Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295

Continued pushing from new SPI

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive294#500.2F30_ARBPIA, the same editor appears to be back again, now called Dank Chicken. See edit history here: [1].

Illustrative article histories at [2] and [3]

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean SPA? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, both. SPA who's been at SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. ansh666 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I've dropped a DS alert and a note regarding the 500/30 restriction on their talk page. If the SPI doesn't go anywhere and they keep editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, please report to AE for enforcement. By the way, you are required to notify them of this discussion. I'll do so now. GoldenRing (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't edit the template since it wasn't locked. Now I understand that no edits are allowed regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict before making 500 edits in 30 days. Thanks for informing me!
Btw, this is my first account in a couple of years. I just thought I'd clarify that because it appears some editors are doubting my credibility.
Dank Chicken (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a quick delete + revdel + block

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.

---

If it hasn't been done already: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I clicked, and it appears to have been done. Thank goodness nobody drew attention to it on a highly watched page or two. -- Begoon 10:40, 25 November 2017 (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.

Motion: Sexology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Sexology

New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol Needs YOU!

• We are the firewall that protects Wikipedia by identifying spam and malicious new submissions.
• Currently our backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed new pages stretches back to March and there are currently a lot of pages in the backlog that have passed the 90 day Google index point. This means that are many thousands of pages that are indexed by google, but have not been reviewed at all!
• We currently barely have the capacity to keep the backlog steady, and reducing it has been very difficult.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. Please see the granting conditions.
• If this looks like you, please review our instructions page and APPLY TODAY. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Bambenek related vandalism

Since it was reported to me by others, wanted to make clear that I (John Bambenek)have nothing to do woth the recent vandalism. I assume it is obvious that it was the case. If you have need to contact me, a google search will reveal legitimate contact info. 2600:1008:B013:AC44:990F:9E73:2994:C634 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone know what this is about? We just had Bambenek’s annual sockpuppet trip to DRV. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Probably the vandalism by Bambenekcd1 and American Canadian Expat In London 10404; these appear to be a vandal based in the UK, and not Bambenek. From Special:WhatLinksHere/John Bambenek, the 2014 deletion review nomination (by NigelHowells) and one of the two in 2013 (by Sharoncooper1963) are probably the same vandal. User talk:Bambenekcd1 was deleted because of impersonation, another of the vandal's accounts (Renamed Imposter Account 000001) was renamed for the same reason, although there it was by taking the former username of a user who had vanished. Peter James (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2017 (62:26C7:A9FF:B3D1:1C4E:FB42|talk]]) 21:07, 26 November 2017

• (To User:JzG) As above, those edits weren’t me as another editor and someone who did checkuser (I assume) can attest to. I can’t edit your page so I am asking here, there hasn’t been any real DrVs since 2009 which weren’t me either. Can we just after 12 years drop the WP:DEEPER and all of this please? All this went down 12 years ago, I have long since moved on and hope we can just bury this hatchet for good. RealJohnBambenek (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove edits

Hi. Please, kindly remove this and this edit done by me on my user page. Essentially, I do not want people to see those quotes in the history of my user page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Classic line, classic film. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 12:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that's the only reason I'd ever want to become an admin -- I want to know what classic line from what film. (That's OK, unsatisfied curiosity makes the world go 'round.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IP block needed

204.126.11.192 (talk · contribs) seems to pass the WP:DUCK test of being an IP sock of user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked for disruptively changing song genres. Nearly all of the IP's edits are changing the genre field in country music songs to "bro-country" with no other citation besides "Look at the lyrics". This is a very flagrant WP:OR and WP:POINT violation. The IP has been blocked before. Could someone please find a way to put a stop to this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Old indefinitely full protected articles in mainspace

Hi, fellow administrators! Given the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses discussion above, I took the next initiative and also pulled a list of articles in the mainspace that were under indefinite full protection and found that were were a handful of them (31 articles to be exact); most of which were applied 10+ years ago and definitely don't appear to be necessary or needed at all. I removed the protection from some of them (you'll see it in my log) - and I messaged some administrators asking about the protection they set so that I can verify with them that they weren't set indefinitely by accident. I'm sure that these articles don't need the indefinite full protection that I found and removed, but I wanted to create this noticeboard discussion to let everyone know (in case I unprotected any articles that do need it and for a reason I'm not aware of). If this is the case, please accept my apologies in advance, let me know, and I'll be happy to throw it back on immediately. Thanks again, everyone! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I helped find a lot of these via Quarry as above. There weren't a lot of mainspace - but just user_talk, there are nearly 3,000 - and close to 10,000 all namespaces combined. Probably something we should look at. SQL^{Query me!} 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but noting that these appear to have been saltings against re-creation, not actual articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad - Yeah, I saw that too. Some of them were edit / move indefinite full protection, some others were salts. If you (or anyone for that matter) think I should raise the protection bar up any on any of the articles I took indef full protction off from, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Since the articles you unprotected will scroll down on your log as you perform other admin tasks, could you put them on a list in your user space? I ask so that if problems pop on one of the pages -- say Dumbass -- it can be easily checked that it was once under full protection, which I think would probably ease the process of getting it protected again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Sure,  Done. The list is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: IMHO, those that were salted should keep their full, regardless of how long ago the salt was applied. Some of them will probably have been salted as the result of consensus at AfD (AfD consensuses? consensii?), while others may have had BLP/BLPREQUEST issues. The "Internet Slang" ones you've unprotected so far may or may not work out - we have no idea how many would-be vandals saw it was protected and moved on, after all. Now, a 10-year-old full protection on an actual page can probably go away, although some vandtrollers can be remarkably persistent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger - I tried to avoid changing protection on articles that I thought were likely protected due to consensus or something extreme. What specific pages concern you? I'd like to take another look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

None in particular, just general 'well, in my position...' musing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Ahh, got'cha. It's all good; I was just making sure :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ECP can be used with salted articles, so maybe there is still an opportunity to downgrade those protections. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As it is not clear whether these are still vandalism targets (although some are), it makes sense to see whether protection is still warranted. (Unfunny memes that needed SALTing ten years ago probably can be dealt with by less extreme measures now). —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:VPR about reducing old creation protections from full to ECP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

'Greed' 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.

---

On the page Greed, an IP is repeatedly adding this content which does not appear to be neutral and reliably sourced; this has been happening for the past two days despite repeated reverts. Admins, could you please give your input on the matter and help to get it resolved?

Entranced98 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I filed a request at WP:RFPP for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. As a note, requests for protection really should be taking place at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (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.

Other articles that need protection due to the Net Neutrality repeal in the U.S.

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

---

Just like the article Net neutrality, the articles Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law can be subject to vandalism or edit wars. Net neutrality law had already been vandalized --200.78.194.72 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (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.

Motion: Crosswiki issues

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.

(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

Closer needed

Could an uninvolved admin or experienced editor take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and reclose it? It had been previously closed but that was reverted for sound, albeit procedural reasons. I am INVOLVED so I can't close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - I'll do it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - You bet; always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Update of Administrator Confidence Survey results

The Administrator Confidence Survey results have been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and to plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in learning your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making at Wikimedia Foundation and by the English Wikipedia Community.

You can discuss the comments on wiki on talk page or by email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI backlog

WP:SPI is badly backlogged. We sure miss Bbb23! Bless his heart, he posted today - for the first time in more than a month - and closed a complex SPI case. But he says his time for Wikipedia still extremely limited. Any other checkusers willing to step up and handle some of these requests? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only a single endorsed request for checkuser, and it's a relist. The call-out needs to be made to Clerks to review the 6 checkuser-requested cases and Clerks and Admins to review all of the rest of the open categories. There is always a shortage of Admins willing to jump in due to the burnout to reward ratio; it's a slog.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Clerks, admins, we need you! --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the kind words, Melanie. I dealt with the relist, so there are no more masters in the endorsed category. CUs, in particular the new energetic crop, have been doing a terrific job. As Ponyo gets back up to speed, she will make her usual dent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, seeing your name pop up in my notifications was like Christmas come early. Second, I'm getting older - this is me "up to speed". There is no other gear!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All I wanted for Christmas was to see Bbb23. :-) Katie^talk 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

People know my thoughts on backlogs on here. OK, quick win time - isn't the admin newsletter due soon (1st of the month, I believe)? Along with the standard movers and shakers section, a quick paragraph about the most backlogged areas along these lines: SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. That'll hit 1,000+ user pages and maybe reach a few who aren't as active on this board. I'll even draft that bit up, if someone shows me were to go (fnar, fnar). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/12. Nihlus 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: AIV is never actually backlogged. It has a bunch of denied requests that most admins would prefer to leave stale than template deny. The solution to the AIV backlog is for vandal fighters to stop reporting good faith users. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And to stop reporting after two vandal edits. Points #2 and #3 on that board are too-often ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly also not to use AIV as 'WP:REQUESTS FOR BLOCKS', for random socks, impolite editors, and POV warriors. SQL^{Query me!} 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the random sock reports as long they're obvious. Better than clogging up SPI or ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is that they aren't usually very obvious. And when declined, someone else usually follows behind and blocks anyhow - validating, and even encouraging the reporters misuse of AIV. SQL^{Query me!} 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditto x2 @UAA — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 19:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on AIV never being backlogged. It normally gets backlogged around 12am-10am UTC. Nihlus 19:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And most of those reports are bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nihlus and Tony. I've updated the newsletter. Feel free to change anything. Hope that helps. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you probably don't need to mention RFPP. Backlogs there tend to get dealt with very quickly; they seldom last more than a few hours. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, it has been raised here a few of times in the past months. Can't do any harm to mention it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, RFPP gets backlogged for more than 24h (often Saturday European morning - may be the majority of the admins are from North America?), and, indeed, I had to post here a couple of times in a couple of months, and I have also seen others bringing it here. A good thing is that it is actually easy to handle RFPP backlogs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't making it up! Right, we'll give this a go and see if there's any improvement. I know that can be hard to quantify, but a reducation of requests here would be a good benchmark. Although, there might be a spike between the 24th and 26th of next month. Christmas is now cancelled. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series)

While checking on some non-free images, I came across Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) and Draft:Superman (1978-2017 film series). I'm not sure why but it appears that they were created by same new editor. It looks they didn't know quite how to move the page to fix the hyphen/ndash issue they had with the title of the first one they created, so they simply created it again. Not sure what to do here. Does the first one Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) need to go to MfD or can it just be tagged for speedy deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, it doesn't really matter because they're never going to pass AfC - we've already got an article Superman_in_film and they'd just be deleted A10 as duplicates. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've G7'd Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) because the creator wrote they were marking it for deletion. Normally if a user makes a cut-and-paste move we would do a history merge, but it wasn't necessary in this case because the creator was the only contributor before the cut-and-paste move, meaning there were no attribution issues to resolve. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite and Jenks24: Thanks to you both for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, if the creator of a page does a cut-and-paste move, and they're the only editor who has edited the page, then all that is necessary is to turn the original into a redirect. There's no point in a histmerge if the attribution links to a single individual. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Pretty sure that's what I said. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Misread your original post. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on article

Admins may want to put some extra eyes on the Matt Lauer article. Major news in the U.S. Could see some increased activity with BLP issues. --Jayron32 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun (Extreme partiality, vandalism and censorship)

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.

---

• Using of repetitive inline templates to vandalize the article : Tavaana: E-Learning Institute for Iranian Civil Society
• Censorship of the historic background of the mosque door approved by the official website of the mosque Great Mosque of Kufa. The Hadith is mythical and imaginary but is the base of the door name.
• Wikipedia:Content forking in the article : Iranian Constituent Assembly, 1949 to Iranian legislative election, 1950 and moving the first article to Iranian Constituent Assembly election, 1949 caused the wikidata link to be broken on the corresponding Farsi article. (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17005976&action=history) The subject of both articles is same in 1949 and 1950 but the user tries to fork them.
• more and more I have seen repetitively in different article histories

I remind the username Pahlevun (Pahlevan) means "champion" --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And I remind the admins reading that the editor who uses the sig "IsNotNationalist" is actually User:IranianNationalist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Who has been blocked for violating 3RR on another article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And is now continuing their non-nonsensical and borderline-incomprehensible complaints on their talk page. Is revoking talk page access or extending the block indicated in such a case? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I took away his talk page access since he was just using it as a venue to continue the dispute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (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.

Duplicate articles

Hey fellow admins, I don't have time at present to handle this, so I thought I'd bring this here in case someone has a few minutes. SSangeertha and Sangeertha satkunarasa appear to be the same person. I don't know if they're doing this to circumvent scrutiny, or if they're just totally confused, but both of these accounts have created:

• SSangeertha
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)
  • Puvi (actor)
  • Puviarasu Muthusamy
• Sangeertha satkunarasa
  • Draft:Puviarasu Muthusamy (2)
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)

If anyone has some time to look into this, I'd consider it a favor. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Robert McClenon, as he's had some exposure to this and may be interested in scope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the drafts, as the person had blanked and added AfD tags to them. Seems like it's been consolidated to one article now. I doubt the multiple accounts are an attempt to avoid scrutiny since they edit the exact same things and are so similar that it's pretty obvious they're the same person. ansh666 08:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for delete those articles how am i improve puvi (actor) i want to deactivate my account Sangeertha satkunarasa how to deactivate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSangeertha (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SSangeertha: I don't think it's possible for you to deactivate or delete a Wikipedia account once it has been created per WP:UP#Deleting and merging accounts. If you created multiple accounts in error, you probably can just pick the one you wish to continue using, and simply stop using the other one. If you are planning on never editing Wikipedia again with any account, then you might be able to request a Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, but it doesn't sound like this is what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Sangeertha satkunarasa per the request above. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SSangeertha - For advice on how to improve an article, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb - Duplicate articles, in my experience, are developed for two main reasons. The first is to avoid scrutiny, either to re-enter them after they have been deleted, or to overwhelm or confuse the AFC reviewers, or in more complicated situations. The second is simply in good faith by an inexperienced editor. The former is more common, and often but not always involves sockpuppetry, but the latter is not that rare, and we should assume good faith unless we have reason to suspect subterfuge. This is clearly a good-faith case, since the author has asked for help and blanked the duplicates. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, I can't wait for that report. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

HAhahah... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this... Sorry, someone had to say it... DonIago (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New vandalisim to Net Neutrality pages

The articles which I asked protection for, Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law had been both vandalized and are still open to further vandalism.

• Net neutrality law
• Net neutrality in the United States

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll get an actual response at WP:RfPP, but I don't know if there's enough to justify protecting the latter article (at least yet). ansh666 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Hi, fellow administrators! I'm currently going through the database report of indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and I see numerous IP addresses that have not only been blocked indefinitely but over 10+ years ago. I had some questions I wanted to ask, as well as some specific blocks I wanted to ask about adjusting their block duration to eventually expire. First question is: If the administrator of a company or department requests the IP to be blocked, do we still do so indefinitely? What about blocks like this made 9, 10, 11 years ago? I also saw an indefinite block on this IP with a summary that there was consensus at ANI to block - was this indefinite as well? What situations today would call for an indefinite IP address block? What blocks on this list should stay as-is? I think the issue with many of these old indefinite IP blocks is that (I believe) WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted after many of them were made. I wanted to draw some attention to this database report, and get input regarding what's on this list. I think that many administrators will find that indefinite IP blocks set by them were by accident (such as myself - I had one listed here). Any input, feedback, opinions, and assistance regarding this list would be very much appreciated; I've been running into old blocks like these, and I feel that I should at least take some initiative and re-evaluate them if they don't reflect today's etiquettes, norms, and guidelines. Thanks, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of these IPs are still assigned to the organizations that requested the blocking. What I am more interested in are the criteria by which we decide when to act on such a request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, since you recently blocked a school's IP based on an OTRS ticket, probably you ought to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My own indef block is a special situation, and I think it was a good decision — at one time, it was common for Toolserver bots to edit logged out by mistake (e.g. you'd see an IP clerking WP:UAA), despite the clear requirement at WP:BOTACC (in other words, this was a mistake, not ignorance or bad-faith bot operation), and this was one of the IPs they used, so I indef-blocked it while permitting logged-in editing. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 - Jo-Jo Eumerus - I also am interested in how we act upon requests from the organization or owner of the IP address as well. The issue I see with many of these database report entries is that the blocks are indefinite, made over 10+ years ago, with no diff or ticket number in the block summary (so it can't be reviewed), and by administrators who have long since left the project and are no longer active here. I've modified a few blocks from this report that I definitely don't believe need to be indefinite in duration anymore (old blocks and in the situation I just described); I'm interested to hear input by other admins and to get an understanding of indefinite IP blocks as a whole. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The older OTRS blocks were reviewed in 2014. Some essential reading (IMO): this stuff. I'm personally content to leave an indef-block alone where the school admin has requested a block and the IP remains assigned to the school. I probably wouldn't make any new indef blocks on request, unless there was some guarantee of a review. CAT:OP, which is typically excluded from the database report, has been in a horrible state since forever. So yes please more eyes on these blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz - I plan on going through this list to make sure that any indefinite blocks that have been set are still necessary. I've already started pinging some administrators on their user talk pages about old blocks and asking for their input about setting a definite duration. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, sorry about the edit conflicts. I've requested checkuser on the IP I blocked (to see whether it's still being used by approved bots) and on the approved bots (to see what IPs they're using), and I'll unblock this IP if it's not in use and block other IPs if they are. {{Toolserver IP}} instructs admins to indef-block the IPs in question, but if the Toolserver IPs are no longer used by WMF, we'll probably need to unblock all of them. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend - Don't be sorry; it happens and it's nobody's fault. Thanks for responding to my concerns here and for your input. This is good information that I didn't know much about, so I appreciate it greatly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've filed an WP:ARCA request about the two IPs that were blocked as arbitration enforcement; one was blocked in 2014 and the other in 2008, so I'm guessing that neither one is needed anymore. Also trying to learn more about the Toolserver IPs and the IPs currently being used by the bots. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure some of these can be unblocked.

• User:90.217.133.223 blocked four years ago and is a dynamic Sky Broadband IP, this will have been reallocated since then.
• User:63.232.20.2 was used for block evasion, but that was eight years ago.
• User:198.135.70.1 is a public IP used for vandalism but, again, is seven years old.
• Orangemike has blocked indefinitely a lot of IPs for WP:NLT because "these should be indef", but many of these are also dynamic.

• Might be worth going through them and knocking off ones like this. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• As stated in the block reason, the school contacted OTRS and wanted to have Wikipedia blocked entirely for that IP. Not sure what input I can really give, seeing as they requested it and I found no reason to decline their request. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac - I don't see anything wrong with that at all; I'm just wondering about the duration of such blocks and if we should be doing so indefinitely. The past indefinite blocks made many years ago seem quite unnecessary to me. Even if we modified them to a duration of 3+ years from today, I feel that it's better than keeping them blocked forever. Now we have IP blocks that are over a decade old, and certainly don't need to apply anymore - even if it was by request from the IP itself. I don't see why I couldn't go through this database report, verify that the IP is still in fact under the same ownership (and if not, unblock), and change these block durations so that they start counting down. I've already changed a couple from being indefinite blocks to a duration of five years from now. It's still quite a long time from today, but those blocks will at least expire someday, which I think that all IP blocks should eventually do. What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't really give a long thought-out answer because honestly I've never really given it any thought. If a school/institution specifically says "here are our IP addresses, please block them" I think we should honour that agreement until such time as they cease holding that IP. Now, something like 168.11.200.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was a "until we fix the issue", sure, go for a shorter duration.

Maybe for the existing indef's from schools that are 5+ years old we should reach out to the sysadmins and ask if they still want the protection.

Maybe in the future when we receive such OTRS/etc requests, we should ask if they want indefinite protection. My guess is that they would say yes, but at least it would give us justification for the indef.

I guess what I'm saying is that indefinite blocks might not be a bad thing, but I agree with your initial concern that there should be justification for such a move. Maybe a yearly check to ensure that the indeffed IPs still belong to the original "owners". Maybe I'm giving too many maybes. Maybe. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't think we should follow the school's wishes here for an indefinite block. If they don't wish students to be editing Wikipedia, that's their business to enforce. If the IP is editing constructively, why should we block it? (If it's not, that's quite a different story.) I certainly don't think we should overrule our usual blocking policy when it comes to indefinite IP blocks at a school's say-so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I'm okay with honoring the request from the administrator of the organization if the IP has a history of disruption and abuse and such disruption is currently ongoing, but any such blocks should be temporary and definitely not set to an indefinite length. I agree that we should not overrule our blocking policies (not just in this situation... but in general, really). They're there for a reason. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ran a quarry to filter some additional indefs, the list is at about 285 with ~15 admins being responsible for a third of the blocks:

1. User:Orangemike: 15
2. User:Jimfbleak: 12
3. User:TigerShark: 12
4. User:Yamla: 6
5. User:NawlinWiki: 6
6. User:Jayron32: 6
7. User:Mackensen: 5
8. User:Ponyo: 5
9. User:Netsnipe: 5
10. User:Materialscientist: 5
11. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me: 4
12. User:Infrogmation: 4
13. User:Kudpung: 4
14. User:Good Olfactory: 4
15. User:Andrewa: 4

SQL^{Query me!} 00:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many, though not all, of my indefinite blocks were from before WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted. I have reviewed and lifted the six blocks I placed. One (or two?) were at the request of the administrator of the IP address, but I can find no evidence that the IP address is still assigned there. --Yamla (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I probably phrased that badly. Thanks for looking into yours! I'll update the list periodically. SQL^{Query me!} 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take offense. It's worth having the blocking admins review these blocks, as a first approach. But I think eventually, other admins are going to have to review the rest. Just getting mine out of the way. :) --Yamla (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like my five remaining blocks were all for open proxies and aren't related to past checkuser activity. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas on how we would even begin unblocking User:00.00.00.00? Software automagically changes it to User:0.0.0.0. SQL^{Query me!} 01:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SQL -  Done. I used the API to find the original block log:

API response {"id": 281857, "user": "00.00.00.00", "by": "Gurch", "timestamp": "2006-10-20T09:41:50Z", "expiry": "infinity", "reason": "username", "rangestart": "0.0.0.0", "rangeend": "0.0.0.0", "autoblock": "", "allowusertalk": ""}

...and I used the block ID from the API response as the parameter to unblock the user:

API response {"id": 281857, "user": "0.0.0.0", "userid": 0, "reason": "Remove block to stop IP/User confusion with database report"}

The block log shows that I unblocked 0.0.0.0 and the page is definitely confused... but this was the sure method I could come up with that would actually unblock what was blocked. It's weird, because I went through the block log to find the block of this user, and nothing exists during the timestamp of the original block... So... I think the logs are going to look wrong... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you could publish the full report, SQL? I'd like to review any accidental indefinite blocks on IPs that I placed, but they're not easy to locate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I just ran the full query and searched the API response for any blocks that were made by you - nothing came back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are more under Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. The one listed under my name is incorrect; it was reblocked by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply by andrewa

I can only see two blocks at User:SQL/indefip that I made. I've reviewed both of these and the comments I made at the time. [5] [6] Both are soft blocks of IPs that were at the time assigned to educational institutions. And you don't know this, but both user talk pages are permanently on my personal watchlist.

