of clue. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Suggestion In their recent unblock request Shevonsilva says that they plan to create no more than one article per month in future. I suggest that we could perhaps unblock them with the following conditions:
  • No more than one new article creation every month (including writing an article over a redirect, just for clarity)
  • Talk page posts to be archived rather than deleted, and to be left visible for at least "n" days - at present each editor who comes to report a problem tends not to see the history of problems as Shevonsilva deletes many posts very fast.
  • Shevonsilva is advised to take more care to write grammatically, and reminded that the statement "What is good English is depending on personnel viewpoint" is generally not true (the wording under discussion was "Bootstrap is a free and open-source CSS framework depends on Flexbox").
• We have seen Shevonsilva produce a vast and time-consuming mess of articles on badly-sourced units of measurement, and then a very mixed bag of administrative units of the world, and now a slew of uninformative stubs about software products of dubious notability. The sheer bulk of these contributions has taken up a lot of the time of many other editors. A restriction to one new article a month would be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. This is an editor with huge enthusiasm, although an imperfect grasp of English, and with a new approach they could contribute usefully to our encyclopedia in future. (And in the meantime perhaps someone with AWB skills and appropriate permissions could indeed delete all their drafts: I really want to delete all the pending draft page entries to save the time and I do not know how to do it. Please let me know how to do it in order to avoid further disruption. seems to qualify for "db-self" on them all.) PamD 08:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, looking at their list of created articles on their userpage, I clicked on Tanzanian units of measurement and was interested to see "One bazla was equal to 15.525 kg (32.226 lb)". Sourced to an 1891 book. Really? This level of spurious precision suggests that more of this editor's work needs to be checked, but unfortunately Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement is reportedly inactive. And in Whey (unit) we see "1 Whey (Essex) ≡ 107.04779932 kg"! Ouch. PamD 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    • In fairness, the problem with all of those is an unquestioning acceptance of any old rubbish that Cardarelli says about non-SI units, which is a trap that anyone could fall into. Also note that at the end of the 18th century, the people behind the metric system were publishing conversion factors with milligramme precisions. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    • See also User:Johnuniq/sandbox3#Wey (unit) and wey (unit). Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with your sentiment, Pam, that this seems a bit harsh. But the problem is that Shevonsilva plainly cannot write native-speaker level English, and this is not something that could be achieved by "taking care"; and even worse, he simply refuses to accept that there is any problem at all with the English he writes. Again, he has stubbornly ignored pleas to "slow down" (and similar), to work on existing articles, instead of creating new stubs. He has explicitly explained that he thinks that WP is like Wikidata: there are software projects scraping WP, which only take article titles as "items", and we must therefore have a WP article for every item in wikidata. This is quite simply a misunderstanding of what WP is. (And btw explains things like the "articles" for every COROP region.) There is absolutely no need to unblock with a "promise" of creating one article a month. If he can be allowed to edit without creating articles, then once a month he can contact someone (I volunteer if necessary) to handle adding his new article, if it seems worthwhile. (Another issue which has been skipped is the question of unauthorised automation to make hundreds of edits. So there's plenty more if anyone thinks the above is insufficient.) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• To help with one of the mysteries in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#User:Shevonsilva with respect to Old revision of M'Bagne Department: Shevonsilva's "it was in another source" turns out to have meant "I machine translated the French Wikipedia article". Part of the problem here is demonstrated in Shevonsilva's unwillingness to just say that xe translated from another Wikipedia. I have just blanked the 11-year-old soapboxing political commentary from fr:Département de M'Bagne. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reading that ANI section from June 2018 brings it all back. It is unfortunate that the discussion faded out without coming to a definite conclusion, although the consensus seemed to be that Shevonsilva should stop creating new articles. The time has come now for the encyclopedia to be protected from this editor's misguided approach to article creation. PamD 09:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion? Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly. WP:AGF: perhaps just doesn't understand what a block means, what sockpuppetry is, and that this is unacceptable. PamD 10:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • False flag troll is possible but unlikely. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought for sure this was going to be a joe-job by one of our LTA trolls, but nope. It's definitely Shevonsilva evading their block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      • To be scrupulously fair: Shevonsilva stated that it was a friend who created a "backup" account (after Shevonsilva was blocked, according to the logs) from a different city and then came to Shevonsilva's house and used it without xyr knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
        • (FWIW) In my opinion the content of the Shevonsilva2 user page is completely out of character with Shevonsilva's contributions. Blcok it, of course, but I think it should be disregarded in regard to the real Shevonsilva account. Imaginatorium (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
          • We can't disregard the sock account as it was created when Shevonsilva was blocked, the account was accessed from the same device as Shevonsilva used to edit, and both accounts were editing from said device within minutes of each other, all apparently without Shevonsilva's knowledge. Plus, I had to oversight Shevonsilva's posting of the password for the second account. When discussing competence, the entire second account scenario does come in to play.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock with restrictions. I know I'm really not supposed to be commenting here (been warned recently not to), but I gotta say that my recent work on 2019 African Games and related topics has given me a newfound appreciation on how little coverage we have on African topics. Most people probably wouldn't appreciate his stub articles, but I know I do at least. Reviewing his work in regards to this thread, there's a lot of hidden potential in some of these articles. If this user was unblocked, I would suggest that Shevonsilva just be restricted to article creation via WP:AFC. If he dropped me a note on my talk page after submitting something, I'd happily give it a look. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think your contribution is to be welcomed. It is true that Shevonsilva has created many articles on Africa (I would guess around 1000); but they are all microstubs, simply expansions from lists ("Area X of [somewhere in Africa] is divided into subareas x1, x2, x3, ... xn" generates n articles, each "xj is a subarea of X"). You mentioned work on 2019 African Games, but he does not really work on articles at all, always being in a hurry to create the next lot. For example, Boghé is a town in Africa, also written as Bogué (I think French, rather than Portuguese spelling); it is also the name of the departement. But we have a town article (stub), and a separate "department" article from Shevonsilva (a microstub). He shows no interest whatsoever in working out what is going on, and actually improving the content of WP rather than the article count. See sort of talk page exchange here: [95] (sorry, his talk page is continously destroyed). Imaginatorium (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: It's contextual: if you were "commenting" to endoerse the block, then it would indicate a pile-on-for-the-sake-it-pot-stirring of the kind that has resulted in the comments you note. But defending an editor who could probably do with all the defending they can, on policy based grounds, is less concerning. ——SerialNumber54129 16:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: If you look at my projectspace contributions, you'll find I almost never pile on in support or opposition to anything without an extensive comment explaining why I feel my position is for the benefit of the encyclopedia or backed by policy. Regardless, I wasn't alluding to anything you had previously said; it was the conversation currently viewable in this section of my talk page.
      I am of the opinion that any comment I make on an administrative noticeboard, no matter how productive, will always be viewed as disruptive by at least someone. That's a good opinion to have if you are new here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
      • ... any comment I make on an administrative noticeboard, no matter how productive, will always be viewed as disruptive by at least someone ... yes, by the people who disagree with said comment. On enwiki, "disruptive" is just another word for "I disagree with you". – Levivich 20:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse the block, as it stands now. I have not had any prior dealing with this user, but have just come across a batch of his one-sentence microstubs about sururbs of Podgorica in the back of NPP queue. I felt quite annoyed since each of them contained exactly two references: one to a driving directions subpage of moovitapp.com and another to a Podgorica search subpage of the real estate classifieds site www.realitica.com. Not exactly sterling WP:RS. The curation tool flagged all of these articles as having their creator blocked, which eventually led me here. Given the extent of long-term problematic editing by this user since 2014, as highlighted in the above discussion, I think that an indef block is certainly justified. If an unblock is to be granted, it would have to include pretty drastic TBAN restrictions. IMO, making this user route all his article creatings through the AfC is unsufficient. I don't want to see the AfC flooded with hundreds of these undercooked microstubs. The simplest TBAN restriction that might possibly work is a complete indef TBAN from creating new articles (even through AfC), with allowing TBAN lifting requests in one-year increments. If Shevonsilva can demonstrate a history of constructive editing in other areas of Wikipedia (without creating new articles) for a year, such a TBAN may be lifted after a request and an appropriate discussion at WP:AN. Nsk92 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I received an e-mail from Shevonsilva indicating that he would agree to a TBAN of the type I suggested above: "If Shevonsilva can demonstrate a history of constructive editing in other areas of Wikipedia (without creating new articles) for a year, such a TBAN may be lifted after a request and an appropriate discussion at WP:AN". Nsk92 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I received the same email, but I was asleep so I am only commenting now. All I would like to add is he included in his request to pass along this message: Please. I really need to correct the problems in existing articles I have created. That to me suggests the user is at least willing to learn and is certainly WP:HERE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Willing to learn? Since 2014? In principle, anyone could learn Wikipedia's core procedures, although some people such as Shevonsilva seem unable to do that. However, learning basic English is a lot harder. I got the same email and while it seems unkind to interfere with someone's hobby, the mass email is just another reminder of the competence problem. Being kind to one user is not reasonable when it imposes a burden on good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about how the situation has escalated over on User talk:Shevonsilva whilst this discussion has been happening here. Shevonsilva has now lost access to xyr own user talk page and had e-mail access revoked too, apparently for mailing a whole bunch of people behind the scenes. (I received one, too.)