It seems to me reasonable to leave those blocks there indefinitely, in view of the history before the block. And I note that Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (referred to above as if it had modified the blocking policy) is an information page. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

From Jayron32

Feel free to unblock any of mine. They are all so long ago as to be likely not needed anymore. --Jayron32 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jayron32.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Ponyo

It has never been my intent to block an IP indefinitely and is likely a result of choosing the wrong drop down option when blocking an IP and their registered account back to back. Feel free to unblock the 5 attributed to me. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo!  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from The Bushranger

Huh, I actually have one in here, way back in 2012 when the only grognard editors were pterodactyls. Pretty obvious it was a case like Ponyo's where I mis-clicked the menu, so I've gone ahead and unblocked it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for following up and for taking a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Lankiveil

My only entry is an oversight block, of User:74.143.90.218. I invite opinions on whether this is a dynamic IP and thus potentially safe to unblock. The same IP was used by the same individual over a period of at least a year to post oversightable material, so I'd rather not unblock it unless I am absolutely certain it has changed owners. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Lankiveil - Did you pull a WHOIS on this IP? It's ISP is Time Warner Cable with a 74.142.0.0/15 direct allocation, which looks like a Residential HSI connection to me, so it's most certainly not a static IP. It can certainly stay the same if the modem never disconnects past the DHCP's lease period (typically one week), but the IP can change if conditions are met (mostly with disconnecting the modem or changing services). So if it helps at all: It's possible that the IP can change, but it's normal to see it stay the same for a long period of time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Warner Cable dynamic IPs can stay the same for *years*, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::As a former Time Warner Cable residential customer, just a heads up - I held the same IP for roughly 2 years. SQL^{Query me!} 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, that does appear to be a static IP assigned to the business portion of Time Warner. See the "biz.rr" in the record here. Cross check indicates that it is static. That IP block was an acquisition from Insight Communications and I believe that the business static lines would have been preserved and not reassigned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - Ah, shit. I didn't dig that far deep; guess I should have :-). I didn't notice the business registration - thank you for pointing this out to me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I thought that it was residential home cable, but given that the account was posting the same nonsense over a period of months, I was a bit dubious about taking the block off. Thanks for the information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

School IPs and block evasion

How does one typically handle a {{SharedIPEDU}} that's evading a block?

Im4god persistently disrupted Church of God of Prophecy with edits like this, so I recently filed an ANI thread that resulted in JzG blocking the account indefinitely. I just noticed this edit, which is obvious block evasion and would easily lead to a {{uw-sockblock}} if it were made with an account, but for one thing it was a day and a half ago, and secondly the IP is registered to a community college and makes edits on lots of topics. Should this just be reverted and ignored (I already reverted it), or is a block somehow appropriate? This is the first disruptive edit by an IP since January 2016 (and there were several IP edits since then that undid disruption), so there's no way that we should be semiprotecting it right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Close RfC

Hello, proposing that someone close an RfC located Talk:Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations#RfC:_Whose_photographs_should_be_included_in_this_article? Hopefully this is the right venue to request. I have voted in the RfC so maybe I am not allowed to close it. The RfC is about two weeks old and I think consensus has pretty clearly been reached. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed parts of the RFC, but wasn't sure about the remaining one, so someone else should check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

1. The proper mechanism is at WP:ANRFC. 2. I have replied on the article's talk page, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancient User Sub-Pages

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

---

Hey all, I came across three ancient user sub-pages from both my account now and predecessor handle "Husnock". These are unused pages and should be deleted. The last one seems to be a page someone else created without my knowledge. Delete them please! -O.R.^Comms 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Husnock/RebuildProjectSpecialRanks
• User:OberRanks/Meadowoods
• User:OberRanks/new article

All deleted as a user request to delete pages in their own userspace (CSD U1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (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.

Srebrenica massacre

The article Srebrenica massacre has been tagged as WP:POV by a single-purpose account. I have removed the tag, with an explanation and an invitation to the editor, XerJoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to explain their thinking. They have reinstated the tag. I think the situation could benefit from other eyes than mine. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid we have an instance of WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm already watching and reverted the re-addition of the tag and left a further message on XerJoff's user talk. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2-factor authentication

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 have activated 2 factor authentication and documented the numerics that was requested to be kept safe. However, due to mobile resetting my app and the wikipedia related data linked to my wikipedia account have been deleted. Now I have downloaded the app and want to add the information again. To do this I tried to deactivate 2 factor authentication to get a new barcode but to deactivate it asks for a code from the app. It is a catch 22, how can I fix this? What is the use of those numeric codes I have kept? In a nutshell, I need to deactivate to reactive and get the barcode to enter in to the app for future logins. Thanks. Gharouni ^Talk 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Solved. I have used one of the codes and it worked. Thanks. Gharouni ^Talk 17:56, 5 December 2017 (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.

ACE2017 MMS

A very large (50000+ targets) mass-message run will be sent out later today for the WP:ACE2017 notifications. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination#Almost_ready_to_send and reply there if you have any concerns. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections

Has the voting been restarted? I received a notification about the Arbcom elections a few hours ago and when I went to double check that my vote has remained submitted I find that apparently nobody has voted so far. Am I just getting an error or what's the deal here? I know hundreds of us had already voted so I'm confused as to what's going on. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The voting is taking place on the WMF SecurePoll, not the enwiki SecurePoll. You're looking for [7]. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thanks Rob. What's happened is that when I click the voting link it takes me to the en.wiki voting server first and then later transfers me to the WMF server when I try to vote. As I'd already voted I went to the results first. So when I clicked "SecurePoll" there it took me to the en.wiki results rather than the WMF results. Good, my vote, along with all others, still exists. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I've updated the header on Special:SecurePoll to reference that the logs may be on the other server with a link. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request clarification of WP:BLANKING policy

Resolved

I’ve been an IP editor on Wikipedia for quite some time under various IP addresses, so please don’t question the legitimacy of this thread.

Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I’ve seen numerous blocked users remove content from their user talk page, or even blank it altogether. This is allowed by policy, with the exception of declined unblock requests. However, I’ve seen numerous administrators and other users who have reverted the blanking of a blocked users talk page by the user themselves, often with rollback or another automated anti-vandalism tool without providing an edit summary or other notification. First, that is blatant misuse of rollbacker userrights (in the cases of rollback) since talk page blanking when done by the user who the talk page is for is not vandalism. Additionally, since users are allowed to blank their talk pages, blocked or not, it is incorrect for the admins/users to revert them, let alone revert them as vandalism.

Sometimes, administrators even go so far as to change the block settings to include “cannot edit own talk page” simply due to blanking that did not include declined unblock requests. The most recent example of this that I can find is Special:Contributions/Harry0gle. Admin TheresNoTime revoked talk page access simply because the user removed the block notice and some other content, both of which are perfectly allowed. To make matters worse, the first editor who reverted the talk page did not leave a notification nor an edit summary, and TNT did not leave {{blocked talk-revoked-notice}} upon removing TPA nor an edit summary. The removal of talk page access here was incorrect. Period.

Another, older example of this is Special:Contributions/Ryan_HoganBruen's_life. Again, they removed content from the talk page that did not include declined unblock requests, yet multiple users reverted them and Favonian then revoked talk page access for no apparent reason. At least Favonian left the talk revoked notice, but no notifications were given prior, and, notifications would not have even been needed in this case or the case above since the blankings were perfectly allowed.

TL;DR I would like to request a clarification of the WP:BLANKING policy that allows users, blocked or not, to blank their talk page with the exception of declined unblock requests. I’ve seen admins and other users not allow users to blank their talk pages in accordance with this policy, and therefore I would like to know whether or not the policy has changed and just failed to be updated, or if we are looking at cases of misuse of rollback, or, at the worst, a case of WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. 159.122.86.43 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in the specific case of User talk:Ryan HoganBruen's life, I hit the revert button while trying to review the unblock request, though I grant there was an hour from the blanking to my revert. Users are normally free to remove anything they want from their talk pages, with a few exceptions. An exception is a decline for a currently-active block. At least once in the past, I (incorrectly) reverted such blanking when it turned out the block had expired a few hours before. I believe policy should prohibit blanking of block messages, too, not just declined-unblocks. This is particularly true of users like Ryan HoganBruen's life who are blocked indefinitely. I want to be clear, though; that's what I think policy should be. It isn't what our policy currently says, to the best of my knowledge. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree; block notices should be required to stay as long as the block is active. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yamla I also agree that active block notices should not be removed. You should consider raising this elsewhere. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Harry0gle's talk page blanking was reverted (twice), let alone revoking talk page access, as policy specifically allows the talk page to be blanked. Perhaps There'sNoTime can explain? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch both, that was a daft TPA revoke in Harry0gle's case - I was asked by an editor to do so, and didn't give due thought to the action. Normally I am well aware of WP:BLANKING, to the point of reminding others to not edit war over the same sort of situation. I've undone my change of the original block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I revoked Ryan's talk page access and reverted, not because of blanking, but because of this silliness – the final confirmation that he had nothing worthwhile to say. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Makes total sense to me. That's just plain disruptive.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For me I must have had a slip up, I honestly recalled the guideline incorrectly an honest mistake and I appologize. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated, intentional copyvios and refusal to remove them

I've never quite encountered a long-time editor such as this fellow, and certainly not one who refuses to remove likely copyright violations and then intentionally puts up more of them as a dare. This concern is regarding User:Director and the following edits as well as the warnings placed regarding each one: copyvio #1, request to remove, response to request results in copyvio #2, my response to second copyvio. Because there was no response at all to this, I left a warning on the user's own talk page here, his response was this and then this at the article talk page with further copyright violations.

The editor has a pretty extensive block log (longer than mine, which one doesn't see every day, admittedly) for edit warring, harassment, personal attacks, and disruptive editing: [8]. I have not reverted the copyvios in question as I'm limiting myself to 1RR and in the event of blatant vandalism, only. If it turns out I'm making something out of nothing and shouldn't have filed this report, my apologies for doing so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Its all true. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked (48hr), revdel'd. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, just to clarify something you stated (but has since been removed via your own revert) - is removing a copyvio seen the same as removing vandalism? In other words, would it have been an acceptable use of 1RR for me? Mind you, while I am on a 1RR restriction, I have imposed upon myself my restriction of 1RR to be in the way of blatant vandalism. However you reply, I'm not so sure exercising my 1RR in this instance would have done anything more than raise tensions and possibly start a disruptive edit war on the part of the other editor. Thoughts? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I blocked partly because of the WP:COPYVIOEL violations, but also because Director was being pointy and intentionally being disruptive with their further replies. We've all linked to a funny image at one time or another, and if you hadn't said anything probably no one would be blocked right now. It was a bad call for you to call them out on their youtube video, but they crossed the line by following that up with multiple minor copyvio violations. It probably wasn't your intention, but they took the bait (i.e. they dug their own hole). I'd be more cautious in the future, because there's no point in this whole song-and-dance when immature comments can just as easily be ignored entirely. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. And no, that wasn't my intention at all. I never considered it a possibility he would respond like that. Like I said in my initial post above, I've never encountered an editor who has done something like that before. Truthfully, I was quite shocked at the response. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Director does stuff like that. He's also a master at the not-quite-personal-attack - when you ask him to stop, he dares you to report him. This discussion [9] (the RfC I opened prior to the one that you opened) is just chock full of such antics directed at me:

• Me: "Do you think it might be possible that you could express an opinion about which photo is the most appropriate to use in the lede without violating the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, or is that asking too much of you?..."
• Director: "If you believe I've violated NPA, you know where to report me..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As to the question of removal of copyright violations: In clear, blatant, unambiguous cases - yes, they need to be removed quickly - and in my opinion, even while ignoring revert limits; however, before you decide this for a specific case, you need to be sure it is a copyvio - and not text released under a free license (and perhaps copied to an unfree site while ignoring licenses). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And if User:Winkelvi could adjust their signature to something more readable, that would be fine. This is regarding their last sojourn to this noticeboard, where an admin suggested to them that "you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to." Cheers! SerialNumber54129 08:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Director is confrontational and I am sure he knows that but I can guarantee that he knows the rules. In this specific instance I believe that under the prudence concept and for the avoidancy of doubt those images had to be considered copyrighted, but I think that administrating a block to the user because he posted the aforementioned material is perhaps on the hard side. Or at least a warning should have been issued before the block. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, Od Mishehu's point is a good one - I actually stumbled across a case of "reverse Flickrwashing" yesterday (US military photograph, claimed as full copyright on a company's account). There be minefields everywhere out here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Observation Without wishing to rehash the above and not questioning any current blocks, I will just say that if I had a block log as long as Director's, I would tread very carefully in an effort to avoid drawing untoward attention to myself. Yet this editor seems to delight in it. And somehow has avoided a long term block. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Quite. Director is probably quite lucky that I didn't happen on this one first, because I would have indeffed them until they learned how to actually work collegially. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• To respond to the two of you, @Ad Orientem and Black Kite: Thoughts like those are exactly what I had in mind when I declined the second unblock request at User talk:Director#December 2017 2. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tool to see editor to editor interaction

I think there is a tool that can show where two editors have intersected in edits, but can't seem to find the specific tool. Can someone provide a link? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users&startdate&enddate&ns=%2C%2C&server=enwiki --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Transient elastography

Protected this due to multiple COI accounts editing the article without disclosure. Wondering other peoples thoughts regarding protecting articles when blocked paid editors move to IPs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable response to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requests for protection

Can we get some administrative assistance over at WP:RFPP, please? Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

All caught up. Cyberbot says "3 pending requests remain" but I don't see them, maybe the bot is malfunctioning? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector It was at 35+ last night, when I left this message. Regardless, thank you to the admins for your swift action. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Errant punctuation causing confusion?

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.

---

Masreliez's_theorem is recreated content that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem. I CSD-marked it, but it seems that the admins cannot figure this out. Can someone here do so?

jps (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've declined your CSD because this new version is significantly different to the one deleted in 2010. The close for that discussion also stated that "a new more focused article might be more acceptable". If you think it should be deleted I think you will need to seek a fresh consensus. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the original AfD was seven years ago, and it was different content. I think declining this was a legit action to take. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, the version is almost exactly the same according to the cached version I can see. However, we can't start a new AfD because the page already exists because I had to create it to try to achieve the proper linking in the CSD notice. Also, this was created by a globally locked account and a banned user. So are you both saying you're taking responsibility for the recreation of this deleted content? Because that's what I'm seeing here. jps (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The AFD page already existing can be overcome. While it is true the content isn't almost exactly the same (you may be looking at an incorrect version of what it looked like when deleted). However, it is much less well developed than the deleted page, and doesn't address any of the problems the original article had that led to its deletion. It isn't more focused, it's just shorter. I don't understand why a new AFD would be needed. The original author is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and no one has substantially edited the article. It appears the globally locked editor was likely a returning blcoked/banned user. Why can't it be G4'ed and G5'ed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I am super frustrated with this, though. I thought I was just doing normal housekeeping, but now I'm all confused. jps (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I cannot look at deleted content, but I think if you go back in history you will see that this was the version of the article that used to exist at one point. jps (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• The red-link problem is due to the fact that a curly apostrophe was used in the original and the recreated articles, but the recreated article was moved to Masreliez's theorem (straight apostrophe, lowercase t). Meanwhile, jps made a redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's Theorem) with a straight apostrophe but an uppercase T. If CSD is not satisfied, a new AfD is needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem (2nd nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see what the issue is regarding the creation of the AFD nomination. For what it's worth, consider this an endorsement of the decline of the G4, because it is a substantially different article than the one that was deleted. I've created the AFD page here. ජපස, please feel free to replace my text with your own. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2017 (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.

Requests to secure Anatoly_Shariy article from user Goo3 who harms and leads illegally

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

---

Please! He came from Ukarainian Wikipedia, user Goo3 harms and conducts illegally in relation to this public person, and also he leads edits wars, as in the English version, and in the Ukrainian! Block him from this harasmetn! -- Westmclaren 18:00 December 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add: OP is indef blocked here and account is now globally locked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2017 (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.

Mass U2/G6 deletion request

I have created User:Train2104/bad userspace moves off quarry:query/23382, which is a list of all redirects from userspace to mainspace where the page name of the origin is the same of the target, and the user account does not exist. These are most/all the result of pagemove namespace-mistakes. Could someone please delete them all, as U2 and G6 obviously created in error? (feel free to find-replace the noredirect templates to plain wikilinks, if it makes your script easier to handle) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... (want to check whether they are all indeed U2 eligible) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The database claims so... This list is those whose eventual mainspace target is different from the redirect name, perhaps the result of two moves. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

For example this one is not U2-eligible. I would say it is also not G6-eligible (probably needs to go to MfD)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, bunch of actually existing accounts there. And there is no magic word to tell whether an user exists... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really strange. I joined the user table to see if there exists a user name by that page name, and it reported no. That's bizarre. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still very useful, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The usernames the query reports as existing all contain no spaces. Could it be something to do with the way spaces are stored or processed, possibly that underscores are returned by the page name query and the usernames contain spaces, not underscores? Peter James (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick way to tell whether a username exists is to look at the "Tools" menu on the left when you're viewing the user page - if the account exists there's a "User contributions" link, and if it doesn't there isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(I've looked at about a dozen in the list, and only three of those accounts do not exist - the rest do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC))

It also shows when you try to edit the user (talk) page. But in this case Train2104's list does not show this information, making reviewing these requests a pain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have already done everything down from H, and Jo-Jo Eumerus has done A and B, so that we only have five letters to handle.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a part 2, but it seems to contain more false positives. I'm going to try to see how to better filter them. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Filtered. Thanks to @Bradv:'s Quarry query for the join fix. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ya, that was much better. Acted on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! – Train2104 (t • c) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd AE sanction appeal

An AE case was opened against me yesterday[10]. I violated AE 1RR sanction on Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations here [11]. The AE case cited AP2 as the underlying Arbitration case. However, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted that he had placed the 1RR restriction per the BLP arbcom case, not AP2. BLP wasn't raised as an issue in the AE discussion. For the 1RR violation on the article, TonyBallioni unilaterally proposed a 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. In fact, Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented that he considered that my edits were furthering the cause of BLP but not beyond 1RR infraction. I asked TonyBallioni for diffs related to BLP as DS are not arbitrary and must fall within the scope. He did not answer the request, rather he closed the AE with DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. and logged it under BLP discretionary sanctions.

This seems rather Kafkaesque in that the punishment is to stop BLP disruptions but the infraction was edit warring over non-BLP contributions and no BLP issues listed. Putting aside the current debate about 1RR as a DS, creating a BLP topic ban over non-BLP edits seems to overreach. No other admin proposed a BLP topic ban. It seems odd that Roy Moore was placed under a 1RR AP2 DS by TonyBallioni while Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations was placed under 1RR BLP DS and the sanction was a topic ban on American politicians. Anyway, the sanction didn't seem to have consensus on the AE page and it looks to me as if the punishment was created to fit a poor DS choice rather than to address the violation. Imagine I edit warred on Roy Moore with exact same edits, no reasonable admin would issue a BLP discretionary sanction because BLP wasn't applicable, they'd just block for edit warring. Common sense would dictate that the same thing on a page that isn't a biography warrants similar treatment, not imposition of an out-of-scope discretionary sanction. This is the admin version of CRYBLP when it doesn't exist.

Please remove the sanction. I don't plan on editing that article again. --DHeyward (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: If you're not editing the article again, why do you want the sanction removed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it prevents him from contributing to other BLPs. It's a very broad topic ban considering this one is the only one he is cited for.--MONGO 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@MONGO: DHeyward is a big boy, he can answer his own questions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

'unconstructive' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Please don't hat my questions, DHeyward. If you want a topic ban removed, you should be able to answer questions like 'why do you want it removed'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than 24hrs on an article that's under 1RR. Yes, BLP came up, though indirectly. The "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions" means it's up to the closing admin to decide what sanction works best. If this had been taken to 3RR you might have gotten a two week outright block. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It was logged as a BLP sanction because I had placed the article under 1RR/consensus required to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article was "highly visible" under AP2, when the article was obviously a sensitive BLP article that would likely be subject to content disputes. DHeyward had a 3RR violation on a 1RR article and his self-revert appeared to be gaming the system by removing all of the content he objected to. When he responded to the AE post, he didn't see how his edits were about a living America politician (despite being on an article about probably the most visible American politician BLP scandal around). Given the large violation of the sanction (4 reverts on a 1RR article), and then a "self-revert" that removed all the content he objected to, this was a flagrant violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page, with no realization as to why they were an issue. Because of his response at the AE page, and here, focusing on the technicality of what was reverted rather than the broader disruption issues, I went ahead and made this a topic ban rather than 0RR.
  Re: logging it as a BLP sanction and the wording: since the page sanctions were placed under the BLP case authority, I limited it to living politicians rather than a broader post-1932 ban, which would have covered much more than this. If DHeyward or the community would prefer that this be logged as a AP2 sanction, I'm fine with making that adjustment, but I would have made the same topic ban either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever reading an admin threatening to increase a sanction when their actions were questioned. And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts. It was a 1RR vio and I admitted to that. Rewriting from scratch is not a revert. You can read my response at AE to see why. I admitted that it was a 1RR vio, why would you think anything in my response indicated that I didn't understand? --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• That article is a lose-lose situation. Wikipedia is wise to make it clear nothing on this website is to be taken as fact and these articles and especially spinoffs as the one in question are truly the worst rags on this website. Tony would be doing you a favor to ban you from that article and related ones, but seems excessive to implement a ban that is so broad.--MONGO 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts" - that is completely false. You actually made TEN edits to the article within 24 hours. FOUR of these were reverts, which is pretty plain to see. So no, I did NOT "count every edit". This is easy to check so I'm not sure what you're trying to pull here. This is a bit like when you reverted all the text you disliked and then claimed that was a "self-revert" which immunized you from 1RR. It's just straight up WP:GAMEing. Volunteer Marek  05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't plan on increasing the sanctions (I'm sorry if that sounded like that), and I certainly don't mind having my actions questions ever: I make mistakes and believe very deeply in admin accountability. My concern here is that you didn't understand (and still don't seem to) that your edits were disruptive on an article that was about an American politician and that this wasn't just a !RR violation, but a major one (4 reverts on a 1RR). I choose this sanction to do my best to prevent blocking you and also to keep the topic ban limited to the sanction area that I had placed the article under. I think it was justified because how large the violation was and then trying to game the system. I believe that this is a serious level of disruption on a very sensitive article and the willingness to try to game the system demonstrates the potential for disruption on similar articles that are under very similar sanctions. I did my best here to avoid a block, because I absolutely hate blocking good contributors. My goal here was only to prevent disruption, not to punish anyone.
  As I posted on the ArbCom page, my home internet isn't currently working and if I post tomorrow it'll likely be limited or not at all. I feel I've explained my reasoning here, so I'm comfortable letting others judge at this point. I just wanted to point out that if I don't respond, it isn't for ignoring anyone, but is for a technical reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since you didn't reply at AE to my statement, I can't understand why you think I don't understand it was disruptive. It violated 1RR. You don't seem to want to hear that this[12] isn't a revert. It moved and rewrote the material. It's still a 1RR violation but you are mischaracterizing it as 3RR. No content was removed. Lastly, Volunteer Marek is topic banned from all articles related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. That article prominently lists Trump as a person that believes the accusations are false and these edits are about a false accusation. Reverting banned editors is not a violation but again, you didn't address that when I raised it. It doesn't excuse my edit warring but it certainly is food for thought. In what way do I not understand it? My statement was that my edits were not related to BLP and were noted by Masem as a fix to the problematic edit by VM. BLP issues were not raised by anyone which should be a predicate for a BLP sanction. I have no blocks for edit warring in over 10 years editing so I think I get it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly a revert. You say "It moved and rewrote the material". Yeah. Rewrote it to remove the edits and text made by another user. That's a revert and you've been here long enough to know that. So stop pretending otherwise.

I am not banned nor have I made any edits that violate any sanction I might be subject to. Once again you are being deceptive and dishonest. This is a third instance of such behavior in this particular incident ( (1) Fake "self-revert" that actually was an additional revert, (2) False claim that I "counted every edit" rather than actual reverts, (3) That somehow my edits violate some sanction (they don't)). This is a pattern now DHeyward, and it amounts to WP:ASPERSIONS in addition to WP:GAMEing, which itself is sanctionable. Let me repeat - you are lucky to get away with the mild and short topic ban here. But by all means, keep going...  Volunteer Marek  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here's another falsehood. There are four reverts here. Up above you try to weasel out of one of them by claiming that it was a "rewrite" (which included removal of text another editor added, which still makes it a revert). That would still leave you with THREE reverts on a 1RR article. At WP:AE you claimed this edit was not a revert because it "The third on his list ([59]) was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit". Look at that edit. You are actually adding the rape claim that is not in the source. Quote: "her story led the post to believe she was lying about being raped by Moore". The version before your edit did NOT have the word "rape" in it. You just used a false edit summary which claimed you did something OPPOSITE of what you actually did, and then repeated that same falsehood at WP:AE. And since this also reverted other text (like the section title) it was most certainly a revert.

That makes it FOUR instances of outright deception and ... mistruthing, in just this one particular instance. Why should anyone believe anything you claim?  Volunteer Marek  05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that I look at your behavior here (I didn't bother reading your comment at WP:AE) and the way you repeatedly and false portray your and other's actions - when it's very easy to check - I actually DO think the sanction should be increased, per WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TEND and even WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  05:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

People can read the diff. That one edit is not a revert, the others were and I don't dispute it. You are still subject to the Trump topic ban[13]. The iban was lifted. Are you not ... banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. The lede prominently features President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore,[13] and accepted Moore’s denials of the alleged conduct. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes they can. So let's go through the diffs again:

• In this edit you falsely claim to be performing a "self-revert". Actually, you're just making another revert, restoring your own preferred version. This deception was noted by admins at WP:AE (User:MastCell and User:GoldenRing)
• In this edit you falsely claim that you are "removing" a rape allegation. Actually, you are ADDING a rape allegation to the text.
• In this statement you falsely claim that the above edit (which you already lied about) was not a revert. But in addition to you adding (not removing) the rape allegation, you are clearly ALSO making other changes. Like changing the section heading and restoring your own version of the text. It's clearly a revert.
• In this statement you falsely claim that " VM counted every edit rather than reverts". No. You made TEN "every edits". I reported the FOUR which were reverts. This is easily checked at article history [14]
• In this statement and in your comment above you falsely claim that I am violating a topic ban. I'm not. In fact, you brought this up at AE and nobody took you seriously. In addition the admin who placed the restriction agrees. You can always file a new WP:AE report against me and ask. Well, except you can't, cuz that may violate YOUR topic ban.

You've been on Wikipedia for some time. You know what a revert is. You know what an edit summary is. You know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. And just generally, as a mature adult, you should know what a lie is. You're trying to WP:GAME the system by making these false claims. This has already been noticed at WP:AE by a couple administrators, and here you are providing more evidence as to the nature of your behavior.

Appeal should be rejected, additional sanctions should be placed for these kinds of dishonest shenanigans. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So VolunteerMarek is under a article ban and two Ibans yet they are here screeching for further penalties against you? That's cute.--MONGO 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mongo, since you're not here to contribute to the discussion, please go away. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok...just find your arrogance to suggest that DHeyward is NOTHERE when you yourself are under a topic ban and two Ibans to be rather humorous, which is sad considering I concur with DHeyward that the article in question appears to be one that you are trying to make into your own little POV coatrack.--MONGO 06:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a short duration topic ban and an IBAN which are completely unrelated to this issue. DHeyward violated a discretionary sanction and was sanctioned for it. Now he's here trying to spin and twist in a dishonest way (see above). Where exactly am I being "arrogant"? You sure you're not just trying to deflect attention from your buddy's misdeeds? Like I said, if you don't really have much to contribute here, then find some other places to annoy people. Volunteer Marek  09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar case today, the admin said the article Patriot Prayer fell within the same topic ban as Volunteer Marek and therefore reverting James J. Lambden(Lambden and Marek were tbanned) and the reverting editor wasn't subject to 1RR.[15]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the edits you did that was used as an excuse to see you sanctioned was this removal which MrX claims there is strong consensus for it being in the article. The section you removed was a story involving the Washington Post that was published by...the Washington Post...in other words a first party source. Since when are first party sources used especially on a sensitive subject such as this article. I'd say your removal was fully in keeping with REF, BLP and NPOV and followed the sprit of sourcing especially pertaining to BLPs as documented in this section of identifying reliable sources. I see on the article talkpage others mentioned this issue had been widely reported outside the Washington Post, but in the version you removed from the article, only the Washington Post source was used to substantiate the claims. On the talkpage there are several who claim there are many sources in the MSM besides the WaPo, but offer none in the article at the time of your edit.--MONGO 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If the story has been widely reported by sources other than the Washington Post, then it seems to me that the best course of action is to add two or three of the best of those sources to the article, rather than complaining about it here. But some folks seem to love endless debates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet no one did so when DHeyward took it down it only had the WaPo reference, so his action was correct. It was restored by MrX still lacking further sourcing.--MONGO 08:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of you, MONGO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Im not adding it in...even with supporting cites I think that section misdirects to equating Moore as having something to do with the situation with the WaPo.--MONGO 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So you repeatedly mentioned the lack of citations, which were readily available, even though your real objection was on another basis? That seems strange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the claim the other sources were readily available...those that wanted that passage included did on the talkpage. Yet those wanting inclusion never added them to the article text, not even when they reverted DHeyward who took down the version that lacked the other references. Getting back to where we were here the issue was brought to AE by one with a currently checkered history themselves, and hardly room to complain about others, and the sanction was applied with excessive zeal and misdirection likely due to their inability, not unlike your own, to identify and apply a reasonable and prudent resolution.--MONGO 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've read every single comment in this thread about three times and I'm still not seeing a legitimate reason to overturn. You admitted to breaching 1RR, and you were legitimately slapped with a DS for 1 month. Apart from not liking that, what exactly is your grounds for the invalidation of a legitimate DS? Swarm ♠ 09:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a BLP topic ban when the only comment for BLP by admins praised my edit as correcting a BLP. BLP sanctin, whether AE or not, should not punish editors that have improved. A 24 hour block would be over now and there's no reason to suspect it would be longer. This is AE overreach and the admin version of CRYBLP. How does a broad and long BLP punishment stop a single page incident that didn't involve BLP edits? ArBCom cases are named and scoped. --DHeyward (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I have explained to you three times now, you violated 1RR (and pretty massively) on a page where 1RR had been placed under the BLP case authority. That is why it has been logged and worded as a BLP sanction: you were causing disruption on a BLP article so the goal is to prevent disruption on similar BLP articles. There doesn’t need to be a BLP violation for you to be sanctioned for causing disruption on a BLP page where you violated specific page level sanctions. You are essentially asking that the page level sanctions for 1RR only be enforceable if it involves a BLP violation, which would make them almost useless at preventing the disruption they were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might benefit the project to observe the repeated dishonesty here in the service of a partisan goal. This is merely the latest component of a long-standing pattern of behavior. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Why are we banning users from BLP for erring on the side of caution with BLP? DHeyward said he wouldn’t edit that article anymore so the purpose of this sanction no longer exists. I also agree with MarkBernstein’s comments about partisan goals (aspersions aside) but not regarding the editor he intends. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• He's NOT "erring on the side of caution with BLP". He's erring on the side of misrepresenting sources and his own and others' edits. He's also erring on the side of making four reverts on a 1RR article, then getting cute by pretending that an additional revert which removes all the text he doesn't like is a "self-revert" so it's all good. Volunteer Marek  17:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's right. It's been a string of deceptions and fact manipulation:

• This edit in which he added a fraudulent claim in with other legitimate claims, probably in order to discredit all of the claims. He even spiced it up by adding "rape".
• This blatant lie, repeating his fist revert and calling it a self-revert.
• Falsely accusing me of violating 1RR at AE.
• Wikilawyering to find a loophole in discretionary sanctions, so that he can go back to business as usual.

This is not the first time we've seen this kind of behavior from DHeyward at American an Politics articles. Here is an example of him making a false claim about a source, then when it's proven that his claim is false, he drops out of the discussion like it never even happened. This topic ban is long overdue.- MrX 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Coming to my talkpage to grave dance after DHeyward was given this topic ban demonstrates clearly you are NOTHERE to work collegially.--MONGO 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... nobody "grave danced" on YOUR (not even DHeyward's) talk page. MrX was just responding to you going around doing a lot of smack talkin' about other editors behind their back. I mean, it wasn't even addressed at DHeyward but at you, and your comments, directly. How hard is it to tell the truth folks?  Volunteer Marek  16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. It was right after DHeyward was sanctioned. You two calling people liars, doing nonstop character assassinations here and elsewhere deserve whatever wrath you get. The admin corps doesn't seem to want to reign either of you in...but that doesn't surprise me one iota considering their track record for blatant bias.--MONGO 16:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And this gem of gaming the system here...clearly. Tip toeing around being sanctioned by playing a narrow game of counting the hours since the last edit is still gaming the system.--MONGO 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully suggest that this back-and-forth is just making things worse. If some party believes there are grounds for a filing, I'd say go ahead and do that. I don't think rancor here solves much, but I am also often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The topic ban is for living American politicians, most of the controversial ones are under a similar page level restriction (1RR/consensus required). It is not a general BLP sanction, and I don't like that it is being presented as such here. If this had been an AP2 case it would have been a American-politics wide topic ban rather than simply dealing with living ones, and I did try to limit its scope in that way. The reason for it still exists: the editor made 4 reverts (and yes, I've examined them many times), and then tried to game the system by removing all the content he objected to against talk page consensus. Given how volatile that behavior is and the attempt to game the sanction, I felt, and still feel, that a topic ban is warranted to prevent further disruption on articles about American politicians, which are obviously an extremely controversial topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why not apply it to that one article then? The shotgun approach prevents him from helping improve other articles. DHeyward has done a lot of good for the project, especially on breaking news articles, and this is how he’s rewarded. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe it would help if you converted this to an explicit AP2 topic ban as it usually is applied. That might help reduce the ambiguity in the minds of some regarding whether this is a BLP topic ban. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I had originally applied this as BLP restrictions to the page because it was clearly contentious about a living person, and where content disputes could be expected, because I wanted to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether or not it was a high profile article under AP2 since it was a split from the main Roy Moore article. I logged DHeyward's topic ban as a BLP sanction because it was for a violation of that page level restriction, but I think I made it abundantly clear in the message and here that it only dealt with living and recently deceased American politicians, not every living person.
  If DHeyward would prefer this to be logged as an AP2 topic ban, then I'm fine with that, but I think the sanction is still valid as applied: he violated a page level restriction he was aware of, and I limited the topic ban to the topic area which the case had been placed under sanctions for (BLP). There was clear disruption occurring on a living American politician's page, and my goal was to prevent it from spreading to others given how large a violation of the restrictions it was. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. Maybe this is a general argument for always imposing the standard sanctions for BLP, AP2, or whatever case applies rather than tailoring them to specific circumstances. It might mean the editor in question is subject to a more stringent restriction. But this isn't the first case where I've seen confusion when an admin tried to work out a less broad sanction. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't that defeat the purpose of them being discretionary? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that the appeal of this same sanction at WP:AE has been denied by four administrators. [16] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The appeals were on different grounds. This was brought to AN to discuss the propriety of a topic ban under the banner of the BLP arbitration case and is broadly related to all admistrators. The appeal at AE was because AE admins found that Volunteer Marek's edits to the article in question violated his topic ban per the Atsme decision. That was a BANREVERT appeal and in fact, VM should have been sanctioned for bringing it to AE in violation of that same topic ban in the first place. Arbitration does not mean arbitrary. --DHeyward (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No recourse when editors behave obnoxiously

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 recent interaction I had is extremely typical of Wikipedia these days: I made an edit to improve an article, and I left an edit summary explaining why. Did I get thanked for this? Oh no. I received a message from a user, accusing me of making a change without explaining it; meanwhile, they undid my edit without explaining why. Repeated requests yielded no explanation for their revert. I asked them on their talk page; they deleted that message too, again without explanation. They also filed a knowingly false report at AIV. In the end they reverted 6 times in a short space of time, but received no warning or punishment for their actions. The page they decided to attack me regarding is now protected, and my improvement to it was removed. No-one explained at any point why they had undone my edit. Such behaviour is extremely common. Looking at the user's editing history, I can see they just love to tell people off. They run around leaving template messages on as many talk pages as they can while undoing as many edits as they can. As far as I can see, no-one sees anything even slightly undesirable in this. So my question is, when someone falsely accuses you of not explaining your edit, and undoes it without explanation, and deletes your messages asking for an explanation, without explanation, and files false claims against you, and gets an article protected and your improvements removed, for no reason, what recourse is there? I believe the answer is, none whatsoever. If I am wrong, tell me where such issues can be raised. If I am right, I hope you might consider that this is a serious issue where recourse is required.118.163.32.172 (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Looks like a sock of WP:BKFIP. I've blocked. Hut 8.5 07:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) What death wish brings banned editors, sockmasters and LTAs to bring attention to themselves by filing reports on noticeb... Oh, right, "attention to themselves." Sad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Here are the edits by the IP editor to the article on Otoya Yamaguchi, where he edit warred to remove the text "that made him famous", removed a link and some other words. The edit summaries where given are in brackets. 06:05, 10 December 2017 by 119.246.242.112 (this link is not useful) 17:26, 10 December 2017 by 119.246.242.112 05:25, 11 December 2017 by 118.163.32.172 (copyedit) 05:36, 11 December 2017 by 118.163.32.172 (Undid revision 814834220 by Toddy1 (talk) try giving a reason for reverting) 05:43, 11 December 2017 by 118.163.32.172 (Undid revision 814835041 by Toddy1 (talk) a reason. give a reason. if you don't have a reason, why are you reverting?) He/she also behaved much the same on the article on List of most expensive films: 06:46 and 06:47, 11 December 2017 by 118.163.32.172 (→‎Record-holders: copyedit) (article title goes in bold. this is not the article title.) 07:35, 11 December 2017 by 118.163.32.172 (Undid revision 814844673 by Betty Logan (talk) you need to explain why you are undoing edits. merely saying that you have undone them is not useful, or courteous) -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SarekOfVulcan

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarekOfVulcan

This individual just reverted an edit on the #MeToo Talk Page in order to protect someone who has admitted that he is a paid editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Me_Too_(hashtag)&oldid=814297960 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarek made two edits to that talk page [17], [18], both of which were to delete edits you made in which you accused Salvadrim! of being an "admitted paid editor", and in one of which you accused Sarek of "protecting" Salvadrim!. Sarek deemed that both of your edits were irrelevant to the subject at hand, which was a simple fully-protected edit request to add a category to the article Me Too (hashtag). [19] You - for some reason I don't understand - objected to the request, [20], [21], [22] but Salvadrim! apparently thought that the category was pertinent and added it. [23] Salvadrim!'s current ArbCom case is totally irrelevant to that action, your comments were out of line, and Sarek was correct to remove them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The article "Weinstein effect" is highly disputed, to the point where it has been nominated for deletion. It's "okay" to add a category tag for a concept that might be removed from Wikipedia soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A category is not the same thing as an article.Weinstein effect has been nominated for deletion, but Category:Weinstein effect has not - and even if it was, a nomination for deletion is not the same thing as being deleted. Until a decision is reached, there's absolutely no reason to behave as if the nominated article/category/whatever has already been deleted.

The main point here is that none of this has anything at all to do with Salvadrim!'s ArbCom case, or with his having admitted to being paid for his work on certain specific aricles - you brought that up merely to poison the well, and when Sarek rightfully deleted your comment, you went after him. You're not the good guy here, I'm afraid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2017 (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.

Silver Master WP:OFFER request

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.

---

Silver Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked for being unresponsive to legitimate criticism of their work, and then re-blocked when caught in some very lame socking shortly after that. They are asking for the standard offer, below is a copy of their request.

Greetings,

1. I think the time is suitable for submitting this request...Thank you for giving this opportunity.
2. I have blocked for socket puberty which was unwise and hasty move of me...
3. I will avoid getting in such issues which made this block by keeping away such clashes with other members. No article will be submitted without a review with other member. I will use this account for doing edits mostly.
4. Please keep in mind, I am a ten years member. I have an empty block log without counting the last block!
5. I have much more to provide to this community other than creating articles such as constructive edits, templates, ordering new articles etc.

Thank you in advance for accepting this!

I would note that this is how the request read after I suggested to them that they should proofread it before it was posted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As original blocking admin, I see no reason to believe this user is somehow now more capable of making positive contributions than they were before. The request itself make that abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor is clearly not capable of contributing at an encyclopedic level, and is totally unaware of it; per WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having not had any knowledge of this case previously, merely looking at the unblock request is enough to make me sadly shake my head. Given the demonstated level of proficency in English, this user's editing the English Wikipedia would only cause other editors to have to clean up after them - to a point, this is perfectly fine, but there's a line, and IMHO this slips in below it, even if we allow for "socket puberty"(!) somehow being a spellcheck error. I would suggest the editor work at Commons, WikiQuote, and other projects to build their skills, and ask again after doing that for awhile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Flatly insufficient SO request. The promise to simply avoid clashes with other editors is both unrealistic and unacceptable. Disagreements happen on Wikipedia, as anywhere else. Being able to contribute constructively despite a disagreement is necessary. Binding oneself to creating no articles without prior review, moreover, seems more likely to generate more disputes than avoid them altogether; Silver Master would presumably disagree with whomever rejected his or her drafts. That's not going to be different than disagreeing with whomever criticizes Silver Master's work otherwise.
  More importantly, we usually require something similar to an allocution demonstrating an understanding (which needn't be perfect) of what the actions were that led to the block and why those actions were incorrect, or at least an understanding of why they were found to be contrary to policy and blockworthy. This is both to gauge the requestor's growth in terms of maturity, and to show that he or she actually does understand how Wikipedia policy functions. I don't see anything approaching that here. I don't even really see a mea culpa. It honestly seems like this editor is not taking this request seriously, though it may just be that he or she does not understand how a standard offer works in practice. I do suspect that the structure and phrasing of the operative essay tends to confuse blocked and banned editors. In any event, this request shouldn't be granted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much per WP:CIR. The unblock request inspires zero confidence. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. The "ten year history" consists of 9 years of occasional edits to topics related to sport in Africa, and two months of high-volume editing which had problems I'm not entirely familiar with. I note the simple English Wikipedia as another possible place this user could contribute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:14, 10 December 2017 (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.