On the one hand, I actually defended Apache Commons DbUtils (AfD discussion) for being a stub with sources that show scope for expansion, even if the sources are carpet-bombed onto the first sentence (as is SOP for Shevonsilva) and the only significant content is not original writing. Others are defending Twitter marketing (AfD discussion) similarly. On the other hand, there is Business delegate pattern (AfD discussion) where Shevonsilva did exactly the same, the article was deleted for being basically a copy of something else, and four months later Shevonsilva simply came back and put almost exactly the same article there. (Compare the current version with the deleted one, and then heading-for-heading bullet-point-for-bullet-point with the Oracle doco.)

On the one hand, people point to the willingness to agree to conditions. On the other hand, there's the my little brother did it episode with Shevonsilva2 (talk · contribs).

On the one hand, the Cardarelli problem is a trap that anyone can fall into. Indeed, there were people that argued at AFD that the Cardarelli book was entirely reliable. (They were wrong; but it is evidence that other people can fall into this trap.) On the other hand, Shevonsilva's repeated insistence that xyr English is correct, ironically often itself written in broken English; xyr repeated dodging of the wholesale copying blurbs issue for several years (the conversation with me being just the latest in a long line of people pointing this out, going back past Business delegate pattern (AfD discussion) in 2016); and the whole none-of-you-are-qualified-to-judge-these-articles smokescreen are all problems for other editors.

Uncle G (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

For the records, Userviews analysis finds that, among the 2700 currently existing articles created by Shevonsilva, less than 600 manage to receive more than 1 pageview on average per day in the last 20 days. And that's including the recently created articles which probably got hundreds of views from patrollers. Nemo 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

For context, @Nemo bis: how does that compare with the generality of articles, or of articles created in last 5 years? I tried to check my own but the system ground to a halt when 95% finished and would go no further. PamD 13:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, the same tool tells me that out of 1344 articles I have created only 467 get more than 1 pageview on average. I am pretty sure all of them are notable and survive an AfD, almost all of them as SNOW.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anyone out there reading anything except football biogs? PamD 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is fun! 233/278 of mine get more than 1 pv. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

PamD, https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-ez/ could be used to find the answer. However, you always risk comparing apples and oranges: you'd need to normalise by age of the article and topic. You could also conclude that it's normal to have that kind of low figures if you create thousands of articles about small municipalities. Nemo 06:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable that two new deletion debates have started concerning SAP Simple Finance and SAP Smart Forms at a time when this user is not able to defend the quality of his work. I suppose that can't be helped with so many stub articles created, though.
Is there any word on when Shevonsilva can expect a closing on this thread? Please ping as I don't keep WP:AN in my watchlist –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

They are currently blocked for an indefinite duration with the talk page access and e-mail access removed, which means that unless a strong consensus have been formed in this thread for unblock (which I do not see at all, quite the opposite), their participation in the English Wikipedia has come to an end.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block For whatever reason, this user just does not understand how to contribute constructively or collaborate without leaving problems in their wake. And it's not like members of the community have not been patient and have not tried to bring them along since 2014. Their talk page is a steady discussion of their problems and their inability to fix any of it. Willing to learn? Unable to learn? Just not getting it.-- Deepfriedokra 01:04, 30 August 2019 (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.

Emergency semi protection

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.

---

of Jadavpur University sought. ∯WBG^converse 19:01, 2 September 2019 (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.

Discretionary sanctions warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new editor (account created August 2) is editing in the Israel-Palestine subject area, and I believe they need a discretionary sanctions notification. What's the latest on this? Can ordinary editors issue these, or is it better to have an admin do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine for anybody to post those alerts. The template for the Arab-Israeli conflict is {{subst:alert|a-i}}. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

OK, thanks, but it turns out there is another issue. The editor I was referring to, Tochgutartan, appears to be a block-evading sockpuppet of יניב הורון; at least that's what this Editor Interaction Analyzer report would indicate, [96], bearing in mind that Tochgutartan only has 336 edits, and 225 of them overlap with יניב הורון on 147 articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Both accounts notified, although יניב הורון is blocked with no TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser needed Let me know if I should file a report, but this one seemed so obvious after I saw the EIA report, and the tone and content of the edit summaries are the same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've already blocked the user as a sock but haven't finished the "paperwork".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2019 (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't create my own sandbox

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 cannot create 2,144, ⅅ, 2,146/sandbox at this time. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2,144, ⅅ, 2,146 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your username contains a problematic unicode character. Killiondude (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the ⅅ, I think. I'm surprised you were able to create that account. As it stands non-admins can't even create the account's user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a blacklisted ⅅ. – Levivich 23:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Only admins, template editors, and page movers can create pages with names that match an entry in the title blacklist. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The account has no edits (apart from the above) and was created two minutes before posting here. I recommend abandoning the account and creating a new user with a less confusing name. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Soft blocked and given templated response for how to request a username change. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 29 August 2019 (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.