Metallurgical coal

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

---

At User talk:Wtshymanski#metallurgical coal there is a discussion about a possible deleted version. Could someone with access to deleted versions please tell me if a previous version existed, and possibly link to the prod / afd / etc. where it was deleted? Feel free to drop any information on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, see the page history. I've undeleted it — regardless of the status of the user, there didn't appear to be any problems with it, so deleting it was neither improving nor maintaining the encyclopedia. Repeated copyright infringers need to have everything deleted, regardless of its apparent quality, but when you're blocked for "refusal to acknowledge editing policies, blaming others for their own issues", a policy-complaint page shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

question re recent community processes

hi. where is the page that was recently posted where a whole slew of community ideas for Wikipedia were proposed, then discussed, and then voted upon? so sorry for this basic question, but I have not been able to find it. I appreciate any help with this. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sm8900, I think you're referring to 2017 Community Wishlist Survey, yes? Primefac (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

It’s that time of year again. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday, 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Saturday, 00:00, 28 October 2017 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 00:00, 1 November 2017.

Please review the candidates' statements and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like all the winners of the election to know in advance that I voted for you, and I'll be coming around to collect my compensation soon after you get your crowns and sceptres from Mr. Wales. (Payment can be postponed in favor of future considerations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at my PayPal account and through the $100 transfers that I've received, I think I know who will best serve the community on the Arbitration Committee to the best of their abilities, and with they will have my full support. The Rambling Man, Your payment didn't go through. Would you like to try again with a different credit card? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - To answer your question, yes - that is American Dollars - $100. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I'm not sure I have a sufficient number of $100 bribes to buy myself into this one...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Nah. That $50 money order you sent me before your RFA was returned as stolen. My children went hungry that day, I ran out of gas on the turnpike, and I got a zit on my chin, and it was all. your. fault. Katie^talk 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - Wait, no gas, no food, ...and you got a zit?!! I'm sorry... that money order was good, I swear. Nonetheless, for the inconvenience, I'll credit your bribery funds $50 and I'll give you a coupon good for 10% off the purchase of a support vote in WP:RFB. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't vote in those elections, anymore. After I returned to Wikipedia in May 2014, the voting system was already changed. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. Your account dates from 2005, you have almost 200,000 mainspace edits, and you're not currently blocked. What stops you from voting? I don't think your one-year ArbCom ban in 2013-2014 disqualifies you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The voting system itself was changed, while I was away. Ya can't just poke a dot next to a candidate's name, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure you can. There are three dots for each candidate, "Oppose", "Neutral", and "Support", and you just poke the dot you want. Any candidate for whom you don't poke a dot stays "Neutral". What about that would prevent you from voting? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't trust the "Go to the voting server" bar. That route wasn't there, back then. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the problem isn't that you can't vote, it's that you won't use the system that's been set up for voting. What do you imagine are the possible problems that could come up by being redirected to the SecureVote page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

[Virtuously indignant at notion of paid voting.] Bishzilla as usual support all little candidates resident in her pocket. Come one come all! Best hurry before Bishonen make puny fuss. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncontributive 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.

---

Looking through Moslyn (talk · contribs)'s and 50.234.224.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contribs, all of their edits are jokes/hoaxes, and they're probably the same person. Please help stop them? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Moslyn's two edits seem to be in good faith, and are not obvious vandalism or jokes. Not necessarily appropriate to keep them, but instead of asking for a block, why not strike up a friendly conversation and explain what is wrong? --Jayron32 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: check deleted contribs. Probably nothing to do at this point, but maybe worth noting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Probably not that great there. Still, they've been warned and haven't resumed the problem. Lots of people test the limits a bit when they try out Wikipedia the first time. We don't block them the first time they do that. --Jayron32 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Moslyn's other edits have been deleted. And the soda ban thing seems like something a child is writing, protesting their school's soda ban? But I can't find anything about it online, and their sandbox page mentioned it along with that story, so it seems totally made up - i.e. not in good faith. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's in good faith. They just don't know about Wikipedia's policies on sources. The default opposite to "I can't find sources" is not "the editor must be trying to vandalise Wikipedia". Lots of editor's first attempts to edit Wikipedia is based on good-faith attempts to add to Wikipedia based on personal knowledge, they just don't know yet that's not what we do here. Please don't presume that everything that isn't referencable is an attempt to harm Wikipedia. That's not WP:AGF. Start with the assumption that they are trying to be helpful and just screwing up. Give them education and correct them. We don't block people just because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 18:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, yes, I know all of that, but my judgement from reading their other edits too, which involved the same text, was and still is that this was not in good faith and was either meant as a joke or a hoax. I guess you disagree. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I welcomed the user on their talk page. It's obviously a school kid posting, but there's nothing that requires a block immediately. Hopefully this is enough to get their attention and quiet things down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. That is very helpful. I think we're done here. --Jayron32 19:14, 12 December 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet

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

---

Could someone please block EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)? It's patently obvious they're a sockpuppet of SuperPassword (talk · contribs).

Genre-warring, inserting false claims that Alan Jackson covered a Wiz Khalifa song using setlist.fm as a source. Clearly has a vendetta against Alan Jackson.

Evidence: [24] [25] [26] [27][28]

This was reported to AIV, but somehow the admin did not find it severe enough. It's completely blatant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed sock. Also changed the 31 hour block of master to indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a note - AIV is a shortcut to "Administrator intervention against vandalism", not sockpuppetry. SQL^{Query me!} 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That looks like it could be a sock of Peterpansshadow (SPI case). If you see further disruption related to bro-country, that would be a good place to start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2017 (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:ACC could use your help

Just a quick note, some admins (or other experienced editors) may be interesting in volunteering a bit of spare time to the ACC project (https://accounts.wmflabs.org) as there is currently over 1000 requests in the queue.

Ideal volunteers are:

• Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation or are willing and able to identify,
• In good standing with no recent blocks or other sanctions,
• Able to apply the username policy,

Please see the full list of requirements for more information and details on how to sign up. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

Other ways that you can help

• Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
• If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This can't be allowable...

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 went to drop a line on the user talk page of Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs) about their sending to AfD a page they had merged content from, and how you don't do that, and...WOW that header is both hideous and breaks the ability to do things like 1. select their talk page or 2. edit their talk page. I'm pretty sure this isn't permissible for a user page somehow. (I'll try to manually notify them, but-) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't cause any problems for me on a normal PC. I can select, navigate and add new sections fine. Are you behind a particularly restrictive firewall perhaps that restricts scripts etc? Or a mobile device? I tried on a mobile and its doing some odd stuff with re-sizing that might cause issues. But its not like EEng's page which actively crashes (not due to the size I might add) due to some script problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, Win7 and Firefox, normal internet connection. I do have NoScript, but it's not blocking any scripts on the page. On his user page only the far-left "User page" tab is visible behind overlapping massive colored words; on his user-talk page, "User page" and "Talk" are as the words are smaller (and don't overlap each other) but the rest of the tabs are behind them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's what his code is: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<small>User:</small><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><code>''{{color|red|Some}} {{color|green|Gadget}} {{color|blue|Geek}}''</code></big></big></big></big></big></big></big>}}

That's doing exactly what (I think) it is meant to be for me on IE, big coloured text but its not obscuring anything (on either the user or the talkpage). I only get over-run if I resize the browser window to something quite small. Have you tried with a different browser? It might be Firefox handling the code differently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've tried viewing the page in both Monobook and Vector in Chrome, Safari, Firefox and even Tor Browser (which is good for this kind of test as every conceivable script is blocked), and been unable to replicate the issue (other than by resizing the browser window to the size of a postage stamp, and even then the edit etc tabs don't disappear, just migrate onto the "More" menu as they're supposed to in MediaWiki when something happens to obscure direct access to them). Having that crap at the top of the userpage looks incredibly amateurish and means nobody is going to take SGG seriously, but I can't see anything actually actionable. ‑ Iridescent 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does rather suggest that they're likely to be disappointed one day... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not too happy with it either. It kind of makes pages like EEng's TP, and TPs of users who have suppressed the TOC but whose TP is endless (I'm not naming names, but you know who you are), look kind of tame and user-friendly. By the way, the userpage (as opposed to the TP) is much worse than the TP -- I'd like to clarify that you're specifically talking about the TP? Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  Follow-up: The Bushranger, you're citing the code on his userpage, which has 7 levels of "big". The TP only has 4 levels of "big". Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Part deux: I'm actually wondering why someone doesn't just pull his coat and ask him politely on his talk page (to dial down the sizes), or let him know it's causing problems for some users and makes him look bad to boot. That has got to be simpler and less drama-filled than asking him to come to AN. (PS: No foul on BR, I'm just thinking of what's best for the user and the community; it would serve him as well as us for him to do this voluntarily rather than being railroaded into it.) Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. And if bigger text is needed, use {{big}}, as <big> was deprecated in HTML5. See also MOS:DEVIATIONS. Sam Sailor 11:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed that I don't see any problems (other than the obvious aesthetic ones) on Chrome / Ubuntu 17.04. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly- and I too don't have a particular issue with the screen- if there is an issue, it's communication, what with having 88% of the last hundred user talk edits made via automated tools. it doesn't bode well that they see personal commmunication as particularly relevant, but still, nothing to do with this plaint. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you prefer people not use Twinkle?—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba: I don't beat my wife. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem. It covers over tabs, making them inaccessible in Monobook/Chrome but not in Vector/Chrome for me. I don't think some of us should have to change skins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just tried in vector/monobook on a different PC and its still not doing it for me. Its either not a skin issue, or its something specific in the personal settings. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Monobook/Chrome here too and I see what Bushranger means. On the other hand, if it were me I'd probably use keyboard shortcuts (Alt + shift + t for the talk page, Alt + shift + "+" for a new section) and roll my eyes. Still, seven layers of bigness is a little excessive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't have any issues and I'm using a 1280x800 laptop, There doesn't seem to be issues on mobile wikipedia (probably because of my screen res?) but for those that use an Apple Iphone 5 this is apparently how it looks, Personally I dislike it and as noted by Iridescent it does make the editor look amateurish ..... anyway if it's actually causing issues for various editors then they should be made to change the displaytitle as well as their page layout. –Davey2010^Talk 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • My display on a ZTE Android smartphone (a custom manufacturer phone about the same age as iPhone 5) looks pretty much the same as Davey's iPhone, using desktop view because the mobile view is basically unusable (separate issues). All the boxes are floating in a weird angry fruit salad at the top of the page, but everything below (the actual talk content) is coming up just fine. Or, as well as it does on any other user talk. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I get the same issue as Bushranger with Firefox/OSX and Safari/iOS. My skin is Monobook. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note for the record that they haven't edited since last night UTC, so we should probably await their reponse at this juncture. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, when I moused over the locations of the "edit this page" button on both the userpage and the talk page, the button showed up and I could click it like normal, even though it wasn't really visible beforehand. I'm running Monobook in Internet Explorer on a computer using Windows 10. For another, why do you have to click the buttons to edit? I almost never use the mouse to click "edit this page": that's why we have Alt+E. You can always add &section=new to the URL, or if you're not familiar with that, nobody's going to complain at you for putting a message in a less convenient location. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm still distressed that we are talking about this innocent good-faith user as if he were a non-entity, or something outside of Wikipedia. He is part of the Wikipedia community and deserves to be treated with kindness and respect -- the sort of kindness and respect that would entail letting him know when he is doing something inappropriate and rather foolish, as one would tell a friend that. Will someone not drop a note on his talkpage explaining the issue in a kind way? I would do that myself but I don't want to step on anyone's toes or override the AN notice. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, this is a fairly minor issue. I left a friendly ask with a specific way this could be adjusted on their talk page - lets wait to see a response. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Clearly not an ANI issue, but as it was discussed here, a courtesy FYI: I have now removed this display title as it was my opinion that it was not allowed per WP:SMI and "may be removed or remedied by any user". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a footnote, the reason I brought it up here was because I was pretty sure the user page rules somewhere said something about that sort of thing, but couldn't remember where, and I wanted to be sure (by having input from others) before dropping a "yo dawg" on his userpage. Thanks everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 13 December 2017 (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.

BLP block 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.

---

Posting this as a block review because due to technical issues I cannot presently reply on a page where I'm being pinged; I'm assuming the pings are related to the block.

I have just blocked nagualdesign, a very experienced user, over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng, a talk page so large that I cannot load it to edit. I was able to load the diff from my watchlist, and in intending to "undo" the edit I inadvertently clicked on rollback (which saves automatically). Then, being unable to edit the page to explain the rollback (as WP:ROLLBACK advises) I posted a note at User talk:nagualdesign advising the editor why I had reverted their edit, and warning that they should not do it again. In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time. While I was doing that they pinged me at EEng's talk, which I still can't load. I've also revdeleted the edits. To be clear: linking to this video is probably not useful to the encyclopedia but I don't see how just linking to it violates the policy, however describing the video in a way which states as fact an unproven criminal accusation certainly violates the policy, in my opinion. If I'm wrong or if I've overstepped with talk revocation, any admins are welcome to revert.

I'm dropping the advisory note on nagualdesign's page although they're blocked, but as I noted I'm not able to save edits on EEng's talk so I cannot notify them except by pinging. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel that's a really questionable block. Neither is it a good use of WP:CFRD#2, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not commenting on the block, but isn't there an issue of disruption when people can't even access a user's talk page? I know it's been mentioned a few times and I do think we should allow some flexibility on user page content but not archiving and forum, etc, doesn't really suit the project. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

nagualdesign has submitted a block review request via UTRS, so I guess we'll have to wait to see what the response is. I think it's worth clarifying that they weren't describing the video in that way, they were simply stating the video's actual name (and the video is by a mainstream comic), so the block does seem a bit harsh. As a side note, why is EEng's user talk page not being archived?? Number 57 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my issue of not being able to load the page is due only to its size or possibly due to some other issue with CSS or something on the page, or just poor connection on my end. Like I said I can load diffs, but the page never finishes loading. I can see in the history that the page size is a little over one megabyte, which is about ten times larger than the point where WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles should be split, although it also notes our largest article is about 1.1MB and the software limit is 2MB. I know EEng likes to have a long talk page and in general a place for editors to joke around, and I've never had problems loading it before today, so I don't know what's up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to be a pest, but the longest page according to Special:LongPages is 853k, which is a full 266k smaller than EEng's talk at 1120k. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, EEng's talk page is indeed quite long, and takes a few seconds to load on my machine, but it's quite popular, and numerous editors participate there, so it's obviously accessible for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's being archived, just not very aggressively. I'll take another pass in the next few days. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Yeah I just went to that report too; that's the longest article. The longest page according to Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages is a deleted page that's nearly 10MB, which I didn't try to load. But a few lines up that list is User talk:Stuartyeates/Archive 19, a page about twice the size of EEng's page, which I can load it with no problem at all. These sizes don't take into account the size of media files on the page, and I know EEng likes pictures. Maybe that's it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse. Linking to a BLP violation on an external site is itself a BLP violation, and the title of that particular video is certainly a BLP violation. Quoting from the lead of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." That particular allegation is far stronger than those supported by reliable sources. The editor was warned not to repeat the violation. He responded with mild incivility, telling Ivanvector to "get a grip", and then immediately repeated the BLP violation. At that point, a block is warranted. Removing talk page access is warranted as well, as he had just repeated the BLP violation on his talk in response to a very reasonable warning. I am declining the UTRS unblock request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see everything because of revdels, but I gather that Ivanvector's warning [29] to nagualdesign could have been a bit more explicit e.g. by adding, "The video itself is not a BLP problem, being clear satire, but unfortunately the title of the video explicitly refers to an LP as a child molester, and it's probably a bad idea to link to that." I'm not sure, but it's possible that nagualdesign's post, on my talk page, itself quoted that title, and that's even more likely problematic. I'm not even saying Ivanvector is correct in saying that linking to a video like this, from a talk page, is itself technically a BLP violations, but if he'd been clearer as to what he saw as a problem – nagualdesign may have thought the video itself was being objected to – I suspect nagualdesign would have been willing to redact or modify his original post. I know I would have, had the specific problem been drawn to my attention. I suggest an unblock with lessons learned. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think this is not exactly block-worthy - the line is question is the actual title of the video in question and it's clearly satire (even if possibly true). On the other hand, repeating it after warning is also not the wisest thing to do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Regarding technical issues, in hindsight, looking forward, perhaps in the future when experiencing technical challenges one might consider referring an issue-at-hand to another admin better situated to deftly address things (through one of the relevant notice boards, if not directly). Or wait until one has access to a more capable hardware/network situation etc. ––A Fellow Editor– 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• The revdel was good under RD2, and repeating the content after it had been pointed out to him was an issue that justified a block and TPA revocation as a preventative measure. I would be fine with unblocking if in the next UTRS appeal he agreed to tread carefully around BLPs in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think my point above, that perhaps there was confusion about what was specifically the problem (the title of the video, not the video itself) is important in evaluating this? EEng 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its why I'm open to an unblock on the next UTRS appeal, and don't think that one should be rejected outright. I think it might have been handled better, but I also don't fault Ivanvector for blocking after revdel'd content was repeated. Basically, if the next UTRS comes in and says "I won't post the content in question again.", I think we should unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I accept the criticism, though I don't think my warning was that cryptic. My intent of posting the warning in the first place was to advise an experienced user who should know better by now that they did a thing they shouldn't do, because hey, we all slip up sometimes, right? If they gave me any indication that they understood, then problem solved and we all go back to making an encyclopedia. Their reply (revdeleted), suffice it to say, did not give me that impression. In fact that's part of why I posted here in the first place, to affirm that this was indeed a policy violation and blockable offense, and not just me being an ass as their UTRS appeal implied. As Tony said, if nagualdesign indicates that they've gotten the point, then the block has served its preventive purpose and it's no longer needed. For my part I will try to be more clear if I'm inclined to post this sort of advisory notice again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm still guessing you two were talking past each other (you talking about the title of the video without explicitly saying so, he assuming you were talking about its content, which is acceptable) and that this can just be seen as a misunderstanding. Bottom line: when pointing out a BLP vio, one should be very clear as to what bit of content constitutes the violation. EEng 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me like everything happened rather quickly, and under conditions where there were technical limitations and some ambiguity about whether the nature of what-not-to-do-again was sufficiently clear, it might have been a hasty block that could have been evaluated better by another admin. I doubt that there is anything more to be prevented by allowing the block to continue: I'm pretty sure the message has been received. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Per Tryptofish and WP:ROPE, I feel comfortable both endorsing the original block as justified, and also saying we should unblock now because I have faith that the now blocked editor has been given the opportunity to understand the gravity of the offense. --Jayron32 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block, but I think the block will soon serve its purpose, once some more communication with the editor takes place. I disagree with BU Rob13's decision to immediately rejecting UTRS request after 40 minutes, without waiting for a response, especially when there is an ongoing discussion happening here in this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih: Any decision I made through UTRS can certainly be reviewed by other administrators and the community. A declined unblock request from a single administrator does not prevent the community from arriving at consensus to unblock. I reviewed the block via UTRS and came to a decision quickly because AN moves slowly. It makes little sense to wait for a result here on a 31 hour block, which would come after the block had expired. The blocked editor deserves to have a neutral review before then. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm 99% sure talkpage size has come up before at AN/ANI, with an outcome to ensure users didn't have massive talkpages. Difficult to search for it though! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Belated response

Now that the block has ended perhaps I'll be permitted to explain my actions so that people don't get the wrong impression, as some clearly have done already.

First of all I rather innocently posted a link to a humorous YouTube video on EEng's talk page, writing something like, After more than a month, Sassy Trump is back: [TITLE OF THE VIDEO, LINKED TO THE VIDEO] I also used the title of the video as my edit summary. I can see now how this, taken out of context, was a BLP violation. The next thing I noticed was that the edit had been RevDeleted by Ivanvector, so I posted on his talk page, May I ask why you reverted my edit? At about the same time, Ivan was posting an explanation on my talk page. I'm sure you've all read that. As I understood it he hadn't actually managed to open EEng's talk page or follow the link. My reply was words to the effect of, With all due respect, get a grip, Ivan. I did not add unsourced allegations of criminal activity about a living person, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title; "[TITLE OF THE VIDEO]" I then edited my post to link to the video as proof that that was indeed the title, rather than me making an allegation. In fact, I made 3 edits but I cannot remember every detail. Suffice to say that it was pretty tame. Probably just corrected a typo or something.

Let's take a moment to think about this. Posting the first link on EEng's talk page was completely innocent. I hope we can all agree on that. I do understand though that without providing any context (notwithstanding the link itself) the video title was potentially libellous, as was the edit summary. My mistake. But when I attempted to discuss the matter on my talk page with Ivan I was quite clear about what I was saying. The title of the video was written verbatim along with the words, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title This is no more libellous than stating on the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, [Beverly Young Nelson] said that when she fought him off, he eventually gave up, but told her, "You're just a child, I'm the district attorney; if you tell anyone about this no one will ever believe you." Beverly Young Nelson did indeed say those things, and the YouTube video I posted does indeed have the title I posted. That is called reportage, and anyone who thinks either of those statements is libellous does not understand the meaning of the word.

If I naively posted a link to a video of Guy Fawkes with the title, I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament, repeating the title in the edit summary, more fool me. If I then, in an attempt to explain myself, posted, Don't worry, "I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament" is just the title of the video, and you think that is libellous more fool you. More to the point the post I made on my talk page, as I said, consisted of 3 seperate edits. If the link itself was the BLP violation (vicarious libel?) then why didn't Ivan just RevDel that one edit, and leave the rest in place. My guess is because he didn't like me telling him to get a grip. A case of "I warned him and now he's giving me lip?! Bang goes the hammer!"