WP:RESTRICT Appeal

I'd like to appeal my edit restrictions at WP:RESTRICT as it's been over 6 months. I think I've become a lot better at using edit summaries and making fewer edits to a single page at a single time. Sometimes the preview options still doesn't render the page properly, but I'm looking for alternatives like Special:TemplateSandbox and the parse API. The current system where I need to add trivial edits to templates to the talk page isn't working as no one is 100% sure what queue they should be in and most editors who look at my request don't complete it because they are under the assumption I should be able to make the request myself, even when I put a notice. I would like the restrictions removed so I can make small template edits to navboxes and such, to update template documentation and to remove the vandalism I occasionally see in templates (normally documentation pages). I don't have any intents to make larger edits at the moment and I would go through the talk page first before doing any. The block and forced me into getting into the habit of using the sandbox, and I have no plan to stop doing so. I think the edit restriction has done its purpose by protecting template and module pages from my formally disruptive editing, making me use the sandbox and talk pages more often, making me make fewer edits to a single page at a single time, and making me use edit summaries more often. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think it would be fine to amend this to "No editing in the Template and Module namespaces (10 and 828) with the exception of the sandbox/testcases/documentation" to allow for editing documentation sets. I haven't really reviewed the rest much. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Link to the restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Their edits to cs/jss pages in their userspace don't give me great confidence, but on the other hand they're welcome to make whatever test edits they want in their own userspace. Perhaps changing the restriction to "cannot create new templates/modules" and/or "max 1 edit per 24 hours per template", with a full lifting of the restriction in due time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 28 August 2019

Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue

This is a request for advice, not necessarily a request for administrator intervention. I think that a couple of editors have identified a real problem on the pages about current US presidential candidates, but I don't have a clue as to how to address the problem they describe. Thus I am asking for advice on what to do, if anything.

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again I saw this comment from Masem:

"We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting."[97]

Then Levivich added this:

" I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area."[98]

I happened to notice the problem at the Tulsi Gabbard page (Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to certain negative opinions published in obscure sources) and I am dealing with that issue in the usual way, but what of the larger problem that Masem and Levivich describe? Where would I even start if I wanted to make things better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a sea change needed across all of Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate my long-winded stance on the lack of NOT#NEWS enforcement particularly in the AP2 topic area (and not limited to that), but needless to say, we need editors to think about what material is being report "right this second" and how much of that material is going to be valuable in 5-10 years, and how much of that is just the fact news stations have 24/7 hours of broadcast time they have to fill. Understanding the difference between something like the reactions to the latest shootings in the US, versus a Tweet sent out by a presidential candidate. Because we have let NOT#NEWS weaken, we get these articles that are tons of proseline, filling in every possible news story that the topic is in, which is not what we should be doing. But its hard to force a policy on this, we need a sea change in how editors see the news and write about it, and to exactly that point, I don't know how to push that even more beyond stressing the need for "encyclopedic" writing, not "newspaper" writing. --Masem (t) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't fix the problem. Those spinouts would remain BLP pages and will still suffer the same problem. It's sweeping the issue under the rug. Yes, I do think that Google's draw to Wikipedia may change if those are spun out, but that's not really feeding the issue as most of the problems seem to come from semi to readily experienced editors. --Masem (t) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. I have noticed that those who hurry to oppose spinning off BLP pages are those who help curate negative information on those BLP... some evidence: (Gabbard, Stein). Theoretically at least, they would be less tempted to do so if their voices weren't so easily multiplied by google. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem goes well beyond just presidential candidates. WP:NOTNEWS is very frequently ignored when it comes to WP:BLP issues in general. I think a revision to WP:GNG to identify that coverage in reliable sources does not automatically confer notability for information regarding BLPs might help. That and perhaps giving WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT a bit more assertive language concerning notability and routine news coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA - I agree with Masem entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is about WP:Summary style. Writing in summary style requires writing in Wikivoice and that requires consensus, which requires collaboration. By contrast, writing in WP:QUOTEFARMs allows an editor to take a quote from a particular WP:RS (especially a recognized RS, like a green one from WP:RSP) and then "defend" it to the death, arguing that it must be included because it's a verbatim quote from a recognized RS. So we end up with alternating quotes from RSes instead of summary prose in WikiVoice... and battleground behavior on the talk page instead of collaborative editing. Some thoughts on solutions:

1. Further deprecate quote farms, perhaps just in BLPs or BLPs in DS areas (BLPs are a DS area, but I mean like AP2 BLPs, PIA BLPs, etc.), perhaps just for mainstream news sources. Or maybe for recent events articles? Something like, "quotes from mainstream news sources are strongly discouraged" maybe added to WP:MOS? This will force editors towards collaborating to come up with consensus language in Wikivoice rather than sparring with RS quotes.
2. Write a WP:Summary style specifically for BLPs or political BLPs. WP:BLPSUMMARY? Or maybe MOS:POLBLP?
3. Do we have a "model article" for politician BLPs? Not every politician BLP can be based on FA political BLPs like US presidents. But what does an "ideal" article for, say, a first-term national legislator, look like? How much detail? How much about their personal life? Their political positions? Their controversies?
4. One of the aspects of this problem is our poor existing mechanisms for content dispute resolution. For example, say Guy and I want to include Quote A, and Masem and Sashi are opposed to it or want to include a countervailing Quote B. The four of us can go around forever and never reach a consensus (that an uninvolved editor will close), and too often it comes down to one side dragging the other to a noticeboard over a conduct complaint (alleging WP:DE, WP:TE, etc.). If the four of us write walls of text, other editors won't help at DRN or by closing our RfC (or worse, we get a bad close, or an admin protects the wrong version, etc.). If an editor sees a poorly-written article that violates NOTNEWS, but there are a group of editors WP:OWNing the article, we don't really have a way to address that. Someone was recently writing about binding content dispute resolution–I think it was Isaacl? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Maybe pilot that (or a return of mediation?) in the area of political BLPs? – Levivich 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have written recently on binding content dispute resolution, and plan to release a proposal for discussion. Although I'm not optimistic that consensus can be achieved at this time to mandate such a process, perhaps there may be cases where the interested parties would voluntarily agree to it. (The "binding" part, though, would be hard to enforce without a larger consensus in place.) isaacl (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a very good observation about quote-farming Levivich. I'll admit I have no idea if there's an AmPol2 project page where such modifications to the MOS and examples of model BLPs could be discussed. I did notice there were some comments made on the H R Clinton FA (BLP) recently by the principal author. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A few more points:

First, in general, adding material to a PROSELINE approach is often easiest for newer editors. Find where the event happened in a list of dates, throw that event and source in there. End of store. So we get articles that reflect dates of announcements of planned events, or focusing too much on social media announcements, or the like. Filling out timelines is alluring. Same if you have another type of structure that is easy to organize and add too. (evidenced by "Reactions" sections of every world gov't to a mass death event; and the fact that if you leave an empty line in an infobox template, editors will want to fill that in with something). So part of the problem is natural tendencies of the editors to fill in as much as they can. But that's only part of the reason, and not something easy to fix.

Second, I would argue an additional consideration that I have seen, going back to the Gamergate situation, though I think the behavior I described was starting before then.

As the Gamergate situation outside en.wiki started to ramp up, we get media that was clearly critical of those calling themselves part of Gamergate. Because of "verifyability, not truth", our article reflected that. We got wave after wave of brigading IPs and new editors trying to force the minor/fringe viewpoints of Gamergate, which ultimately led to the 300/50 page protection because of that disruption.