I can't remember everything that I wrote in my appeal against the block, nor was I wasn't furnished with a copy, and I neglected to copy/paste the contents to my laptop before sending. Only admins are allowed to look at such things in darkened rooms behind closed doors. The crux of it was something along the lines of asking why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first or engaging in discussion. I don't think it was at all fair. I still don't, despite repeated suggestions for me to 'learn my lesson'. I think it stinks, to be honest. Then along came 'I got your back, buddy' Rob who upheld Ivan's decision and closed the appeal even though, as far as I can make out, Rob didn't really have a clue what had happened.

I'd like to know what happens to edits that get RevDeleted. Are they wiped from the system completely? Or if not, who has access to them? And is it possible to reverse RevDels if they can be shown to have been made in error? If any of that's possible then I'd again like to request an uninvolved admin (ie, not one who is sympathetic to Ivan or Rob and believes that admins should stick together) to reassess this whole sorry affair, looking at my actual edits. Ideally I think any edits that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place should be resurrected. In my opinion Ivan and Rob took their power a tad too far and made unsubtantiate allegations about my conduct here. The irony that they were motivated by the spirit of WP:BLP seems to have been lost on them entirely.

I'll be posting a notice about this on my talk page, being careful not to make the same mistakes. If anybody has a problem with that let me know. nagualdesign 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who is UbiSoftDev (talk · contribs)? Thank you, Ivanvector, for reverting his/her good faith edit to my talk page in my absence. I wonder, could it possibly be TheDeliveryGuy (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), back from the beyond? nagualdesign 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer one question specifically: RDs can be undone as simply as they were done. Oversighted edits can't be restored (at least by those who lack the power of GreyskullOversight). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. nagualdesign 00:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I gave my thoughts above that I think the edits in question are within the scope of WP:RD2 because of the title. I'm also friendly with EEng, so I wouldn't consider myself biased in favour of Ivanvector or Rob. I would have personally replied to your email asking that you agree not to post the content in question again and unblocked if you agreed, but I think that the revdel was warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand the RevDel of EEng's talk page, but not the one (3 actually) made to my talk page. Which do you mean? And do you think that the statement, "The title of the video is [TITLE OF THE VIDEO]", is libellous, contravenes WP:BLP and should therefore have been RevDeleted, or just the link itself (1 edit)? nagualdesign 00:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The details that nagualdesign posted here are essentially correct, in case anyone is observing this who can't see the revdeleted edits. I do not have oversight permissions, so these edits are available to any admin. As for the series of three revdeleted edits: the first was when nagualdesign reposted the link with the verbatim description of the video (I considered the description to be the violation, not the video itself), and the next two subsequent edits were copyedits to nagualdesign's original post but which left the description unmodified. Since the [offending] description was visible in all three, RD2 required that all three were hidden. The appeal that nagualdesign refers to that they can't see is on UTRS, which admins can see here; if someone more familiar with UTRS can email a copy, please do. In the clear vision of retrospection I can see that I could have restored the content of these edits with the offending parts removed, so I'll go ahead and do that.

For what it's worth, I do prefer to discuss things like this with experienced editors, but the "get a grip" response (which included the [offending] description repeated) read to me as "screw you, I'll post whatever I want no matter what the policy says" and as I considered that the edits required revdelete again, I blocked so there would be no third occurrence. I posted here for review not long afterwards. BU Rob13 and I interact frequently at WP:SPI but otherwise I have no particular familiarity with any of the editors (admins and non-admins) who have commented.

I also have no idea who UbiSoftDev is, but the one-hour-old account was blocked by a checkuser this morning. My assumption is it's either someone that nagualdesign crossed at some point, or much much much more likely it's someone that I pissed off. I try not to put too much thought into why sockpuppets do what they do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly appreciate your honesty, Ivan. I'm sure that if I was allowed to discuss this dispassionately in the first place you probably wouldn't have blocked be. I hope you also understand why I told you to get a grip. It not like I used any sort of pejoratives or foul language, is it? (Rhetorical question.) nagualdesign 00:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

...I see that you have restored the post on my talk page. Thank you. However, you have redacted the title of the video. Let me ask everyone here if they agree with the following:

The statement Bob is a rapist!, if unsubstantiated, violates BLP.*

The statement Alice said, "Bob is a rapist!", if properly sourced, is fine.

If that is correct then why are we pussyfooting around? The title of the video is the title of the video. Nobody has made any statement at any point in Wikipedia's voice, which as I understand it forms the crux of any libel issue. nagualdesign 01:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

*I hasten to add that Alice and Bob are fictional, in case anyone's got their ban hammer at the ready! nagualdesign 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I deal with BLP issues fairly regularly, and I do not agree with your example above. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

collapsed by nagualdesign

Then I suggest you start editing Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations. You have a lot of work to do over there. nagualdesign 01:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC) We all have a lot to do regarding Wikipedia's poor treatment of living persons. It would be nice if we could deal with it on article pages without having to worry about it appearing on users' "visible from space" talk pages. MPS1992 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Keep up, MPS1992. I've repeatedly stated that I understand and accept that my edit to EEng's talk page falls into the first example category. But as far as I'm concerned the post on my talk page was a statement of fact that can be easily corroborated, and therefore falls into the second example category. If I'm mistaken then please explain why/how. nagualdesign 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC) If that was the tone of your UTRS request then I think it's easy to see why it was declined so quickly. MPS1992 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC) A typically emotional response. If you haven't read the UTRS request then I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself. If I'm expected to learn my lesson here then please educate me. Posting silly jibes isn't helpful. And if you aren't willing to follow the course of events perhaps you should refrain from commenting here at all, and go do something constructive instead. nagualdesign 02:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Sure. I have given you some pointers (below), but I hope others give you answers more in keeping with what you want to hear. Happy editing. MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide me with a constructive response here? nagualdesign 02:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In general, yes, I agree with your "Alice and Bob" statements, but this doesn't support your conclusion. The title of the video is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by a living person, and by describing the video by its title you repeated the unsourced allegation without qualification. The WP:BLP policy allows some license for discussing potentially offending content when the discussion is in the interest of article construction (WP:BLPTALK) but states "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" (emphasis added). In my opinion posting offending comedic videos on user talk pages also fails WP:NOTFORUM but that's not something I would bother anyone about, especially on EEng's page, if not for the BLP-offending description. BLPTALK also gives an example of how one could link to a potentially offending video, if discussing the video were in the interest of writing or maintaining article content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to keep repeating myself but I did not repeat the unsourced allegation without qualification, I explicitly stated on my talk page that that was the title of the video, and I did so deliberately so that there would be no ambiguity, as there was with my original post (on EEng's talk page). It's a shame that along with the "get a grip" you saw that as me posting whatever I want no matter what the policy says, and Rob saw it as me persistently or egregiously violating BLP policy. The fact is, I was just defending myself, as is my right, against the insinuation that a RevDeleted comment was me making unsourced allegations of criminal activity, which I most certainly had not.

Fair enough about BLP:TALK. I wasn't aware that pussyfooting formed part of WP policy, but I'll accept that the video title should remain redacted. I still disagree that I should have been banned blocked though, and no amount of searching for other policies that might be applied retrospectively will change the fact that your reasoning at the time was somewhat flawed. The lesson I've learned from this is probably not the one you intended to teach me, but I think we've both learned something, at least, and I'll leave it at that. In a week or so I'll probably be back in the saddle.

As for WP:NOTFORUM; I'd spent over 5 hours editing articles and images that day (and made only 1 edit to a talk page, which was apropos) before I hopped over to YouTube for a break. The Sassy Trump video was in my recommendations, I watched it, it made me giggle, then I remembered the section I'd posted on EEng's talk page so I posted the link to the video there to offer a little comic relief. I think we're all entitled to that, given everyone's hard work. If the day ever comes when that sort of thing's seriously frowned upon I'll sell the saddle. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You weren't banned. You were blocked for 31 hours. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've amended that. Thank you for that, that's really helpful. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just on the narrow matter of "why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first", no where are admins required to pass on matters to other admins. I see no evidence that Ivan violated WP:INVOLVED in any way, telling you that you shouldn't do something and then blocking when he sees you do it a second time does not make him involved. It is regrettable that this instance got so messy; perhaps some nuance could have been applied and avoided this whole mess, but to have the expectation that every admin on every action needs to get "back up" or that the act of warning an editor of a problem makes that same admin prohibited from then acting every again should not be an expectation. If Ivan screwed up in any way here, that specific narrow issue wasn't it. (Saying all that I am not saying that Ivan could not have handled this better, mind you, just refuting the specific notion that admins are prohibited from blocking people they have previously warned). --Jayron32 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If somebody tells you to "get a grip" and it pricks your emotions, it's probably a good idea to hand the matter over to somebody else at that point, and I don't mean another admin who you frequently interact with, since camaraderie can also result in being vicariously offended (rinse and repeat). I'm not talking about WP:INVOLVED, I'm talking about emotional involvement. nagualdesign 00:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I certainly could have handled the situation better, but my response was not an emotional response to "get a grip", it was a matter of preventing the [perceived] BLP violation from being repeated a third time. Purely preventative, as blocks should be. "Get a grip" is a pretty mild insult (if it is one at all) in the spectrum of what admins deal with, I'm sure any admin reading this page would agree. I've had at least three different editors threaten to sue me, ruin my life in different ways or just kill my family, just in the last month or so. For what it's worth I do try to hand things off if I'm emotionally conflicted, and I agree that admins probably should step away if our emotions are getting in the way of things, in the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. But this was not that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have to deal with such vile things on a regular basis, Ivan. As I like to put it, the world's full of c**ts. For what it's worth you seem like a very reasonable fellow (aside from the [in my opinion unwarranted] block) and I respect that. I only responded to the part Jayron mentioned about being 'involved' because he brought it up. That said, I'd rather move on and focus on the technicalities. As I've mentioned above, I believe that what I posted on my talk page (about the video title) was a simple statement of fact, and don't see how this violates WP:BLP. If you could answer that specific question (above) perhaps we can all move on from this. nagualdesign 02:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am all in favor of reining in over-eager administrators, but I feel that nagualdesign is going a little too far here. First, "get a grip" is an indication that you believe the administrator has acted wrongly, and reinforces the impression that you plan to continue to ignore their warning -- as you already did once by re-posting the material that had been revdeleted. So it justifies the block -- you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but at this point it appears from your own comments that you will just restore it again. Second, requiring admins never to refer issues to other admins with whom they "frequently interact" is just never going to fly. Admins can and should take care with that, but admins interact with each other frequently -- especially those who deal with BLP violations or similar problems -- so a blanket ban is not going to work. MPS1992 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect. nagualdesign 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What, precisely, is "factually incorrect"? Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but..." I didn't restore content that had been removed, I asked why it had been removed, then I attempted to explain myself on my own talk page, which was also removed. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You posted the content on EEng's talkpage, after that was removed, you posted it again on your own talkpage. So what you are saying now is factually incorrect, and what MPS1992 said was correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there something in the water? Perhaps you should stop hanging around the water cooler or start bringing your own drinks. As I'm sure you're aware, restoring means 'reverting a revert'. And I did not post the same content on my own talk page. You can try to construe things all you wish, but the fact of the matter is that the post I left on my talk page was appreciably different from the one I left on EEng's talk page. You could say that one was a comment, the other was a comment about a comment. If the distinction is lost on you then I'm at a loss to help you. Also, the second comment was removed. Nothing that I have said on in this discussion is factually inaccurate. If you're trying to goad me you're wasting your time. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how Ivanvector described it: "I have just blocked nagualdesign ... over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng. ... In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time." So you did indeed post the BLP violation twice, and therefore what MPS1992 said was indeed correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail; and your reply to him omitting the fact that you posted the BLP violation twice was misleading at best. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Haha! I see you missed the a very experienced user part. Did you think that might flatter me unnecessarily?

Seriously though, Ivan said that right at the top of this section (about 40 KB ago). I understand what he was saying and why, and considering the rest of the discussion that's happened since then, not least of which my 'Belated response' (this subsection) I think it's been made quite clear that there was in fact a difference between my two offending posts. One was an innocent BLP violation, the other a deliberate not-quite-violation that, coupled with the first, along with some technical issues, resulted in a questionable ban. Sorry, block. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve at this point. Perhaps you're just trying to defend the honour of MPS1992? To be honest, I don't care. Your input to this discussion is tangential. I suggest you find something else to do. nagualdesign 09:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This a public noticeboard for administrators and experienced editors. You claimed someone's 160-word good-faith post was "factually incorrect" without explanation. I asked for one and you omitted pertinent information. I pressed you and you continued to evade. You have spent 3,000 bytes in this thread evading responsibility, criticizing Ivanvector, and snarking at editors and administrators you disagree with. You could have chosen on this subthread to merely post a brief explanation of your view of the events and a maybe question or two (and maybe even a brief complaint or two), but your prolonged self-justification is looking worse and worse. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In no particular order, since this discussion is now something of a mess, "reportage" is not something that happens at EEng's talkpage, and I apologize if others have led you to believe that it is. That is on them. And, avoiding libel suits is not the sole purpose of the BLP policy. So arguing about whether something is libel or not, misses the point. MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect is an interesting article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, we're only at 17,000 bytes in this subsection so far. Surely we can continue until it reaches Featured Article length? Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hehe... We could, but I think I'm done, to be honest. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (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.

Pernicious IPv6 hopper

Hi all, anyone have any suggestions for dealing with a pernicious IPv6 hopper? Here are some examples:

2405:204:730d:678:3218:9c44:5222:1a03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Financial vandalism and editorial content "The film gain highly positive reviews from both critics and audience and became Biggest Blockbuster hit in Jayam Ravi and Jayam Raj's career ."

2405:204:730e:7a9:6fdc:8d1a:7c51:24a1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Unexplained cast reordering, financial vandalism, addition of unsubstantiated editorial content. "The film won highly positive reviews from both critics and audience and become biggest Blockbuster hit in Jayam ravi and Jayam Raja's career."
• Deliberately malforming links, causing readers interested in Actor A to go to Actor B article. Unsubstantiated editorial content. "The film opened to mixed to negative reviews from both critics and audience and failure at box office."

2405:204:72c3:55f6:a9e6:3d97:b71b:30f4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Wikilink butchering.
• Fabricated finances, and edtorial content "The film received mostly positive reviews from both critics and audience and became Blockbuster at the box office collected 25 crores"
• Fabricated financials.

2405:204:72c4:2db4:2f41:4338:ea54:dec4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Financial vandalism.
• Editorial content. "The film gained overall positive reviews from both critics and audience."
• Editorial content. "Ravi has appeared in mostly in successful movies and established him self as a leading actor of kollywood.and his fans gave him a nickname for his acting ilampuyal (young storm) jayam ravi also enjoyed Mega box office collection."

Though a common article of interest is Thani Oruvan, I'm a bit reticent to protect that yet. Seems easier to treat it like a honeypot so I spot other vandalism. He's being fairly persistent in recent days. I've reverted him a couple of times today, and he's just come back with a new IP. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

All within 2405:204:7000::/36. Note that if you block that, you block the entire provider. Unfortunately dynamic IP ranges are quite common these days, so very little you can do, without having lots of collateral. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Asian ISP's are known for bad practices like this. This fragmentation of address space is not in their best interests and yet they keep doing it, so users' dynamic addresses are scattered across their whole range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour Party

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour Party

Stealth canvassing has resulted in a group of editors -- most likely more to come -- to influence an AFD that was leaning toward deletion before a recent uptick in voting. I am requesting either more eyes on the discussion or a decision by an experienced admin before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of the AFD, let alone the article's creation, before I saw the above tweet. Yair Rosenberg is an uninvolved journalist who is not a Wikipedia editor as far as I can determine, so the canvasing policy does not apply. (I did tweet to Rosenberg in response (one only), and to my followers (once only).) The deletion of articles, among other issues, is a subject of fairly regular media interest as a perusal of items on Google News demonstrates. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So I can rally a group of people who share my views so long as I have a somewhat popular Twitter handle and it's not canvassing? That is comforting to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, at time of writing I have 117 followers on twitter, only a handful of whom are Wikipedia editors. Yair Rosenberg has many more followers, but is outside any possible sanction from this website. Philip Cross (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

All that means is that there is nobody registered at Wikipedia who could be eligible for sanctions related to canvassing, not that off-wiki canvassing should be ignored in the deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"It's meatpuppetry, then." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If the canvassing person is not on Wikipedia, the most we can do is ignore !votes which we suspect were made by these meatpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is kinda mute at this point since the canvassed editors partially succeeded in keeping the POV fork. Can't say "no consensus" was the actual consensus before the canvassing started. Hopefully, a legitimate AFD can take place in a few months without editors feeling inclined to be influenced by a tweet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I hate to be the pedant in the group, but TheGracefulSlick the proper term is a moot point. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC) the more you know

I suspect that TGS was perhaps being deliberately funny. But if not: I wonder if there's an entomological (!!) connection between "moot" and "mute", since when a subject is moot, one stands mute about it. Oh boy! Research!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Potentially, but I see it misused often enough I figured I'd say something. Likely a link, though, and now it'll stick in my brain until I can actually look it up........ Primefac (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Naw. Looks like "mute" comes from Latin mutus "silent, speechless, dumb," [30] while "moot" comes from a Germanic word meaning "to meet", which became old English "mōt". [31]. Oh well, back to the discussion about mootpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

OED: moot Cognate with Middle Dutch moet (Dutch †moet ), Old High German muot , Old Icelandic mót , Old Swedish mot (Swedish mot (now rare)), Danish regional mod , and (in different stem-classes) Middle Low German mȫte (German regional (Low German) Mööt ), Middle High German muote , muoze , and Norwegian møte , Swedish möte , Danish møde ); perhaps related to the Germanic base of mathel v. Further etymology uncertain. Compare i-moot n. In Old English only in compounds before the 12th cent. Uncompounded use in English is probably partly reinforced by borrowing of the corresponding early Scandinavian word, and also partly aphetic.

mute Anglo-Norman muet, moet, muwet, etc., and Middle French, French muet (adjective) dumb, mute, silent (early 13th cent. in Old French), refraining from speech (early 13th cent.), (of a letter) not pronounced, silent (1647; compare sense A. 4b), (of wine) stopped in the process of fermentation (1761), (noun) a person who is unable to speak (late 12th cent.), servant of a Turkish sultan (1585) < Anglo-Norman mu , muu , mut and Old French mu , mut dumb, mute (11th cent.; < classical Latin mūtus : see below) + -et -et suffix1. In β forms remodeled after classical Latin mūtus; compare Middle French, French mut (early 16th cent.), and also Occitan mut (c1050), Spanish mudo (1250), Italian muto (a1294), Catalan mut (c1300). Classical Latin mūtus is attested as adjective in the senses dumb, inarticulate, silent, speechless, not accompanied by speech, plosive, and as noun in the sense person who is unable to speak (compare also mūta (neuter plural) dumb creatures, mūta (feminine singular) mute consonant, after ancient Greek ἄϕωνα, neuter plural); it is probably an imitative formation. Apparently attested earlier in surnames from the late 12th cent., as Robertus Mut (1187), Alanus le Mute (1275).

(whatever aphetic means, sounds like when your roses have been attacked by insects.) EEng 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I live in NYC: What is "roses"? What are "insects"? Is it like when rats attack a piece of pizza on a subway platform? [32] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(Actually, I live very near to a very beautiful park noted for its gardens, carefully planted so something is blooming in every season, and there are groundhogs and raccoons and skunks and squirrels (of course) and many birds, and an area set aside as a small nature preserve. The skunks used to come to visit us almost every garbage day, until NYC started composting and the compostable material went into critter-proof bins. Now we don't see them -- although we occasionally smell them.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

“The Haven is the name of Mr. Josiah Amberley’s house,” I explained. “I think it would interest you, Holmes. It is like some penurious patrician who has sunk into the company of his inferiors. You know that particular quarter, the monotonous brick streets, the weary suburban highways. Right in the middle of them, a little island of ancient culture and comfort, lies this old home, surrounded by a high sun-baked wall mottled with lichens and topped with moss, the sort of wall—”

“Cut out the poetry, Watson,” said Holmes severely.

EEng 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

ChOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Agashopmarket

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.

---

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

Would an admin be willing to delete this userpage as spam? Thanks. 188.48.178.80 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - in the future you can just place {{db-spam}} on the page. Thanks, ansh666 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP can't do that because userspace is now protected against IP edits. A demonstration of why that was a bad idea... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that...that's unfortunate. ansh666 17:49, 14 December 2017 (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.

Country data templates

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

---

Can someone remove the CIA WFB flags in the country data templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.52.87 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not an AN issue, and should really be discussed on the talk page(s) of the template(s) involved. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2017 (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.

History merge needed

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

---

The DuPont train derailment article was cut and paste moved into 2017 Washington train derailment. A history merge is needed please. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Adsfvdf54gbb

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.

---

• Adsfvdf54gbb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would appreciate some input on this. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk · contribs) is an SPA that seems to exist solely to nominate for deletions articles related to Newington College and its alumni, as well as articles created by Castlemate (talk · contribs). To be fair to the operator of the account, many of these articles have indeed been deleted as covering non notable topics. However there are enough quixotic nominations in there to make it clear that no serious review is being undertaken on these articles prior to nomination, for instance:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cook
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mowbray House School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warwick Cathro
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyril Bavin

I'm also concerned about the assumptions of bad faith contained in some of the nominations, such as this one where they opine that the article is "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people". There might also be WP:UNCONF issues with the account name itself. For some further background on this:

• Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Aubrey_Murphy_(mayor)
• Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Dozens_of_AfDs_all_by_the_same_editor
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adsfvdf54gbb
• User_talk:Adsfvdf54gbb#Account

Some editors in the above discussions seem to think a block for general disruption is in order, but given that the account's disruption is limited to one topic, I'd first like to see whether there is support for a topic ban from the subjects of Newington College and its alumni, broadly construed for this editor. Such a ban would explicitly include any activity related to the deletion of pages within this topic area. It would also explicitly permit the review of articles on these topics for notability, if carried out by editors in good standing, as some of them are indeed of questionable notability. Thoughts and opinions on this are welcomed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC).