However, I think emboldened by fighting those editors, existing editors on WP started thinking that to fight fire with fire, more emphasis on whatever the reliable sources published was necessary. Technically all within policy, but this, to a degree, meant than anytime a report dropped about GG, it needed to go up onto the article to assure that non-RS could be used to counter it. This in turn would often lead to any criticism of notable individuals tied to GG to be included appropriately - again, technically within BLP policy.

So now we're in a situation where we have one of the most hated Presidents in power, the media on edge in trying to report as much negative material about him, his ideas, and people that tend to share these ideas. Add in elements like the alt/far right, white nationality/supremancy, etc., and there is a LOT of media effort going to characters these people and groups as "bad" as far as they can do within ethical journalism. This leaves any material supportive of those groups in the minority (but which also tend to be FRINGE views). We end up documenting still under "verifyability, not truth", reflecting the media's take on the situation which frequently omits the views from the other side of the aisle. So just like at GG, we have new IPs and editors trying to insert the counter-views, which experience editors review, and bolster the media coverage by insert every mention of the topic in the news. This then extends to those that are seen favorably in the media's eyes as well. It has become this war of attrition as to document every ounce of media coverage that indirectly helps extend the media's general dislike for certain people and groups.

Now, I do not think any experienced editor is doing this on purpose or maliciously. I think its a pattern that developed that seemed natural and the right way to fight back against disinformation, all within policy. And because this has become popular in political circles, it has spread to other areas as well. I can fully understand editing this way feels right, as well as doing as much as WP can do without actively engaging in righting great wrongs. But, in the end, it has created this pattern that does ultimately run aground against NOT#NEWS - editors are writing for the now, not for 5-10-20 years down the road. There are other ways to fight disinformation attempts that still stick to policy and without weakening our articles on controversial figures, and still staying current on factual information. But we need editors to recognize this pattern, how it came about, and how to get out of it. There is no easy immediate solution, and one that I don't think can be implemented by establishing a new policy or guideline, but just reworking how some policies and guidelines are meant to interact. --Masem (t) 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment, soibangla, please read and take this discussion to heart. A number of your edits including these [[99]], [[100]] are the sort of thing that is under discussion here. This [[101]] isn't something to be proud of. Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, pinging me here is inappropriate. You got a gripe with me, take to my Talk page. Then again, don't bother. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me offer a contrarian view. Let's start with policy. WP:NOTNEWS begins by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Point 1 on "Original reporting" says that editors cannot engage in original reporting. I am unaware that any active editor engages in original reporting, so that is not an issue in my opinion. For example, I attended a local political event on Sunday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke frankly about the political implications of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I added no text about those speeches to Wikipedia because I am not a reporter, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I do not believe that any reporters were present. I did, however, upload a portrait photo I took of Newsom to Wikimedia Commons. I see no ongoing problem of Wikipedia editors trying to add their own original reporting, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with promptly and decisively. Point 1 closes by saying "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."

Point 2 on "News reporting" wisely chides us not to include "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" because that "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Accurately and neutrally summarizing how reliable sources characterize the political positions of notable politicians cannot possibly fall under this language. The policy language in this section explicitly does not exclude "including information on recent developments".

Point 3 on "Who's who" basically applies to WP:BLP1E which is not relevant to biographies of clearly notable politicians.

Point 4 on "Diary days" says we should not list all the ongoing events of a celebrity's day. I do not see a lot of content saying, "On February 30, candidate A flew to metropolitan area B where they spoke to farmers in rural community C, soccer moms in suburban town D and ethnic communities in big city E." Is that a problem? I do not think so. Any editor should revert that type of content on policy grounds if they see it.

None of the things derided here as violations of NOTNEWS are genuine violations of that actual policy language. Instead, they are things that a few editors here do not like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's Main page has a prominent section called "In the news" that always features half a dozen or so current news articles of worldwide importance. Another fact is that 99% percent of Wikipedia articles about historic events of the last 18 years started out as summaries of newspaper coverage, and evolved over time into excllellent articles through the normal editing process. Another fact is that post 1932 American politics is covered under robust discretionary sanctions that give administrators heightened unilateral powers to deal with disruption and aggressive POV pushing in this broad topic area. The great weakness of the NOTNEWS policy language is that it recommends Wikinews as an alternative. Wikinews is a moribund project rated #59,184 in website popularity. Take a look at their article about the El Paso shootings, which is amateurish crap compared to the excellent and rapidly evolving Wikipedia article. Currently #3 in their news feed is "Wikinews attends Texas Haunters Convention", an article so bad that it defies description. So, sending editors interested in recent historic developments off to Wikinews is fit only for Alice in Wonderland. It's cray-cray.

WP:QUOTEFARM is a link to an essay that begins by saying "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Of course, quotes can be overused but editors cannot rely on the QUOTEFARM essay for advocating radical reduction of quotes because it is not a policy or a guideline, and says no such thing.

All that stuff about Gamergate is really just an argument that we should abandon our core content policies that call for neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, and instead let fringe, extremist figures spout their vile advocacy on Wikipedia in some misguided sense of "fairness". The day that happens is the day I resign from Wikipedia.

Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To further add, this is nothing about trying to push fringe views, but instead getting editors to wait for better summarizing reliable sources to cover more subjective elements than trying to stay that current; this further removes the likelihood that FRINGE sourcing would be used if we are basing coverage on more retrospective articles than "written this moment" ones. This is not about the factors at work behind GG but only using the editing patterns from experienced editors in the GG case as an early example of this type of problem. This is happening, regardless if GG happened or not. --Masem (t) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My views:

1. (1) It is very rare that recent reporting gets added to articles and the reporting is shown to be wrong. When it does happen, it's usually sources of marginal reliability such as Fox News (the RS status of which some editors above defend even though it has a record of fabricated stories and even though peer-reviewed publications say it is unreliable on certain issues) and Newsweek (which maybe once was a RS but should not be one anymore). So the argument that RS get things wrong and we should therefore adopt a policy of an arbitrary waiting period is weak.
2. (2) Most of the content that gets challenged on NotNews grounds is content that does in fact have long-term encyclopedic value. Opinions that something does not have long-term encyclopedic value are arbitrary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've witnessed just seem to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A recent example of this was a prominent senior White House official appearing on a national talk show and telling lies about the health care policies of the Trump administration - it was removed on NotNews grounds (despite extensive RS coverage) but then on a RfC there is unanimous support for its inclusion. Masem may think it's irrelevant that gubernatorial candidate X intends to kick Y thousand people off of Medicaid when he gets into office, but I personally disagree. Simply relying on RS coverage and talk page dispute resolution ensures that agreement is found on what is due weight and what violates NotNews.
3. (3) It is far easier to comprehensively cover an issue in an encyclopedic way when the topic is fresh and where all the sources are easily accessible. As someone who edits both on issues that happen now and which happened 10+ years ago, it is incredibly hard to add encyclopedic text to events that occurred years ago. The way to cover an event in a comprehensive and neutral manner is to write it up with contemporaneous sources, and then tweak in the years that follow if comprehensive works appear (usually these works do not rebut contemporaneous reporting).
4. (4) There's a bizarre distrust in the media in the comments above. I don't know to what extent these editors are familiar with the work of historians and social scientists (or non-cable news media for that matter), but publications in these fields are replete with contemporaneous reporting by the very same news outlets that the editors above treat as lesser sources of dubious quality. They also reflect an unwarranted disdain for journalism, a field comprised of people working under horrid job security and little pay, yet who do priceless work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 I would address as the fact that when you have 24/7 news coverage, it looks like we can stuff a lot of material into current event articles, but in actually that doesn't help in the long run for these stories, and it is better to write these from a summary standpoint, after the dust has settled and we can separate better fact from opinion and speculation. For example, Watergate scandal is one of the US's biggest political gaffes, and it was heavily covered by the media, but at that time, the media was not 24/7 - you had your morning paper, your morning and evening news, radio news updates, and maybe a special run. Because of this, the coverage is much more focused on actual events rather than speculation and opinion. The focus today on what any talking head says in an article or television news is far too displaced because we don't know the context if that commentary is going to be relevant or not when the event is over. I do appreciate the argument that older events, even with Google and archive.org, can be more difficult to write for because those sources become harder to find, but we should be trying to focus on how those events were covered years after they happened, rather than at the time. And if you are really wanting to document the news in real time, that is what Wikinews is for. We can then incorporate material in a more encyclopedic fashion from the Wikinews articles once we know how best to present the situation.