Paging previous participants in the discussions, @Longhair, The Drover's Wife, Frickeg, Jacknstock, SunChaser, AussieLegend, Kb.au, Kerry Raymond, and ScottDavis: Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC).

Support It definitely appears to be an SPA determined to delete articles relating to alumni of Newington College. In the AfD I took a closer look at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Fletcher), it was very clear that the AfD was launched without any regard for checking the notability by undertaking a reasonably thorough search for sources. On the contrary, I found many newspaper references with a simple search of Trove's digitised historic (pre-1955 newspapers) and it is the obvious resource to search for an Australian in that time frame. This nomination went "Non-notable priest/headmaster. While he was a professor, no achievements are disclosed. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor)" made it very clear that no effort was being made to follow our guidelines in relation to launching an AfD and that the nomination was based on a dislike for user Castlemate and/or Newington College alumni. While the use of such prejorative language has been toned down in the nominations of the more recent AfDs, nonetheless the two-days-ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cook is an example of nominating somone who is a household name in Australia (and unsurprising everyone is saying Keep). I would support a block for general disruption, as this user persists in launching AfDs on these alumni despite being told by many people that the behaviour is inappropriate. It is a huge waste of volunteer users' time to have to conduct the notability investigations that User:Adsfvdf54gbb is not doing before the AfD nomination and I have great respect for those like User:Frickeg who have made the effort to undertake the notability checks in order to respond to these AfDs. Kerry (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure the AfD's are that bad. Patrick cook's supposedly a household name - yet I can't find much of anything on him (not even a news article as far as I can see), and no one has actually produced sources. Similarly, while he should've figured out that a historical figure would need a little more digging, I've never heard of Trove, and I don't see too much in the way of in-depth coverage in that trove search - just mostly mentions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Though he should've googled australian newspaper archives and looked there, the minimum search is google, google books, google news and google news archive all of which don't seem to have much of anything. I haven't examined the other AfDs, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC) The ones I have examined seem to mostly have keep arguments that are essentially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. They don't seem slam dunk utterly idiotic noms to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually !voting delete on Patrick Cook. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I, too, have found some of Castlemate's articles about Newington alumni to be fairly light on notability, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for AFD without due checks on every article before nominating it. A few of them have been notable people who should have already had articles, and Castlemate could have been congratulated for starting their articles. Castlemate could make it easier for us by providing better claims and evidence of notability, but that does not justify Adsfvdf54gbb nominating the articles for deletion without doing his/her own checks. WP:BEFORE sets some minimum checks and actions, and who the original author was is not one of them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support some form of intervention. Yes a lot of the AfDs are valid. Some could even be speedy deletes. Some, too many in my view, however, have shown a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE. While mostly, but not all, are essentially technically correct in terms of deletion policy, the tone of the AfDs seems tendentious, assumes bad faith, and seems personally directed. I would suggest a formal warning first, requesting their constructive participation in an "off-AfD" review (others have suggested a review) of the Newington articles. If that fails than perhaps a topic ban. They do seem to be an experinced editor. At the moment their activity is not helping to build better articles. And is taking up too many other editors time in an unconstructive manner. There is also too the sudden emergence of Publicschoolboy (talk · contribs) SPA into all this with their completely unhelpful contributions. Aoziwe (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked through the examples given above, and while the AfDs quoted above have huge keep to delete !vote ratios, the keep !votes are not very convincing despite the number, or in one case it turned out to be notable for being a heritage house, but not for being a school. The tone of the AfDs are bit of a problem - it feels a bit personal - however the closest to an attack I've seen quoted is "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people" which is more of a statement on the articles than on Castlemate. I'd say nominating for deletion non-notable articles is hardly "unconstructive", and Castlemate creating so many non-notable articles is also a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC) 6 out of the 9 closed nominations he's made so far have been closed as delete. That's a bit on the lower end (and I think I even disagree with one of the keeps..), but decent proportion for noms. Perhaps he needs to do a little more before, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Castlemate seems to be wasting far more time with creating what seems a huge proportion of non-notable people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes the "main author" also needs some redirection, and some attempts in this direction have also been made. See User talk:Castlemate, and my own talk page, for example. I would much prefer the Newington issue to be taken out of AfD, which always tends to be adversarial, and have an Australian sub project to review the articles and tidy up in a more constructive manner. There is a lot of cruft in the articles but also a lot of encyclopedic content, while not notability material, could still be valueably added to the List of Old Newingtonians article perhaps. We have two experienced but under-constructive editors. Aoziwe (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that a lot of the accusations of not doing BEFORE seem to miss D2 of it - just because a lot of mentions are there doesn't mean it shouldn't be nominated. I'm not sure why Ads..gbb is getting so much more flak than Castlemate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes both editors have their faults. I suggest the key difference is that Castlemate is trying to add to and build the encyclopedia, whereas Adsfvdf54gbb (talk · contribs) seems to be only interested in deleting items rather than improving them. Aoziwe (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have been deemed to be under-constructive and to have been wasting people's time over the last decade I would appreciate it if I could be blocked from editing. On this page alone there is little consensus and there is often little more in AfDs. Block me immediately and save me the discomfort of reading any more of this pompous drivel. Castlemate (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Under-constructive doesn't mean you can't be helpful. You just need to learn and understand notability, and I think if you focused on adding material to articles than creating them, you would be a good asset to the project. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Castlemate. I would like you to stay. Your general approach seems good and contributive. The problem is simply but importantly with notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Adsfvdf54gbb is a sockpuppet "burner" username. It's a regular user on vacation or otherwise accessing the internet from a different location than their usual location. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that Australian-based Wikipedians aren't responding by improving the articles. If you google "Patrick Cook" cartoonist or use Trove, there is at least enough to get started. As for Mowbray House School, it was very obvious at a glance that the property was going to be heritage listed (anywhere that Gough Whitlam set foot is sacred ground to many Australians, it's like JFK or Ronald Reagan to some Americans). I consider the mass AfD nominations to be disruptive, as it creates a lot of work that could better be used improving the Wikipedia, and there are so many that notable topics are sure to be deleted with the current deletionist trend. Actually reviewing articles and looking for sources is time consuming, so those of us who do the work don't have time to review all of these, so they tend to gather delete votes from people who just like to vote that way and make no effort. This can be frustrating, and I'm sure we lose many worker bees through this sort of nonsense. This is not far above vandalism, it's people who get joy out of disruption and destruction. If they attack enough they are sure to get some satisfaction out of it because there aren't enough responsible and knowledgeable Wikipedians to review everything. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacknstock, good point; apparently nothing will save the SPA. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Maintain the rage! Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – It looks ugly, but it's difficult to say that Adsfvdf54gbb is doing anything wrong. Most of their AfD noms are correct, and there is nothing inherently wrong with having an SPA account. Whether it's a sock or not is a question that should be directed towards a checkuser rather than simply speculating. Kb.au (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Who told you he does nothing wrong? He admitted owning undisclosed account, this is one the most serious offece you can do here. Just because Check user didn't find any thing due to technical limitation doesn't mean he should be left to wander around with their suspicious activity with no content and any other main space work. If he is blocked he will then explain to us the former account that he edited with and it is then we will know weather he does nothing wrong or otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Kb.au: Do you think that the AFDs that are successful are the result of good process though, or just dumb luck? As I said, I have no objection to someone looking into this, but it should be someone who isn't just dropping drive-by nominations onto articles all created by a single editor without looking at the articles themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

• @Lankiveil: I feel like it's more than dumb luck. Even if the nominations are in bad faith as they appear to be, Castlemate has created around 270+ new articles and only a small fraction of those have been nominated for deletion. Without going through all those 270 articles myself, I can only assume that Adsfvdf54gbb is actually nominating articles which they do believe don't meet the notability guidelines, have no available RSs, or fit some other criteria for deletion, even if their adherence to WP:BEFORE is less than ideal. Kb.au (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Aoziwe's reasons. Although the other user's articles were in obvious need of a general review (I even AfDd a couple myself), it would have been better dealt with by a consensus community response rather than creating a SPA to nominate most of a long-standing user's articles for AfD in quite an aggressive and disruptive manner. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, evidence is compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Block The only thing that stopped me from filing this is because some of the AfDs are justified and indeed deleted. But as already said above the manner he is targeting pages created by Castlemate and certain category of articles is really concerning, as he seems to be here only for Deleting articles. All or 90℅ of his edits so far is creating deletion pages. He admitted having another account but never disclose it till now. This is very serious issue. SP investigation was closed with no action because no account to check against, but the CheckUser hinting at possibility of socking though no technical data to support that. I don't think topic ban will address anything, since he is clearly not ready to edit articles. Indefinite block is more appropriate until the time he disclose his other accounts and make it clear he will edit Wikipedia in general not only nominating articles for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, but not a block without further evidence of problem. The critical thing in my eyes is the blanket nominations. Of course you'll see some pages deleted if you nominate a whole batch indiscriminately (even vandalbots revert some disruptive edits), but if you're just here to knock out a bunch of articles, not to contribute productively whatsoever, you're really no better than the vandalbot. Supporting only a ban because a ban will (a) cause the user to stop editing entirely, (b) be breached and produce a block, or (c) cause the user to edit in a different area. In the first case, there's no disruption, in the second we have a block anyway, and in the third a block would potentially have prevented us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Remember that having used another account in the past isn't grounds for sanctions unless there's some complicating factor, which I don't see here. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (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.

Community consultation: User:Crouch, Swale ban appeal

The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Crouch, Swale, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:

1. Indefinite one account restriction.
2. Indefinite topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions.
3. Indefinite ban on moving or renaming geographic articles.
4. Indefinite ban on new article creation.

Before moving further with this appeal, such as voting on it, the committee would like community comments regarding whether this user should be unbanned, and on the suitability of the proposed unban conditions. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community consultation: User:Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava

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 seems to be an attempt to change consensus by unfair means at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava - the last two votes in particular. The account Indianath was created at 06:16 and its second edit at 06:29 was a vote to the aforementioned AfD. The other account, Gurubram was created at 06:31 and its first edit at 06:38 was the vote at the AfD. There is a noticeable similarity in the pattern of voting, primarily the emboldened part (ie, "Don't Delete" and "Article Should Not Be Deleted" followed closely by text without leaving a space). A thing to note is that the creator of the article, Iamincollege, was paid for the creation of the article per their user page. What is the right course of action here? Jiten ^talk _contribs 10:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd list at WP:SPI, although this looks like a case that isn't going to require checkuser to crack. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

@Jiten D: If you believe their edit pattern shows strong possibility they are sock accounts then file Sock puppet investigation for CheckUser to find out. Also I don't think these votes can alter the course of AfD if closed appropriately since AfD is not closed according to vote count, and the only reference they point to cannot establish notability –Ammarpad (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lankiveil and Ammarpad: Thank you for the response. I've started the SPI here. In hindsight, I should've directly done so without coming to WP:AN. My primary concern wasn't the alteration of the course of the AfD (which as Ammarpad stated, isn't likely to happen), but rather the unfair means of voting. Once a link can be established between the accounts, striking out the votes would then be justified. Speaking of which, there is now a third SPA. Jiten ^talk _contribs 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jiten D, the other option in the future is if you see an SPA voting on a discussion (be it MEATing or SOCKing) tag them with {{spa}} and the closing admin will know to potentially discount their !vote. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: That's perfect! It's more convenient than filing an SPI and has almost the same impact on the AfD. I suppose an SPI wouldn't be warranted if the tag has been placed (since the throwaway accounts are unlikely to cause damage in the future)? Jiten ^talk _contribs 17:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If they're obvious socks, it's probably better to do both still. ansh666 00:41, 18 December 2017 (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 block evasion by user:SashiRolls

Today it's 2001:BC8:249D:100:0:0:0:1, a Tor exit node. Anybody want to take care of it? Geogene (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Can anyone please block Mucusslide544 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of SuperPassword (talk · contribs)? It's blatantly obvious that it's the same user, as they keep vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson and keep using #AlanJacksonKilledCountry in their edit summaries. This is a blatant WP:DUCK, and it's ridiculous that no one is willing to indef anyone who keeps doing this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty big net being cast there. Not everyone is aware of previous incidents when they come across blatant vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Has now been blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

SuperPassword and Peterpansshadow are socks of Tamara787. Please file these sock reports in the appropriate place: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I've been blocking these socks as I find them (as have a few other admins), but if the reports are spread out to random noticeboards, it's unlikely I'm going to see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Paid use of administrator tools RfC

An RfC has been started on paid use of administrator tools and disclosure of past paid editing during RfA at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hemsley

This should be a routine AfD discussion with WP:V and WP:BLP the issues. A "citations required" notice was served on the article in September but was not acknowledged or in any way actioned. When I saw the article, which I found while I was scanning its category, I thought AfD was the logical next step. To be fair, another editor has stepped in and provided some citations so the article will probably be kept if there is no problem with notability.

My concern is with the responses I received at Afd from two other members of the WP:CRIC project and it appears to me, having already been involved with other AfDs relevant to that project, that there is a serious problem around verification and notability issues in a large number of cricket articles. The problem is compounded by the over-defensive attitudes of certain project members, especially by the author of Colin Hemsley, when these issues are raised and attempts are made to have them addressed.

I find it all extremely unsatisfactory (and extremely wearing). The core content policies and WP:BLP are, it seems to me, being openly defied by people in the cricket project who, to be blunt, do not even understand the difference between verification and notability. Regards, Waj (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar is a very similar (bulk) nomination with more participation, and has spawned a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Please_clarify_confusing_notability_issue_for_AfD_purposes. I started a thread here in October about earlier nominations of this sort when I gave up on trying to mediate the situation myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wajidshahzeed: Looking at your comments there, I think it's you who actually doesn't understand WP:V, to be honest. An article without citations does not fail WP:V. WP:V does not require that sources be in the article at all, only that sources exist and that they be, within a certain degree of reason, accessable. If you had just limited it to WP:BLP failure, you would have been correct; however WP:V only allows unreferenced content to be removed, not that "uncited content fails verifiability". Now, that said, an uncited BLP is in violation of policy and should be either given citations or deleted, however the claim of "failing WP:V because no sources are provided" is not one that can be considered to be policy compliant. (That said, don't feel too bad about it: it's a (for better or for worse) common misconception. )- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think overly strict adherence to "WP:V only requires sources to exist" can be dangerous. It leads people to think articles don't need sources. Or that it's OK to just wave a hand and say "I'm sure there must be sources lying around here somewhere but there's no need to actually find them." There's no reason for the average reader or editor to believe the necessary sources exist unless they're actually provided. Nor is there a reason to omit references to sources from an article if you know of their existence. The only safe and responsible course it to hold that an unsourced article fails WP:V unless it can be shown to meet it. Reyk _YO! 09:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

An article that has no citations may not be in violation of WP:V. An article that has been previously challenged for not having citations and has had none provided, definitely is in violation of WP:V - citations are required for any challenged material. 'This entire article is unsourced' qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bushranger. I hold my hand up here because I did not word the nomination correctly. I should have said that WP:V was an issue because no citations had been provided despite a challenge having been made three months earlier. I gave an incorrect impression by not mentioning the challenge then. I agree with Reyk and Only in death above.

I must express concern with this response at the AfD by User:Bobo192, especially as he is a sysop. He is saying that my action in pointing out a certain breach of BLP (and a probable one of WP:V) is "disgusting". He is advising me that I should convert an external link into a reference when the link is to a subscription site that I cannot access. It would be unethical if I moved that link into a citation when I cannot see it. I am sure I read somewhere that you must only use the citation you have actually found and viewed, not one that you know about without seeing it. Of course, if sourcing the information is that easy and assuming he can access the site, why hasn't he as author done it himself? Not good. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure that Waj is a sock account, something I've raised in the AfD. Their "final" edit is this after being presented with this. I'd appreicate if someone who's not involved in the AfD to take a look at closing it. Of course, I'd have no issue if someone would bring it back to AfD with a valid rationale to do so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Dare I say once again, if we were able to stick to the same basic guidelines which have done us no harm over the last 13 years, this whole stupid situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place? It is this which genuine, hardworking WP:CRIC members are finding "wearing", and nothing else. If this had happened with any other sportsman from any other sport with any other guideline, the people putting these articles up for AfD would probably be significantly castigated and warned to stay away from Wikipedia. WP:CRIC is finding itself under unnecessary pressure for the same reason it has existed for as long as it has. People like myself and Jack (and others) are finding our work of the last 13 years undone by people who have just decided to turn up and it is this which is demoralizing. Bobo. 16:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Verifiability means the sources are clearly identified to readers in an article. Where this is not done, there is a duty to add the sources, or nominate the article for deletion. Once the article is nominated for deletion, people not only need to identify the sources, but edit the article to identify these sources exist. This is especially the case for articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources are "clearly identified". They're right there on the article. If they are not, especially on articles I have created, this is a clumsy oversight from me and the fact that they are still not there after 10 years is... silly, of course, but that nobody has put that right over that time is sad. You would not delete Test cricket player articles by this criterion - even though there are many Test cricketer articles with zero references - and to suggest you would with first-class player articles is, once again, deceptive. The solution is not to say, "No references, delete lol", but to say, "Greetings Bobotron, would you kindly alter these external links to references so that they satisfy article inclusion criteria even though it changes not a jot of the article's content?" Or, failing that, do it yourself. Bobo. 04:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion on decision not to semi-protect Barbara Lerner Spectre

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.

---

• Barbara Lerner Spectre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday I requested on WP:RFPP that the BLP of Barbara Lerner Spectre be indef semi-protected. The reason I made this request was due to long term efforts by IPs to add fringe anti-semitic sources to the page. This includes the "white identity" blog Occidental Observer and a book talking about the "Jewish Agenda." My request was rejected by User:Samsara who gave their reasons here. I discussed the issue with Samsara on their talk page, where my reasons for wanting the page protected and Samsara's reasons for declining are set out in more detail. I have come to AN to ask for a second admin opinion on the matter. Brustopher (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion – and I'm pretty good at the RFPP thing – Samsara is correct. There are two real choices here: the first is to fully protect it to force discussion, and the second is to block you for long-term edit warring. (I would lean toward the first, not the second.) In any case, this is not disruption by an IP or a BLP problem, but rather an attempt to insert a well-sourced quote. If you don't like the source, that's fine and dandy. Find another one, and it seems there are plenty in this case. Katie^talk 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• I concur with Katie and Samsara. I would likely have full protected to prevent edit warring, but declining semi-protection is fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (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.

File uploaded locally prevents visibility of same file on Commons?

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 a situation I haven't encountered before and I don't know how to resolve it. At the article Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (a page under a 1RR restriction) there is an image File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg which has been subject to a recent revert war on Commons. It seems that one of the revert-warring editors uploaded their preferred version of the file locally with the same name, and it is that version which currently appears in the article. I don't know how that's possible and I don't know how to fix it. Help?

As a side note, the two editors involved (and a third) are mostly working constructively on the article's talk page to work through the content dispute, and so I'm trying to avoid blocking any of them (I'm also involved, so there's that). But if any admins reviewing the situation think that a block would get the point across better than I've been doing then I'm not going to have anything bad to say about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Coffee said that it is not a violation in two times because the conflict occured in WMC. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivanvector: File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg is from commons:, do you have an example of the 'local version'? It is possible to upload a local version of an existing commons file, it requires the (reupload-shared) permission, currently only available to admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I see what happened, Panam2014 has revealed the problem. The original file is File:Yemeni Civil War.svg (different extension), I can fix that. Also, what Panam2014 is referring to above is somewhat of a tangent to this issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like you have confused the file with a similar file name, File:Yemeni Civil War.svg. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I'll go apologize to everyone around me in the office for all that fish I'm about to have for lunch. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, I dropped at note at COM:AN/B in case anyone there feels further action is or becomes warranted. GMG^talk 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• When you’re mentioning or referencing someone, you know it’s common courtesy to at least ping that person that you’re actually talking about. Furthermore, you made a request to block me and didn’t even leave a message, luckily @Ivanvector: made me aware of such situation and when I had gone there your request was denied. Now as for my local file as soon as I had uploaded it, I made a request to delete because I said it was a duplicate, so I don’t understand why you’re trying to take things out of context. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, I dropped the {{an-notice}} on the talk pages of all three of the editors I referred to in my original post, so I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're referring to Panam2014, they may have assumed you were aware of the thread already since I had already notified you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I was talking about Panam2014, he has well over 6500 edits, to just assume things. He knows its policy when opening a case about another editor to notify him promptly. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

CC22' behaviour is problematic and time consuming. It modifies the file and the page whereas it was stable for weeks. This behavior is unacceptable and can not ignore it. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I just noted that there's a thread about the two editors involved here (Panam2014 and Chilicheese22) on AN/I. [33] Should they either be combined, or this one closed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This thread can be closed. The issue of there being a duplicate local file was resolved, it was simply a mistake on my part. The ANI thread is a broad spectrum of issues which includes what was going on here, but there's no need for there to be two threads about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (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.

Editor being bullied

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

---

The IP being reported below is 62.255.118.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• will take other editor to Arbcom unless comment is struck
• more rhetoric with someone else
• more part 2 with other editor's question

The TP has been "watched" quite carefully by another admin who posted there twice thereafter without dealing with the comments. The offender was warned yesterday. PS-I don't care what's said about me because I've turned this in because I can let loose with some very colorful profanity (well, before someone blocks me!. ;) We hope (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Question from a mostly uninformed admin: Given the comments on Blofeld's talkpage, would a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singora be warranted there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It may, as Dr. Blofeld had been the target of the blocked editor's rancor earlier this year. However, the quacking is very similar. We hope (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There's only one person I know obsessed enough with me and who quacks like this and that's Singora. Difficult to prove though given that the IP is Reading, England and Singora's previous IPs were Thailand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the IPs TP & history shows the recent incidents aren't one offs. We hope (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Checked against the Singora case and the UA does not match but it is worth noting that it is a proxy.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What's to be done about the bullying and other uncivil behaviors at the article TP and at Dr. Blofeld's TP? This IP is the one who began the RfC at Cary Grant, which seems to be a major mess because of the bullying, bludgeoning, etc. from a few sides. We hope (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And today's question is the same as yesterday's-what's to be done about this IP editor bullying and being uncivil to others? We hope (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP address on the basis that it is a proxy. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2017 (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.