4 is not about distrust of the news, but simply its bias. Doesn't mean they are any less reliable, but they are going to be overly focused on some things and less focused on others, where if we were talking a truely neutral format there would be more "equal time" to a degree. That lobsided focus does influence our articles because of UNDUE and "verifyability, not truth" if we are using the immediate news reports as our basis. If we wait for the dust to settle and use more summarizing sources, that lobsided-ness tends to go away or shows why it was justified. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You may take care, but 90% of most arguments I see pop up at AN/ANI/AE related to AP2 is due to how current commentary from any old person is being included into an article, so there is a significant segment of editors that do not. No, we don't have to wait years, but we should wait for a few months to try to figure out what are the appropriate high points that 5-10 years down the road will be most important. I would actually argue that trying to figure out what is most important around a controversial situation as it is happened is approaching the "original journalism" aspect as it is assigning perceived importance to information before secondary sources have a chance to filter it. Now, there's a very grey line here because we also do the same on breaking disasters, and, myself in video games, writing about on the spot updates to works and the like. But I think in comparison, with these type of events, we know what is generally going to end up in these articles (For a disaster, when and where, what happened, how many died, for example) so we can recognize what is worthwhile information from past experience. But in political events, for one, that's generally impossible to know. Maybe a comment from a regular expect on the matter would be fine, but again, its generally the commentary from any random talking head that gets added. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I also completely reject that the media is biased against Trump or conservatives, if that's what's being suggested (something you mentioned earlier). If anything, I think the media unduly tiptoes around bigotry, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and is afraid to call things as they are. As a result, by following RS, we are actually being overly careful. That's for example why I was forced to advocate that we refer to Steve King's racist rhetoric as "racially charged rhetoric", because that's how RS portrayed it one point in time (the RS changed its description of him as become more explicitly racist) rather than calling it "racist rhetoric". Also, of the peer-reviewed publications that have been published about political events in the last 5 years, they typically describe things far more bluntly than the purportedly anti-Trump media does, which suggests that media RS are being overly careful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been here for years and wasn't even aware it was a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it was established by the WMF to be for more "news reporting" than "encyclopedia". WMF hasn't turned it off so it remains a viable project. The problem is chicken-or-egg - we need more editors to use it so that it gets more attention so that more editors use it, etc. The failure of Wikinews does not mean its functions should be done by en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to pilot this on one article and see how it goes. – Levivich 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire Wikinews concept is strange. Who would read a news aggregation service by Wikipedia editors as opposed to reading a normal news outlet? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [102]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To that regard, there's two things. First, I'm often in the same boat in other topics that I can't write with an sureness if its been several months since I last read up on it. But the exercise of searching and reviewing the detail via a Google News searchs often helps to fine tune how to think about the topic in a more summary manner, since I'm not likely to read through every source that exists, and because GNews typically goes in reverse chrono order, I'll get the aftermath first and have a better idea of what's more important as I move backwards in time. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong to drop links to articles that are believed to be relevant in the future but shouldn't be added immediately, on the article's talk page. {{refideas}} exists for this, but you may have more than that. Or a user page, or the like. So there's a way to keep "clippings" so that when you are sure things can be written with a more hindsight view, you have a body of work to remove.

And I strongly disagree with reliable sources placing importance/highlighting the wrong things. The press went crazy on Covfefe to the point we had an article on that. Fortunately, saner heads on WP prevailed, and recognized this as part of a broader, more enduring topic of Trump's use of social media. This is all tied to the bias on the media, particularly with Trump and those associated with him, trying to find any and all weaknesses to write about. This is what happens in 24/7 news coverage, any tiny issue can be seen as big major front page story if there's no other interesting news going on. --Masem (t) 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The real problem in this thread, Masem, is that you are pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: I believe I'm restating the intent of points #1 and #2 under NOT#NEWS. Points that have gotten lost over the last several years. I mean, we had an RFC a couple years back that still affirmed NOT#NEWS is still a valid policy, not to be weakened nor strengthened in language, but given that we're seeing more and more conflict over trying to keep certain classes of articles (like politician) "recent" under claims that this is within the context of NOT#NEWS, tells me we may need to review that further (hence the discussion started here). --Masem (t) 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

As recently as today, I've encountered editors who chafed at excluding material that was WP:TOOSOON on the basis that it might take months to get the sort of secondary source coverage necessary to be due inclusion on Wikipedia. Frankly, WP:NOTNEWS is as notable in how infrequently it is observed compared to other elements of WP:NOT. When someone puts up a blog post, or an indiscriminate list of cruft, or uses a userpage as personal web space, the community shuts it down quickly. But when people try to treat Wikipedia as a newspaper, well, even AfD doesn't work at that point. So I'd strongly support anything we can do to prop up adherence to NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is an issue; these edits are more prevalent than necessary in adding material to individual politician's articles. It is less clear what can or should be done. As a specific ping, @Informant16: is another editor that I've noticed making a lot of these changes; for instance [103] [104] [105] are all adding effectively the same (arguably unimportant) information to each of 12 senator's articles (one of twelve senators to sign a bipartisan letter). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Until May, the lead to Judy Shelton said: Judy Shelton is an economic advisor to President Donald Trump^[1]. She was previously the director of the Sound Money Project^[2] at the Atlas Network. She is an economist^[3] with a focus on global finance and monetary issues.^[4] Then Trump picked her for an appointment [106]. The lead now says: Judy Shelton is an American economic advisor to President Donald Trump.^[1] She is known for her advocacy for a return to the gold standard (which is dismissed by almost all mainstream economists) and for her criticisms of the Federal Reserve.^[2][3][4] Trump announced on July 2, 2019, that he would nominate Shelton to the Fed.^[5] Looking at the article and its history, I see recentism and coatracking supported by refbombing and edit warring to make the article reflect a particular POV. Unfortunately, it's a typical example of an AP2 BLP. – Levivich 02:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

We could have a WP:CENT RFC on a proposed guideline for inclusion of material in political articles, so that all new content should meet one of the following:

1. Covered in depth (more than repeating a press release) by three or more reliable broadcast or print, not web-only, sources.
2. Still subject to ongoing independent print or broadcast coverage after 3 months.
3. A policy that has become a focus of broadcast debates supported or opposed by multiple candidates.

I call out print and broadcast media because online publishing costs nothing. If a news organisation devotes costly resource to something, that implies a level of significance.

The blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now. Very few things get pruned when the news tornado moves on. And I would include serving politicians in this as well. Not every tweetstrom is notable. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There probably needs a bit more thought as it is not just limited - in this case political candidates, but generally any topic that has political implications. (Though politics is likely where 90% of the problems lie). Also to keep in mind, a few recent RFCs that we have to recognize exist and how conditions have changed to challenge them again or that what is being proposed is different: [107], and [108]. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIASED probably ought to be invoked for all political news reporting along with WP:NOTNEWS. That would require us to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources (such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering) and.attribute specific statements about living persons to their sources. We might find we've eliminated most wrangling over the reliability of specific sources not specifically called out in WP:PUS.--loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I like this Guy's suggestions, too. – Levivich 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now" You're wrong, to a slight extent — it's definitely a real problem now, but it's been a real problem for years. Look at an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office started after the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Donald Trump, and compare it to an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office ended before the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Bill Clinton. You'll see that blow-by-blow recentism is not really an issue with the latter: it's heavily weighted toward reliable secondary sources, not news reports. Or look at something non-political and examine its history, e.g. the multinational nuclear company Framatome. Its earlier history depends on retrospective coverage and is written in a style quite different from content dating from 2001 or later, which is heavily reliant on news reports. Or even something totally different, e.g. History of the Indianapolis Colts. In the earlier decades, we get retrospective coverage that compares seasons with seasons and provides a good overview. In the latter decades, we get tiny insignificant details, including how many passing yards they gave up in the first half of a lower-level playoff game. The solution is to require retrospective coverage, which we in the trade call "secondary sources", rather than using coverage originating at the time of the event, which we in the trade call "primary sources". Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What Nyttend said. Where secondary sources, especially scholarly sources, exist, we should be ruthlessly replacing in-the-moment news coverage with those. It's an approach I and others have used successfully in other contentious areas. It doesn't require policy adjustments; it requires the experienced folks in a topic to be quite strict in how they understand and apply WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with this, I don't think you've followed it through to its natural conclusion; if news sources are not secondary sources (which you seem to implicitly accept) and an article relies on news sources, it has failed GNG and should be deleted. I think there is a problem with how WP:RS and WP:NOR are generally interpreted. There seems to be no clear consensus on whether news articles are primary or secondary sources and the policy doesn't make any definitive statement on it. What WP:NOR does say is summed up by Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. That seems clear to me that news reports are not secondary sources, and one of the footnotes to that policy says, Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents. But the general approach in what might be termed "current affairs" topics is that news sources are independent and reliable and therefore good enough; whether they are primary or secondary sources is rarely even considered, and almost never as a separate concept to independent vs non-independent. A stronger statement in policy that news reports are primary, not secondary, would go a long way to clearing this up. The ramifications would be large; not being able to use news sources to argue that an article meets the GNG would lead to a flood at AfD, for instance. But would that be a bad thing in the long run? GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

News reports, like this, are generally primary sources. News analysis, like this and this, are generally secondary sources. The trouble comes with things like this: an interview with a father who is talking about the life of his son. Is it primary or secondary? I think it's actually a mix of both, and I think that's what most news articles are: a mix of reporting and analysis. I think updating policy pages to clarify these issues will be extremely helpful to editors, especially new ones. – Levivich 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I take your point about the fuzziness of the terms "primary sources" and "secondary sources" as used on Wikipedia. However, I don't think it actually affects my point above, which is really about sources covering things in real-time, versus sources covering them retrospectively. We've long accepted news reports as counting towards notability, etc; but my point is that even if they're useful for determining notability, they're next to useless for determining due weight on a prominent political topic. We need retrospective sources, and preferably scholarly sources, for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: If it's not useful for determining due weight, it's also not useful for determining notability. Or it shouldn't be. GoldenRing (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think I disagree. A substantive piece in a good newspaper goes a long way towards notability for, for instance, someone working at a non-profit, or a scientist. An equally lengthy piece, however, is still not useful for determining whether content should be added to Donald Trump; because most US-based news sources published multiple lengthy articles about Trump every day. It's not so much the nature of the source itself, as the intersection of the nature of the source with the prominence of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: But we assess the "prominence of the subject" by how much in-depth coverage the subject has received in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Or we're supposed to. If you allow some types of sources for evaluating GNG but not DUE, you will end up in the situation where a subject has enough coverage for its own article but not enough to be mentioned in any other articles, which is absurd. GoldenRing (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I don't follow; I don't see how that's absurd at all. Prominent politicians will have a role in very many pieces of legislation over their careers. It will frequently be the case that those pieces of legislation are individually notable, but are undue weight in the biographies of all but their main sponsors (and sometimes, even those). National budgets are often notable in their own right, but mentioning individual budgets in biographies would be giving them undue weight. And so on and so forth. Biographies of relatively unknown figures are written by dredging up every known fact of their lives, and every source counts. When you have political figures about whom millions of news articles are written every year, writing their biographies becomes much more a matter of determining what to leave out or spin off; and the millions of news stories have, individually, nothing to contribute to that effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not referring to evaluating WP:DUE in general, but specifically with respect to those topics that have monstrous quantities of news coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recentism isn’t a politics-only problem; I’d actually say it’s editorially the single biggest problem Wikipedia has, manifest in a various number of ways (from band articles that just repeat “on X date Y played Z”, to “X in popular culture” laundry lists at the end of a fictional subject) to this in politics. But realistically I don’t think the comparison to Bill Clinton makes sense, in that there are long-form books, etc. that we can rely on. At this point there isn’t a lot of (good) scholarship on Trump and these recent news articles, so you have to rely on daily press. Requiring a certain number of publications to pick up on a story before inclusion seems like a reasonable stop-gap measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, simply disallow any source newer than 2 (maybe 3) days and put up a notice that, by design, Wikipedia is always a few days out of date, but Wikinews has all of the late breaking scoops you might want. This would get rid of roughly 90% of the conflicts on Wikipedia and would reinvigorate Wikinews. Bottom line: We have forgotten what the basic meaning of the words "encyclopedia" and "newspaper" are. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews is moribund and irrelevant. Sending people there is not an act of kindness, Guy Macon. Please do not send people on a quixotic quest. Start by trying to get "In the news" deleted from the main page, but of course you will be laughed out of town. We have countless thousands of very good articles about historic events of the 21st century that began as curated summaries of the very best newspaper and magazine coverage of the topics. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress and evolving articles about recent news developments are the first drafts of history. The reference section of these articles are the curated lists of early sources that serious academic researchers can use as raw material for more serious later research. Trying to strangle the baby in its cradle is counterproductive, but some folks seem to enjoy these repetitive "go nowhere" policy musings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that "Wikinews is moribund and irrelevant" because Wikipedia is acting like Wikinews? If we started ignoring WP:NOTDICTIONARY the way we rotinely ignore WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and allowed all of the dictionary entries at Wictionary to be allowed as Wikipedia articles, then Wictionary wold also be "moribund and irrelevant". If we had a bunch of editors heavily invested in putting "In the dictionary" on the main page any suggestion that we start following WP:NOTDICTIONARY would also be "will be laughed out of town."