Disclosed paid editing advisory banner

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 sure some of you who are more on top of these sort of things are already aware, but there has been a spate recently of editors (often IPs) tagging articles with {{Disclosed paid}} in response to an interpretation of changes in German law (the interpretation being, approximately, that any edit for pay constitutes advertising and all advertising is required to be accompanied by a message to that effect). There was some discussion about this at Template talk:Disclosed paid from which I see that no consensus has emerged for this treatment. However this does seem to be a potentially pressing legal issue. I've been removing the template (for example at Hilary Rosen) citing no consensus or WP:NODISCLAIMERS and advising editors to participate in the discussion. How should we be responding to this? (Note: I said "German law" because in the few instances I've seen the editor always refers to "German law", so I don't know if linking to the European fair trading law section refers to the same thing or if something else has recently changed in Germany specifically) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like something you want to ask WMF Legal about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not my area of expertise but I'm not aware of any such change in German law. In Germany, you are legally required to identify paid content as such but that has not changed recently afaik. I think the ruling they allude to is this one from 2012. However, this ruling was not made against Wikipedia and has no legal binding for the Foundation as far as I can tell. In the end, German or European fair-trade laws do not bind a website hosted by an American Foundation, so per our policies, such taggings should be reverted and the user educated that we don't care what a court in Munich says. I do think you should inform Legal about this though if you haven't already, let them sort it out. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both, that's good advice. I will send a note to legal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a conversation about this on WT:COI. There is also concern from a US law standpoint based on FTC regulations that from my (non-lawyer) understanding have been further clarified since the TOU change was put in place. WMF Legal is aware of the concerns some in the community have and have stated that they will be looking into the matter. I expect they will be looking at both German and US law. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2017 (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.

cyberbot I disrupting AfD logs with bad transclusions

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, cyberbot I has been transcluding 2 WikiProject Deletion sorting pages to the AfD log [1] [2] today, which makes the log completely unusable. After I reverted the edits (and notified the operator), the bot did the same thing again after 3 hours [3] [4]. Could an admin disable the AfDbot task or fix this issue in some other way so that we don't have to fix the log every 3 hours please. Iffy★Chat -- 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The bot is doing exactly what it should be doing - transcluding pages that have AFD discussion on them that are not transcluded to the AFD logs. This issue is actually with the two transcluded pages, which I will attempt to suss out and fix. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disabled that task on User:Cyberbot I/Run/AfDBot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the issue was fixed about fifteen minutes ago. Re-enabling the bot. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a bug fix that was not obvious at all. OK with re-enabling though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Never said it was obvious, just thought you'd like to know why I reverted you so soon after you had disabled it. I think I might have been a little brusk in my tone, and for that I apologize; I was intending on being explanatory not accusatory. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No harm. It's the Internet; tone doesn't carry õver and I do often talk in this short way as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

õver? How/why õver and not over? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Loőks łike ȧ typọ ţo ḿe. Guessing some keyboard layout with a combining ~ key on it. Κσυπ Cyp   20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps Jo-Jo meant över. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 21 December 2017 (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.

Ethan Allen IP Jumpers

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

---

The following IP addresses have vandalized Ethan Allen in the last 48 hours: user:165.161.15.54, user:165.161.3.115, user:165.161.3.113, user: 165.161.8.51, user:165.161.3.116. What I don't know is whether a range block or page protection is more feasible. 2602:306:3357:BA0:2DDB:CC53:F3A3:9B1D (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nihonjoe has already protected Ethan Allen, but I see a good deal of other vandalism coming from the range, which isn't very big (165.161.0.0/20), so I've blocked it for two weeks. Thank you for reporting, 2602:306:3357:BA0:2DDB:CC53:F3A3:9B1D. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 21 December 2017 (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.

Uh, what the fahhhh?

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

---

So, at 10:49, 23 Dec @Coffee: left a notice on my talk page concerning some edits at the Andrew McCabe page (long story short, there's some potential WP:BLP vios on the article, I removed them, a brand new account created with the specific purpose of only editing that article started an edit war, that brand new account, is well versed in Wikipedia policy, it's an obvious sock, per WP:DUCK, yadda yadda yadda - standard story) and that he placed the article under discretionary sanctions. I left a response on my talk pointing out that Coffee was (once again) enabling disruptive fly-by-night accounts. I also asked how the placement of DS on the article affected the current status of the article since another user had made a further revert, continuing the edit war, AFTER Coffee placed it under DS.

Lo and behold, several minutes later I find myself topic banned by Coffee for... well, not sure what exactly. I haven't made any reverts. Hell, I haven't made any edits to any articles. I just responded to Coffee's notice.

When I expressed incredulity at the ban (and yes, the exchange at my talk got heated, seeing as how I'm pretty pissed off right now), Coffee claimed that the topic ban was made for leaving this note on another user's page. JFG was the user who continued the edit war on the article on behalf of the WP:SPA account, after I left the article alone. Here is the text of my note exactly:

This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what exactly about that note is topic ban worthy? I mean, you can disagree (and I'm guessing JFG does) but topic ban worthy? What. The Fucking. Fuck.

Honestly, the more likely explanation is that Coffee took offense at my response ON MY OWN TALK to his placing the article under DS and enabling the WP:SPA account (though Coffee's subsequent comments are even stranger - they state that they were not aware of the edit warring warning, which he himself placed on my talk - which raises the possibility his account has been compromised. Or, more likely he's just making up inconsistent excuses for his actions ad-hoc) and made the topic ban as a "respect mah authoritah" kind of block.

Full disclosure: in the past I have criticized Coffee for not having the maturity and temperament to be an admin (this sort of proves it) and have often stated that the "can't restore edits even once" discretionary sanction provision that he came up with is ridiculous and counter productive. Volunteer Marek 00:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please be sure to check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area. This short-term topic ban was placed to give time to the user to evaluate their behavior against our policies in this area, including our policies on discretionary sanctions. It was also placed to prevent further disruption in their editing of Andrew McCabe and related articles. I did not see their rant regarding my warning prior to leaving the ban... and such a response would doubtfully have had any effect on my topic ban if I had seen it prior at any rate, as their comment appears to only make the issue I had seen at JFG's talkpage more apparent. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, in regard to this claim "Please be sure to check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area." - the answer is once. In a highly controversial WP:AE report which was exactly over Coffee's ridiculous "can't undo an edit without consensus" restriction which has caused an insane amount of disruption (the restriction, not the editors) in this topic area because it's so freakin' hard to understand, and so easy to game. I resent the fact that Coffee is trying to imply (notice he writes in purposefully vague terms) something which isn't true. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, feel free to review the entirety of my explanation/back-and-forth to this user on their talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing administrators: Please see this personal attack VM just made about me on his talk page. If this is their behavior when they get sanctioned, they need a longer topic-ban in my administrative opinion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Evaluate their behavior" - are you trying to be a condescending prick? "Prevent further disruption" - what further disruption? I stopped editing that article. JFG was the one who continued the edit war, hence my note on his talk page which was the basis for this topic ban. This is idiotic. You've totally flipped it. Instead of sanctioning or warning the guy who continued the edit war, you topic banned the guy that left a note about it. Volunteer Marek 00:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

JFG restored the article to its state prior to your edit war. Your second personal attack is noted though. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't "my" edit war. And JFG continued the edit war. Yet you topic banned the guy who left a note about it, rather than the guy who kept on edit warring. Seriously, you are not fit to be an admin. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone it down Volunteer Marek. I understand you are irritated right now so I'm cutting some slack, but a couple of your comments directed to Coffee are bluntly not acceptable. You have pushed this particular envelope as far as you can w/o getting blocked. If you have some issues or concerns discuss them civilly. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Damn skippy I'm irritated. I just got topic banned for leaving a note on another user's talk page. A polite note. Not a personal attack. Just a goddamn note. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by 'jumping in first'" does not appear very "polite". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes like this are frequent, standard, made all the time, you can look through any active editor's talk page and you'll see half a dozen of them. To topic ban somebody for it is fucking stupid. Really really stupid. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tangent. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ow dear - too much Coffee - an admin dissapears for months after a critical issue and then returns six months later all guns blasing - editing many hours a day all of a sudden - making controversial admin actions ...hmmm ... Govindaharihari (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC) If this type of commentary is to be expected, I'll be taking this off my watchlist. It appears this is in good hands for now at any rate. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Admin under discussion takes admin noticeboard of his watchlist - la la la la la Govindaharihari (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)} Govindaharihari you do understand why Coffee was absent, correct? VM may have a point -- I'll need to catch up on the full story -- but your ignorance is not helping him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Both of you, please drop this line of conversation. ~ Rob13Talk 01:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear - I have no idea about what any of this is about. All I know is that I got topic banned for no reason - leaving a note on somebody's talk page. If there is some circumstances here that I'm suppose to be aware of, well, I'm not. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC) I don't care why Coffee was absent - I only care about his actions on return after many months - he should imho take his time returning and stop all these controversial admin actions - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Obviously you care, else you wouldn't have brought it up. And "controversial" is yet to be decided. Try not to jump the gun, yeah? --Majora (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Just drop it. It isn't essential to this discussion, especially since Govindaharihari has no idea what he is talking about.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think everyone here was acting in good faith, and can get all sides. Coffee, who I respect a lot, is doing difficult work in AE, and is one of the few admins who is willing to work in the area. I can see why Coffee might view JFG's restoration to the status quo as within the sanctions, and view Volunteer Marek's post as trying to work the sanctions to his advantage. I've had egg in my face before about AE sanctions I meant one way, and thought everyone would read them that way, and they didn't. Discretionary sanctions are a tough area, and I have sympathy for admins who work there regularly.
  I also can see Marek's point of view: every interaction I've had with him on AE he's always done this type of message to try to avoid a WP:AE filing. He thought he was doing something good to try to avoid enforcement of what he thought Coffee meant by the sanctions, and he got sanctioned because Coffee looked at it a different way. That would irritate me too (though, I don't condone the language used towards Coffee here at all).
  I think what is probably the best action at this point is for Coffee to remove the sanctions on Marek voluntarily, and for Marek to talk to Coffee in the future if he has any questions about the sanctions. I think this would help prevent any future issues and hopefully make everyone whole in this particular circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, note that I've explained why the material violates BLP here. Now, I realize that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on that. In fact, I do think there might be SOME material in what I removed that could be included without violating BLP - if properly rewritten. However, when BLP comes into play, the burden is on the person trying to restore the potentially BLP violating material. Indeed, I believe you pointed this out yourself not that long ago in another discussion. Not much damage will occur to the encyclopedia if the material stays out for a few days and then consensus decides to put it back in. A serious amount of damage can occur however if it's kept in for awhile and it does violate BLP. Hence, I was completely in the right (and so is User:Calton, whom Coffee is now threatening to ban as well) to insist that this get hashed out on the talk page first. And do keep in mind that it was a WP:SPI, loudly quacking brand new account (as John points out below) that was doing the restoring. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Marek, you sum up my philosophy on ONUS pretty well. I don't particularly agree with your BLP explanation and am not sure it falls under the exemption, but I do prefer that these things be discussed and almost always prefer being conservative on these things. If I were active in that discussion, I'd likely call for it to be removed until we could sort out the BLP issues, so I get your point of view. At the same time, I've been in Coffee's shoes before, and get how difficult dealing in these areas can be. He is one of the few admins who is willing to make the tough calls here, and while I might not always agree with him, I always know that he is trying to make the encyclopedia run more smoothly. That's why I think the best solution here is what Malinaccier describes below as shaking hands and moving on. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the edit war is actually continuing and somehow I don't see Coffee handing out warnings or sanctions to TWO out of THREE users who have continued to edit war on this article. And these are precisely the two users who have violated WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Volunteer Marek 07:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not find the note Volunteer Marek left to be particularly objectionable (i.e. ban-worthy) in isolation; however, my reading of Coffee's topic ban is that it was made because of Volunteer Marek's long history of disagreements in this topic of editing. Now, I do think Coffee's move is heavy handed, but I do think it was within the realm of reason given Volunteer Marek having come off of a one month topic ban from Donald Trump on December 15th. I agree with TonyBallioni's suggestion that Coffee removes the sanctions on Volunteer Marek and further suggest that Volunteer Marek offer an apology to Coffee for his behavior. At this point, it is probably best for both parties to shake hands and move on. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "long history of disagreements" here. There is one DS sanction I was subject to. One. Which was also over Coffee's ridiculous "can't undo an edit (even if it violates BLP or other guidelines) without getting consensus" restriction, which pretty much everyone who edits in this topic area will tell you is an insane, pointless, counter productive, totally-gamable, difficult to understand and easy-to-violate-on-accident restriction. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

So, you’ve never taken anyone to WP:AE to enforce that same restriction? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony as well. Talking with VM before coming to such a heavy-handed decision could have spared us a lot of drama. Despite his case, this isn't to say VM should have acted so hostile toward Coffee, and, although I don't expect an apology, it would help move this issue in a positive direction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

More bullshit from out-to-lunch administrators. I wish I could say it's outrageous, but it isn't. I strongly recommend that the admin corps come out of their ivory towers and spend some time editing this encyclopedia, especially in areas that are contentious. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The topic ban against VM is short (24 hours) so it might be argued that the issue should be dropped with a warning to VM that while venting for a short time after a sanction is anticipated, such rants are unacceptable. However, Coffee's above "check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area" demonstrates that a simple count will be used against VM, so the sanction should be examined here. The first edit by TeddyToons (talk · contribs) was to revert VM using "CRYBLP" in the edit summary. Given the context, Coffee might have indefinitely topic banned TeddyToons for such blatant DUCKing (on reflection, it might have been well-aimed trolling intended to provoke VM). However, it appears Coffee interpreted VM's comment at User talk:JFG#McCabe as warranting a ban (Coffee mentioned that in diff). I agree with the comments above that such comments are standard in all contentious areas—I watch a few pages unrelated to American politics and people frequently use that approach, and it generally works well since it gives an opportunity to ensure others are aware of the background—there is nothing inappropriate about VM's comment. My recommendation would be that Coffee reverse their topic ban so this discussion can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• @User:Coffee: Please review the reason for the topic ban in view of comments made here. Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to ping Coffee since he said he wasn't going to pay attention to this page. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Why bother? He made it clear that his mind couldn't be changed, another quality seen much too often in the admin corps. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping Coffee. In case you haven't been following the discussion, please see above.

My take: FTR I tend to agree with Tony's assessment. I can see both sides of this, but in the particular case at hand the TBAN may have been a bit precipitous. This is not intended as a criticism. We all do our best day to day to stay on the right side of judgement calls, and sometimes we fail. It doesn't help that there are a few too many folks who seem to think that passing RfA confers some form of infallibility or omniscience and who therefor attribute any failings to malice or willful incompetence. All of which aside, I do believe that in this instance forbearance while seeking some clarification might have been the better course. For now I also suggest lifting the TBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I've not known you to have bad judgement in matters like this, so I see no reason to not listen to your advice here. @Volunteer Marek: The 24 hour topic ban is hereby vacated and replaced by a firm warning to not accuse other editors of attempting to "game the sanctions", or otherwise comment on motivations unless such accusations are being made at WP:AE. This change has no effect on the page restrictions nor the discretionary sanctions that are still active across much of the area. Please continue to adhere to such sanctions as normal. I don't expect you to understand where I am coming from on this, but I do wish that you know I have no hard feelings towards, nor vendetta against, you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee If I haven't made any bad calls in matters like this it's because I am one of those admins Tony alluded to. I avoid ARBCOM like the plague. I don't even like the drama boards like ANI and ... ummm... here. In the 364.5 days I have been an admin I have imposed ACDS editing restrictions on an editor exactly once and then only to avoid having to indef them. Anyway IMHO this thread has run it's useful course and perhaps someone can close it now. Merry Christmas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, whatever disruption was supposed to be prevented by a 24 hour TBAN probably ... could ... have been foreseen to be ... likely matched by this thread... which was very likely to be forthcoming. I suspect that has something to do with... well I checked the log, and this appears to be the first time that a 24 hour TBAN has ever been instated as an AE action, at least in the unarchived logs (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). And... wikilinking to wikt isn't normally the most effective way to diffuse a heated situation. So, there are problems with the initial string of edits, but this doesn't seem to be the most effective way of solving them. GMG^talk 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure this out, following all the links and diffs given by Coffee, and I still don't have a clear idea of what specific problem the topic ban was meant to solve. I see that as problematic. The other problem I see is Volunteer Marek's aggressive and condescending response to Coffee. Not sure how to best resolve this, but if I were Coffee I'd make it easy on the community, give VM a clear explanation of what specific things VM did to get banned (including all relevant diffs!) and what my thought process was, and then I'd likely rescind the ban. Then if I were VM I'd apologize for calling Coffee a snot nosed brat and stuff. ~Awilley (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Given Coffee's message to me on my talk page regarding the removal of a potential BLP violation, VM's response is understandable, maybe even justified. BLP policy does NOT in any way shape or form require potential violations be "blatant", as Coffee claimed, BLP policy requires caution in controversial edits, and by any reasonable interpretation and practices, BLP policy trumps discretionary sanctions Coffee claims applies. Coffee is so obviously wrong and his threat on talk page -- and it's a threat, not a warning -- is so out of line that it's clear to me that he's not merely mistaken, he's actively putting his thumb on the scales. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And the irony here is that he accused (and sanctioned me for) of "making a threat", where in fact I only left a note on a user's page, whereas *he* was actually making threats at your talk page. What's the difference? Coffee is an admin so he gets to make threats but we're not so we can't even leave notes? I was gonna drop this but then I saw that and just how cynically abusive that is, and it just got my ire up again. Sorry, this isn't a "hug and make up" kind of situation. This is a "not an isolated incident", "conduct unbecoming" and "someone who shouldn't have the tools in the first place" kind of situation. Volunteer Marek 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I will divide my comment into what happened, and then my reaction. Looking at the history of Andrew McCabe, we see the following.

• Volunteer Marek removed a bunch of text from the article in an edit with the summary: rumor mongering BLP vios.
• A new account, TeddyToons, reverted VM with the message stable consensus / CRYBLP as their first edit.
• Both of them reverted back and forth, till 3RR was reached.
• Coffee then added a DS template on the talk page, imposing 1RR and the "consensus required" restriction, and left a message to VM and TeddyToons about edit-warring. Neither VM nor TeddyToons made any further edits to the WP page.
• TeddyToons' last edit was reverted by Sro23 and then re-reverted by JFG with the message: Restore pre-warring version until talk page discussion resolves the dispute.
• VM left a message to JFG on their talk page. Coffee then topic-banned VM for 24 hours, citing the last diff.

Now, I will react to this matter:

This is a completely unjustified TBAN. There is nothing in the last diff which deserves any sanction. If that is the standard, nobody will be safe in this area (or in any other area, for that matter). Besides, a 24-hour TBAN is completely useless (the practice at AE is usually something like a month or three months, at the minimum). Such a silly TBAN only serves to be a "mark" on someone's record, to be used in the future by various parties. This, needless to say, is an extremely bad thing. I see nothing in Coffee's replies above which give even a smidgen of justification for this action. "Discretionary" does not mean arbitrary.

Now, I understand that this is a contentious area and admins do what they can. What Coffee should have done is to bring the matter to AE and let others weigh in. If JFG felt threatened or something, they could have brought the matter to AE (JFG didn't say anything about the matter, AFAIK). This way, the matter could have been debated and appropriate action taken. There was no hurry for any sanction, since neither VM nor TT had edited the page since Coffee's placing of restrictions. I would bet good money that if this matter had been brought to AE, nothing would have happened, which is the correct course of action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Coffee has done a lot of good work for the encyclopedia, but in the past couple of days I've seen admin actions from him that are overly-aggressive and lacking in appropriate discretion, including blocking Casprings, Scjessey, and the aggressive warning and topic ban of Volunteer Marek. The only user who should have been blocked is the very obvious sock-troll TeddyToons.

The DS editing restriction that prevents reverted edits from being restored without consensus is crippling the principle of determining consensus by bold editing and is being blatantly abused by SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks who use it to WP:GAME the system. This is obvious to anyone who has edited articles with this restriction, but a handful of admins continue to insist that it's preventing disruption while they somehow manage to ignore disruption caused by SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks.

Marek's personal attacks on Coffee are understandable given the circumstances and Coffee's tone, but they are highly-inflammatory. Coffee is due an apology from Marek.- MrX 13:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Rescind the TBAN and mark it as such on the DS Log 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.

---

• Support: See my explanation in the section just above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As info, the topic ban has already been rescinded - see here. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I'll close this section then. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:10, 24 December 2017 (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.