My suggestion (shared by several other in this discussion) that we actually follow policy should no be treated as if I was some nutter mumbling about Time Cube.[109] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The policy simply does not say what you imply that it does. People should carefully read the actual policy language instead of saying NOTNEWS all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jabba the Hutt/archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jabba the Hutt/archive1 be speedy-closed and deleted? It was clearly made out of process by a brand-new editor, although it does seem to be a good-faith edit. I personally see a few problems in the article, but I don't know if they're quite enough for a FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This question is probably best posed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review for the @FAR coordinators: to respond, rather than a random admin from here. --RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2019 (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.

Change username, plz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've blocked a million user for their names but never renamed one--I clicked on "rename" but *GASP* I don't have the power. Can someone hop on over to this talk page and rename the user? "Firehawk" seems fine to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2019 (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.

One article for different communities in Kerala

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been a user of English and English WikiPedia and Wikimedia Commons for the past 12 years. I attended Project Tiger 1.0 last year and am currently attending Project Tiger 2.0 , I joined a program called Growing Local Language Content also. There I said that Folklore, Communities, and more would be brought into the English wiki. I have written many similar articles in the Malayalam Wiki with exact references.

The Ezhava and Thiyyar are the two major communities of Kerala. These are just two of the many communities that fall under the category of OBC (Other Backward Communities). Even in the Malayalam wiki, there is no problem at all - See  Thiyya and Ezhava in Malayalam Wikipedia. Yesterday when I changed the redirection to Thiyyar and tried to write it in a new article, user Sitush reverted it. There was a small talk and he told me to talk to the same in the talk page of Ezhava. There is no response even though it is mentioned on the talk page of Ezhava.

What can Admin do?  It was noted that Thiyyar had previously written the article with a lot of evidences. Other communities and folk arts such as Mavilar, Cherawar, Kopallar, Maniyani and others need to be brought to English Wikipedia. I am asking for comment here since it is a problem from the beginning itself. How to rectify this? --Rajesh K Odayanchal (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2019 (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.

Overturn Bad ArbCom Action

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.

---

ArbCom recently banned Eric Corbett for "sock puppetry" without providing any evidence of actual violation of WP:SOCK. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Eric_Corbett. Eric had his issues and was under editing restrictions. However, this ban was not due process. There are allegations that Eric was severely baited and harassed. Please, let's have a poll to decide whether ArbCom's action was legitimate or not. This poll should not be based on whether you love or hate Eric. Please consider fairness of process, because you could be the one receiving such a ban next time.

Jehochman's view

ArbCom cannot ban users by fiat. ArbCom cannot make policy by fiat. Any action they take has to be justifiable based in policy and evidence. I understand that private evidence is a thing, but in this case it's not relevant. ArbCom must list the accounts that were used abusively by Eric Corbett, along with diffs showing disruptive editing, or else we declare their action to be invalid and we overturn their ban.

1. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Guerillero's View

If Jehochman would like to be a member of the Arbitration committee, again, I would encourage them to run in December. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I frequently try to help them, though they often fail to notice. Thank you for the invite. Jehochman ^Talk 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

{Other views}

Freeform discussion

Just to point out that Eric is not banned, but indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Indef blocked by ArbCom is banned. He can't request an unblock without their permission. This isn't Wikipedia:Quibble about nomenclature. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Out of scope. Arbcom has stated that Corbett's sock is confirmed by checkuser data. It's a clear and unambiguous violation of policy to create new accounts to avoid consequences for one's actions under a different account. The access to nonpublic personal data policy governs the release of checkuser data and other private information; the information that Jehochman demands simply cannot be discussed here. If editors think that something untoward has happened with respect to access to private data, contact the ombudsman commission. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ArbCom has stated that Corbett's ... ArbCom has stated that Ritchie333's ... WMF has stated that Framks ... take out the user based on hidden, secret evidence and your problem is solved. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Concur with Ivanvector on all points, and I don't think AN is the appropriate place to have this discussion anyway. I would consider the ArbCom noticeboard discussion that this split off of a more appropriate place to gain consensus to overturn the action. Moving the discussion here looks like mild WP:FORUMSHOP to me; I concede that you did link the two discussions, but my cold read of this thread was that you're not so much here to get a consensus to reverse as to find a willing administrator to lift the ban. Please don't take this as an accusation, I just want to point out how it looks to someone who hasn't followed the other discussion. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the assumption of bad faith. I'm here to have a community discussion to generate a consensus. Nobody should go rogue. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Make policy by fiat, no they can't do that. Banning/blocking users by fiat, they certainly can. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Link? They have to have evidence of a policy violation. They can't just wave their hands and hold up a red card. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Banning policy#Authority to ban, point #2. The evidence of a policy violation is the checkuser-confirmed creation of a sockpuppet with the obvious intent to evade a discussion about their conduct (an unambiguous violation of the sockpuppetry policy). These are all community policies; there was no creation of policy by fiat and no action by fiat by the committee.

  If what you mean to advocate for is that Eric Corbett's clear and unambiguous violation of policy should be overlooked because of extenuating circumstances, which seems to be the case, then just say so. I might agree with you. But Arbcom is not in the wrong here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Eric plainly avoided an impending ArbCom case by using an undeclared sockpuppet in violation of WP:SOCK. You can argue over whether an indefinite block was the appropriate remedy, or whether there were extenuating circumstances, but saying there's no evidence of a policy violation seems silly - it was a checkuser confirmed by three different people with CU access. Are you suggesting that the technical details of sockpuppet investigations should be made public (which would be an obvious violation of policy, not to mention our privacy policy and probably the law), or that it's suddenly a manifest injustice for anyone to ever be blocked based on WP:CHECK evidence? Or do you think it's not avoiding scrutiny, as defined in WP:SOCK, to announce your resignation in the face of an impending ArbCom case, only to switch to an undisclosed sock? --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, I am asking for diffs of disruptive editing. Merely creating a new account after torching an old one is not disruptive. Editing as an IP and saying "It's me" isn't evading sanctions. What I'd like here is integrity. If we ban somebody, we do it upon good evidence, not geshtalt "this guy is unpopular so let's heave him overboard." Remember, EC was a volunteer who wrote a lot of high quality articles. He should be given dignity, even if he has to depart. Jehochman ^Talk 01:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Out of scope - Your issue seems to be with Arbcom, so please keep the drama there. In my opinion checkuser is pretty strong evidence of socking, I'm sure the admin here have heard time and time again many excuses to get out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• What kind of evidence of socking do you think they can provide? The CU data was confirmed by three CUs. Do you expect them to publicly release the data (in violation of the law)? – Levivich 19:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a WP:DUCK to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  There was one account with 60 harmless edits and one IP that posted 3 times saying “yes this is Eric.” Is that abuse? The evidence is pathetically weak which is why they won’t share it. This is a power play to get rid of someone they’ve had in the crosshairs for a long time. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how this has bearing. Evading scrutiny of a case by socking is still a sanctionable offense, and it's not the only time Corbett has done it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I know it's not your intention, but you are repeating a slander that isn't backed by evidence. Please post diffs showing the sanctionable offense. I want diffs. Evidence. Not proof by assertion. Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly out of scope. This thread cannot overturn any ArbCom decision. Suggest close. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with all above, this is clearly out of scope. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• As if this block of EC is so in scope. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• This is clearly out of scope, and ArbCom is not in the wrong here. I don’t see how further drama helps anyone. Toa Nidhiki05 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• If Eric Corbett shot someone, some editors would criticize that person for obstructing EC's bullet. – Levivich 21:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No consensus at AN can overturn an ArbCom sanction, so this thread is useless and out of scope. any appeal needs to be lodged at ArbCom, and they're unlikely to accept any appeal which is not initiated by EC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that? We go to ArbCom when we can't generate a consensus here. If we generate a consensus against them, they are overruled. Their remit is to settle hard cases that we can't resolve ourselves. ArbCom should operate under a principle of not taking on matters that can be resolved by the community. If somebody had gone to WP:SPI and filed a report on EC and it had been handled like any case filed by the editor corps, I would have no complaints. Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening this thread? Doesn't the fact that 1. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC) is the only item on that list tell you something? – Levivich 01:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do splain it to me. I don't see anybody putting forward any other thoughtful opinions up there. Would somebody like to explain why this ban/indef block is justified by referencing diffs and links? That's what I've been waiting for. Surely if the block is justified you can quickly pull up a few exemplary diffs to convince me. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The ban/block is based on checkuser evidence. You, though a fine editor and admin, are not a checkuser. There is exactly a zero percent chance that this AN thread will result in you seeing the evidence that justifies the ban/block, no matter how long you wait. Thus concludes my splanation. – Levivich 02:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• "One rule for me, and another for thee." Anyone else caught socking like this would get deep-sixed in a heartbeat, regardless of how "productive" they were. Why is this even a discussion?--Jorm (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Diffs? Please show the violation of WP:SOCK. Where are the disruptive edits? Don't just gullibly accept what you are told. Be a free thinker. Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like you need to pick a lane. It wasn't that long ago that you, personally, threatened me, myself, with sanctions because I vehemently disagreed with a weak, meaningless close. The message was clear: "Do not disobey the admins". So you believe in authoritarian positions, and that's fine, I guess? Which is it that you want me to do? Obey the admins or question them?
Three checkusers have verified this. That's all I need! Arbcom was elected by the community! I may not agree with everything they say, but the were elected and questioning everything seems to be a quick waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Strawman arguments. Baseless aspersions. Please give it a rest. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well you said it, and I'm still in awe of you saying this, too, just beforehand. You really, really need to figure out what lane you're in.--Jorm (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jorm Take the red pill. Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I like my drugs more herbal.--Jorm (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. In addition to showing the accounts are controlled by the same person, it's also necessary to show that the accounts were doing somebody wrong. Please post diffs if you've got them. How interesting that Gamaliel shows up here as well. Jehochman ^Talk 02:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my job to convince you or do homework for you. I'm going to point out that exactly zero people appear to hold your same position.
Also, wtf with the assumption of bad faith on Gamaliel's part, when you were just above complaining about a lack of good faith? You're like. Well. You're sounding like a hypocrite here. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, because I don't want you to sanction me (oh no!) I'm just saying that you sound like one.--Jorm (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, Jorm summoned me here with his magic pixiedust. Gamaliel (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I find it intriguing that you are associated with WMF DC, and WMF DC issued a press release to support the Fram ban, and now EC is banned and it very much looks like somebody has made a list of troublesome editors to ban and is taking the position that the ends justify the means. Jorm, I am not out to sanction you. Not at all. Check my logs. You will notice something very curious. You will see literally almost no time length blocks on my logs except for disruptive IPs which I can't indef. There's absolutely no chance I will block you unless you start acting severely out of character. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, man. You absolutely fucking threatened me with them, so were you lying then, or now? How do I trust you?--Jorm (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting and read what I actually said. I did not threaten you. I warned you that you were putting yourself at risk of a sanction by ArbCom, not by me. Jorm, you are at risk of being sanctioned if this matter goes to ArbCom, which seems fairly likely. Please tone it down and stop head hunting. I'm not your enemy, not at all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• This idea is bad and you should feel bad. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

About what? Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for re-closure after out-of-process re-opening

• Would some uninvolved editor or admin please re-close this? Jehochman should not have re-opened a discussion which he started and in which he is very heavily involved. Their being an admin does not give them special privileges in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How about we let the discussion go on until people are done commenting. I'm still waiting for somebody to post the evidence of abusive sock puppetry. The close misunderstood my point completely. I am not complaining about misuse of checkuser, which the closer cited when telling me to go contact the Ombudsman. It is simpler to reopen the same discussion than to go start a new one here or some place else. And please don't make up policy on the spot that doesn't exist. Jehochman ^Talk 02:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I just text searched. There's not a single diff of Eric's socking in this thread. I've asked half a dozen times for somebody to post diffs showing disruptive socking by Eric. Facts matter, my friends. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 5 September 2019 (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.

South Korea trying to manipulate Wikipedia (VANK)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

• VANK guidelines (in Korean, backup in case they take this down)

I've received this from someone @ Korean Wikipedia. The guide documents how to create an DRAFT for WP:AfC, how to bypass AfC by being autoconfirmed (with something wrong in the docs), and the initiative to change the some page title to Dokdo and East Sea. I am not sure where to post this so my natural choice is here.

— regards, Revi 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Not sure if any admins are following this page. Might be worth copying this to talk pages of potentially affected pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Left a pointer to this page on the talk pages of two primary target, Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. — regards, Revi 08:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(For the sake of centralized discussion, I would like to ask to comment on the WT:KO#FYI: VANK trying to manipulate Wikipedia. — regards, Revi 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC))

Admin needed to lock article (Extended confirmed protection)

This article is within the scope of ARBPIA: Trump_Heights

IPs has repeatedly shown up and pushed a strong non neutral pov. It needs extended confirmed protection. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. But better to list such requests at RfPP in the future. El_C 06:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why is EC protection needed to keep out IPs? And why is any protection needed at all when there have only been 4 IP edits in August (one of which was fixing a typo) and only 2 in July? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is an ARBPIA protection. We stopped protecting ARBPIA articles preemptively, but here we clearly have disruption, and usually we just need as much disruption to apply the ARBPIA ec protection. I believe this is the current practice, which can be changed (the upcoming PIA-4 case could be a good place to discuss this).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  So EC protection is the *only* protection allowed by ARBPIA and there's no admin discretion? It looks to me like it's just standard discretionary sanctions that apply to ARBPIA articles. And if it's an ARBPIA protection, shouldn't it be recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: ARBPIA includes the General Prohibition on IPs and non-EC-editors editing articles. The preferred enforcement is ECP. So there is discretion and other protection is available, but this is different to standard DS. GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thanks. What about logging the protection? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  The ARBPIA protections must be logged, but many admins are just not aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I believe this is correct. It's not often done though. There was a period where many articles were being pre-emptively ECPed and I doubt many were logged. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  OK, thanks folks. I have to say it's all the bureaucracy that always kept me away from any DS or Arb sanctions. Anyway, it was just academic interest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm aware, I'm just forgetful! El_C 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New admin user-script for processing requests at WP:REFUND

A new user script is now available for easily processing REFUND requests, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that automates most of the tedious work associated with undeleting pages, including userfications. Any feedback or new feature requests are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Likely to be really useful, thanks! N.J.A. | talk 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done! Thank you for designing this! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I went and added a small section to the administrator instructions of that process to point to the script you wrote here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)