Rescind the warning at DS Log

• The section above is obsolete, but the "warning" logged at DSLog is scarcely better. It serves the same function: as a "mark" on VM's record and it will be used against them in the future (you can count on it 100%). In my opinion, there is nothing here which requires a formal sanction. It should be rescinded too. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  Rescinded. Alex Shih (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reviewing the chronology provided by Kingsindian in a previous section, and noting that Coffee reverted Alex Shih's close on this matter. This more than anything makes the whole affair look like an attempt to rack up "Volunteer Marek" entries in the official DS log, which I'm sure isn't the intent, but still looks bad. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I know this is probably the wrong place to suggest this, but if Wikipedia actually took its BLP policy seriously, (a) every BLP would be under pending changes, and (b) this drama would never have happened. Once upon a time, Wikipedia marketed itself as the encyclopedia anybody could edit. That slogan was abandoned years ago. We have WP:ECP almost by default on contentious articles based on an ArbCom decision, but we turn a blind eye to a policy with legal considerations. Something is seriously wrong with that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

We do not have enough manpower to handle pending changes if they are configured at every BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Baloney. I'd bet that practically every one of those BLPs is on somebody's watchlist. What edit does an unregistered editor have to make to a BLP that can't wait until an experienced editor reviews it and allows it to go live? We're talking about a policy with legal ramifications, not NPOV or NPA. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you underestimate how many times per day IP editors update stats on sports biographies. GMG^talk 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this is correct (and, yes, I am actively editing in contentious areas).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For reference, Category:Living people has 1,104,441 members, out of 6,908,842 total articles. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

My impression was that the German Wikipedia has pending changes applied. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe they have flagged revisions, which is not the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes redirects to Flagged revisions. Whatever be the exact mechanism, the principle is the same: some editor has to approve changes. If it can work on the German Wikipedia, why not here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For pending revision, the changes are not shown until approved. For flagged revisions indeed every change has to be approved, but they are still shown before approval unless configured otherwise. (I had extensive experience with flagged revisions in the Russian Wikipedia seven years ago). In the first case, the changes need to be approved asap, whereas in the second case they can wait (and indeed they do wait for years in the Russian Wikipedia). I have heard that indeed in the German Wikipedia changes are approved reasonably quickly, but here we can not even recruit enough editors for the new page patrol, and it requires way less efforts than if all our BLPs were set on pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. As to your latter argument, I would suggest that the NPP population and population for pending changes/flagged revisions are not the same. For the latter, it can be anyone (of reasonable experience) who has a BLP article on their watchlist. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 24 December 2017 (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.

Rescind the warning at DS Log

• The section above is obsolete, but the "warning" logged at DSLog is scarcely better. It serves the same function: as a "mark" on VM's record and it will be used against them in the future (you can count on it 100%). In my opinion, there is nothing here which requires a formal sanction. It should be rescinded too. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  Rescinded. Alex Shih (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reviewing the chronology provided by Kingsindian in a previous section, and noting that Coffee reverted Alex Shih's close on this matter. This more than anything makes the whole affair look like an attempt to rack up "Volunteer Marek" entries in the official DS log, which I'm sure isn't the intent, but still looks bad. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note - With Alex's blessing, I am reopening this specific subsection. Per this discussion, the warning was originally rescinded, and then reinstated citing the fact that this thread was not robust enough to constitute a consensus. Since it seems to be an outstanding question, if there is strong opinion or argument one way or the other, this would be the appropriate forum. GMG^talk 00:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ...okay, I feel like this is something I shouldn't have to say to a fellow administrator, but: Coffee, the First Law of Holes is applying here. Stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support rescinding the warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• I also support rescinding the warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• If this is under discussion, perhaps the log should also be amended with respect to the rather heavy-handed blocks Coffee applied to Casprings and myself? (See MrX's comment above) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Scjessey: As a note on procedure, if you'd like community review of a different block/log/whatever, start a different section. Otherwise, things get confused and there won't be clear consensus for anything. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13: It's exactly the same block log as Volunteer Marek, in the same section, with the same editor performing the block. In fact, the block/log was discussed in the same (now closed) section above as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Your edits leading up the block are different, though, and those are the key aspect that will determine whether or not it should be rescinded. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACE2017

• WP:ACE2017

The 2017 ArbCom election results are posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017#Results, partially certified. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Now three certifiers, I think that means it's now certified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do the results now have to be accepted by Jimbo (or the WMF), or is that no longer the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a great question. The "welcome" messages went out, but no peep from Jimbo. The policy doesn't specifically call it out, but other pages mention him. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for the horse's mouth! (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Question_on_action_needed) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The new arbitrators are already being brought onto the mailing list and will officially take office January 1. Jimbo Wales hasn't made formal arbitrator appointments in several years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I agree, and will clean up the documentation that is both here and on meta that references this process, but giving Jimbo a chance to officially declare that he is divorced from the process, if you have found where this has actually occurred previously, I'd love to see a diff. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Best place to look back is previous election results and Jimbo's talk page. Looking back at a post I wrote off-site when I looked at this briefly back in May 2016, it seems that the last 'ceremonial appointment' was back in December 2013. You could check to see if this has definitely not happened since, and then record that somewhere. That link I provide also points back to what Jimbo wrote then about how he saw things panning out. Not sure if anything definite was actually done, though. Other stuff happened since as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, in practice this is no longer occurring, but before updating pages referencing that the committee is still "appointed" by him (e.g. meta:Arbitration Committee, meta:Arbitration_Committee/Election_processes#English, Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration_Committee, etc etc etc., I was hoping to get a statement from him (currently awaiting reply on his talk page) that this is now a pure community process. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Jimbo Wales saw his role in appointing ArbCom as more ceremonial than one of significance—so as his actual role in the administration of the project has diminished, his ceremonial role has simply faded out of memory. Mz7 (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for their insights on this. I had forgotten (or never knew) that Jimbo was phasing himself out of even the "ceremonial" rubber-stamping of Arbs, although I knew he was doing so in general, even, I believe, giving up some authority for the "Founder" user right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Jimbo replied at his talk page, which resolves the process issue for normal community run elections. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The user talk page User talk:68.146.84.92 isn’t working

This talk page isn’t working and not allowing anyone to edit it. Try editing it to see for yourself self. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.146.84.92 184.56.47.51 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yo, it's perfectly editable; but per WP:BLANKING, "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" may not be removed, hence the notice's continued replacement. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user claims to have an admin's phone number

While looking through the requests for unblock report, I came across this. I'm not sure where this falls on the red-alert scale (given the admin in question has openly provided "sufficient details to find it" on their userpage), but I'm pretty sure this is something that is decidedly not kosher. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed the admin to make sure they were aware of this. I'm debating on removing TP access for now. SQL^{Query me!} 03:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

He definitely has some strange ideas. Talks about what and who he knows, but can't "name sources"? Sounds like he mistakes us for some Hollywood rag. He certainly is not submitting acceptable unblock requests. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

203.87.171.0/24

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

---

Could someone renew the block on this range? It's used by an LTA, see contribs. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Simplexity22 for the heads up! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:36, 24 December 2017 (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.

Legal threat by indeffed sockmaster

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 is merely a formality since the editor in question is now indeffed for sockpuppetry. The sockmaster behind user account Frankabr. has issued what looks like a legal threat at his talk page here [34] (see the comment, "Where would a lawyer send you papers?") The sockmaster is attempting to persuade admins to consider an unblock at all three of his accounts (two of them socks, User:Envirowhacko and User:Chessfool. Since it's the holidays, I know people are a little more sentimental and the number of folks paying attention to matters needing attention is down. Just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks of scrutiny considering there has been a legal threat made and that's always been a sure way to true and forever indef status. Happy holidays, eh? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I see now that an admin has taken care of the legal threat by blocking talk page access. May I suggest this also happen at the sock account talk pages as well? Thanks for acting so quickly, Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers (and Merry Christmas)! bd2412 T 22:28, 24 December 2017 (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.

Whitelisting

BeachBunnyGirl recently asked me for assistance in de-blacklisting an article, since I'd been involved in the article in the past. In short, several years ago there was a rash of spamming in our article about a lake resort town, Put-in-Bay, Ohio, and several of the links ended up being blacklisted. One of them, the useful website of the village's chamber of commerce, was used in the infobox: there being no official website for the village, those of us discussing the situation at talk chose to use the CofC site in its stead. However, someone's since replaced the CofC site with spam, and as the CofC site is blacklisted (on Meta, not here), it can't be put it back without de-blacklisting. Since it's on the Meta blacklist, and since it's not likely to be useful anywhere except this individual en:wp article, I left a note at the Meta admin noticeboard requesting whitelisting assistance, but I was told that I needed to add it to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist here at en:wp.

So my question: is there a way to whitelist a URL for a specific page, while still preventing its use everywhere else on the English Wikipedia? Kind-of-like what we do with images on the bad images list. If that's not possible (and looking at the page, I'm guessing that it's not), I'm happy to add it to the whitelist and use it in just that article, but I'd definitely prefer to have a way to restrict it to just this one article.

Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

With all the evidence coming out about Put-in's interference in American affairs, I suggest we proceed with utmost care on this. EEng 03:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You really oughta put that in small :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The two web sites that were mentioned by User:BeachBunnyGirl are http://visitputinbay.com and http://visitputinbay.org. I don't see much value in using either link in the infobox. Our article Put-in-Bay, Ohio is about the village of Put-in-Bay (population 138) and that village has no web site. The closest governmental web site that would provide any information is most likely that of the township, http://www.pibtownship.com. From a newspaper article we learn that the village has an administrator, a mayor, a village council and a police department. But we don't learn anything at all about those matters from the Chamber of Commerce web site (.com) or the corresponding .org, which belongs to another group. So in my opinion, we could omit both these links and not bother with the whitelisting. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic 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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?

Some background information: Andrew Davidson (recognizable by his signature "Andrew D.") is a long-term contributor who has contributed positively to this project extensively. However, he has long been known for his disruptive, and regularly recurring, oppose !votes in RFAs, such as in the ongoing RFA for Muboshgu. In this RFA, Andrew asked a question which has since been heavily redacted for containing potentially BLP-violating information regarding a RevDel-ed edit. In response to Andrew's oppose on the same RFA, Beyond My Ken told Muboshgu that "It's his [Andrew's] judgement which is untrustworthy -- as he's proved over and over again on RfAs -- not yours." On the basis of this and many other disruptive RFA votes, other users have already suggested that Andrew be topic-banned from RFAs (e.g. [35] [36] [37] (these are all quite recent, too)). For these reasons, I would like to formally propose such a ban. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've supported this for a long time. His votes include some real gems that are observationally equivalent to trolling. See, for instance, this, where Andrew opposed because the candidate hadn't outed themselves or disclosed their gender. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that your specific example, while it reflects quite poorly on Andrew, is two years old. If these proposed sanctions are to pass, we need to have evidence from several more recent RfAs. Lepricavark (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of age, it makes clear the attitude Andrew takes to RfA. Oppose at all costs, finding whatever flimsy excuse he can to do so. Recent examples of similarly baseless opposes are plentiful. He's argued that saving a clearly-unsuitable article by moving it to draftspace is somehow a sneaky attempt at getting it deleted, opposed for removing unsourced content, opposed a candidate as being a reckless deletionist for nominating a list of all films that feature Christmas specifically in a non-important role (!), complained that a candidate didn't characterize a living person as a descriptor so bad it had to be revdel'd when Andrew said it, and argued that bot operators should never be admins. He almost always asks questions after he has already opposed, showing that he's asking for the sake of asking, not to evaluate the candidate; I have never seen him change a !vote based upon an answer to such a question. His behavior is highly disruptive. I want to add that I wouldn't support an RfA topic ban just because I think someone is using crazy criteria. The problem is that Andrew isn't using criteria. He's opposing any way he can in a "watch the world burn" kind of way. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Some quick notes: this has been brought up earlier this year, in a much more comprehensive manner. The same thread was also mentioned in the current RfA, so I am a bit surprised it wasn't mentioned here. In addition, topic bans should be proposed in WP:AN instead as a procedural note, so I will proceed to move this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support--He is clearly surplus to our requirements.And keep this thread open for at-least 24 hours.Winged Blades^Godric 05:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The comment at BethNaught's RfA alone, honestly, should've drawn an RfA ban. No opinion on the length other than to say I generally don't like indef topic bans because they tend to be permanent for better or worse. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record and the curious, Mendaliv is referring to this edit where Andrew Davidson gripes about Beth's name and lack of clear stated gender. Seems similar to Andrew's comment on Muboshgu's RfA. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - My observation is that Andrew Davidson's oppose votes do not seem to arise from a predetermined criteria for the acceptance of new administrators, instead he appears to do extensive research in order to find something (anything) which he can use against the RfA candidate, and then proceeds to oppose on that basis. If he can not find something substantive, he will use even the flimsiest rationale to base his oppose vote on. It's really well past time that he should have been banned from RfA. I don't think his modus operadi is likely to change, so I'd be in favor of indef, because it leaves open the slim chance that I'm wrong, and he can have a change of heart, and convince the community of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Before it is pointed out to me, yes, this is a change from my !vote in January. I have since changed my mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Andrew Davidson's long record of opposition to most RfA candidates for flimsy and minor reasons has passed the point of disruption. In fairness to Andrew, he supported my RfA. However, I have been flabbergasted dozens of times by his conduct at RfA, and it is time for it to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Concurring with BU Rob13 and other supporter of this proposal. This pattern of voting goes back years, also during his editing as Colonel Warden. He has habit of regularly being the lone opposer (or one of very few) even on RfAs that are clearly going to be successful, and he appears to have a an aversion to RfAs that may well close with a blank 'oppose' section. Over time, I have made various appeals to his better nature on his talk page but they are ignored. He occasionally does support a candidate, but without being accused of bad faith, I believe this to be a ploy for his eventual argument against requests for a topic ban which he has known for a longtime would end up here sooner or later. Despite his otherwise admirable outreach work, I'm afraid that his participation at RfA contributes very much to the combined reasons why we don't get so many candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully agree. It is not an accident that when the idea of a topic ban started being floated (early to mid 2016) his support percentage went up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• support- Net negative at RfA for a long time. He opposes candidates for such crimes as not being a native (though fluent) English speaker, voting delete on an AfD that he wanted kept, and enjoying the work of Hunter S. Thompson. And does so with calculated superciliousness. I think it's primarily trolling. Reyk _YO! 07:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I hadn't been aware of this before, but looking through the links provided...wow, the description of 'find something, anything, to oppose' is entirely accurate. Barring somebody from RFA should be an absolute last resort, as we need the broadest possible swath of opinions on those seeking the mop, be they good, bad, or ugly, but when there is a pattern of behavior that is indistinguishable from trolling, eventually it can only be taken so much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He did oppose my RfA, so I suppose that makes me involved. However, the other examples provided by Rob are ridiculous. I agree with Kudpung's impression that his support votes form a calculated attempt to appear reasonable—but when you see that in other RfAs he makes many unreasonable votes, some in direct opposition to established policies (e.g. mine), this attempt fails. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 09:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a net negative to the RFA process and unable (or unwilling?) to understand the difference between good-faith disagreement and petty, irrational nonsense drama. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Anyone can oppose RfA for any reason and many do. If one really wants to give a superficially plausible reason, it is very easy to mask your true reasons. Bad reasons aren't a reason for banning people from RfA votes; disruption is. And there is no evidence for any disruption here. The way the RfA process is set up, 'crats are free to disregard bad reasons. I do not like Andrew D.'s reasons often, but I see in them a risk-averse mentality, which is quite understandable given that adminship is a (mostly) permanent position.

  I'll take just one example: the oppose in BethNaught's RfA. I didn't vote in the RfA, but I did make a comment on the talk page disagreeing with Andrew D.'s position. The way I read their comment, their rationale is that they don't trust that the candidate isn't a returning user. One may or may not agree with their reasons (and most people didn't), but in an anonymous environment, when electing a user to a permanent position, some people tend to trust their instincts. Nothing wrong with this general attitude. I note that for this "worst of the worst" example which many people cite, the RfA passed easily and there was zero disruption, which is the most important point. I suggest that the right way to proceed is to tolerate oddballs on Wikipedia, as long as they don't become disruptive. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • This is flawed reasoning on a number of fronts, but most notably because there has actually been significant disruption evidenced by the shear volume of unproductive discussion caused by this single user's bizarre RfA oppose comments and questions. In the BethNaught RfA, there were dozens of comments generated from Andrew Davidson's wacky oppose rationale. That's disruption. The comments even had to be moved to the talk page, and some were collapsed because they were so heated. Perhaps this is not simply trolling behavior, but some sort of one man crusade against the perception of groupthink. Regardless, the disruption, and the impact on candidates and potential candidates is a net negative to the process.- MrX 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If an oppose vote attracts lots of replies, it is "disruption", even though the user only comments a couple of times, and it has no effect on the success of the RfA, and nobody is forced to respond to the oppose vote (or the subsequent discussion)? And this "disruption" is only the fault of one person? I keep hearing these claims about "impact on candidates and potential candidates", always without proof or even a mechanism. A candidate who passed RfA 180-3 would have their soul crushed by one bad oppose? I am rather surprised that people are capable of believing this kind of piffle. Perhaps people should read The Problem of Social Cost. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose At RfA, it is indeed my policy to examine the candidate's history and then oppose them if I don't like what I find. I don't have formal criteria but I'm usually wanting to see evidence of content creation and a positive attitude – helpful, constructive and pleasant. If the evidence indicates that the candidate might be otherwise then I tend to oppose because admin rights are granted for life and it's not easy to get them removed. If I have any doubts, I therefore tend to play it safe by opposing.

As an example, consider the current RfA of Harrias. I noticed this starting when it showed up in my watchlist on Christmas Eve but I am not familiar with this person, did not cast a vote in their first RfA in 2012 and so did not have a immediate view. I looked at their nomination statement and their own account of their history looked quite good but the mention of Wifione was a good warning to check carefully. I checked out their user page and established that they seemed mainly interested in cricket. I'm not interested in that myself but it seems reasonably respectable. I then looked at some logs of their admin activity as this RfA is a re-confirmation. I looked at their log of blocks and it didn't appear that they were trigger-happy. I then looked at their log of deletions. It seemed that they mainly deleted articles which had been nominated by PROD. I looked through the list to find a topic which seemed notable and selected Benevolence in islam. This had been deleted and so I couldn't see it to check it out myself. I therefore requested that it be restored at WP:REFUND. It has been restored now and I have had a quick glance at it. I'm not familiar with the topic and made a start by browsing sources. I've gotten the impression that benevolence is a core aspect of Islam and they have a word for it – ihsan. I reckon that it's possible to make something of the topic but, on the other hand, I can see why it was deleted as the current draft looks to have been written mainly from a religious perspective, rather than being more neutral. So, overall, I'm still inclining to support Harrias as they generally seem good-natured and offering themself for re-confirmation seems especially noble and respectable.

Evaluating a candidate by closely examining their history still seems the right way to go about this. I deny and reject the suggestion that my votes are not made in good faith. My position is that I have high standards and so it is a natural consequence that I will oppose frequently. If others are more lenient or accepting then they are welcome to their views and they get to cast votes too. If we all have our say then the outcome will be a balanced summary of our various findings, opinions and positions. It doesn't seem right to exclude or punish minority views as this will tend to distort the process, as explained at groupthink. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Vote struck; the prospective target of a topic ban cannot !vote on whether they're topic banned. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Really??? Paul August ☎ 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The hell they can't. Who gave you the right to make that determination? And it's a !vote, not a vote. A !vote is an argument, seeking to persuade; not a vote to be totted up. You don't have the authority to deny the target of a proposed topic ban the right to clearly state their opposition to it if they choose. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

New Arb, has more power than you can possibly imagine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the concern of so many respectable and experienced users about your !voting and it's functional equivalency, do you feel that there is any need for even slight change(s) in your practices?Winged Blades^Godric 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I shall read the discussion with interest and note the various suggestions. The main thing I've noticed so far is a complaint that I don't have written criteria. I've previously considered writing these out to help people understand my comments and position. I might get this done now and would probably start by looking at previous examples written by others. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- wasn't someone - Eric Corbett, perhaps? - prohibited from commenting at RfA but nonetheless allowed to !vote? I'm not a fan of Andrew D's often specious comments at RfA and at AfD but it could be that we're proposing to operate two standards here. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, per Arbcom case and amendments thereof; I note though that the concerns there were more about talk page commentary than !votes if the findings of fact are an indication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  I seem to remember User:Kmweber sticking out as being banned from RfA (I'm not actually certain if Kurt was banned from RfA or just flat-out told to stop opposing every self-nom simply because they're self-noms). I always thought that was actually quite an extreme, though perhaps at the time it fit more in with Wikipedia's culture. Either way, I feel comfortable supporting this RfA ban because of the flat-out offensive nature of some of the RfA opposes, whereas I see Kurt's opposition to self-noms as being just straightforward opposition to a practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  This seven year old discussion says that Kmweber was for a period of time banned from editing the Wikipedia namespace, which includes the RfA pages; it seems like a) the restriction was because of AfD concerns rather than RfA and b) it apparently lapsed since it's no longer on the "editing restrictions" page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  Kurt's ban was lifted after this discussion at AN/I. ansh666 19:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kingsindian Brustopher (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban from voting in RFAs. If his comments are too disruptive (in the general environment of RfA, where it is traditional that small issues are blown up way out of proportion and good users opposed and driven away over nothing, they look like the standard nonsense we have always tolerated) then perhaps he could be restricted to just voting instead of being allowed to advertise his rationale. (His votes don't seem to disturb anyone, just the unconvincing explanation that comes with them). Alternatively, just look for his RfA opposes and then vote "support per Andrew D.". —Kusma (t·c) 11:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can separate his !votes from his rationales. Merely removing his ability to advertise the rationales will not change the fact that he frequently opposes for flimsy reasons. If sanctions are going to be handed down, this is not a good time for a half-measure. Lepricavark (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Peculiar question In an ongoing RfA, Andrew Davidson posted the question "What is the origin or meaning of your account name" after they had already !voted to oppose the candidate. (see Q12). The question and particularly its timing did not seem like a valuable use of the community's resources. If the answer was actually going to change their !vote, then I'd say we are not losing much if he isn't allowed to comment in RfA's anymore. As Sitush mentioned above, maybe a compromise is allowing him to !vote without commenting.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• I was just commenting above, not making a compromise proposal. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (I've already voted above). Since following more of this discussion, I've been back and had a look at BethNaught's hugely successful RfA (and it's talk page) which along with everyone except Davidson, I wholeheartedly supported. I think his behaviour there was disgraceful and exacerbated by his futile attempts to justify himself, as he does here. It was part of a pattern then - probably the worst example of it - and still is. User comments on that RfA should have been the tipping point, but it's taken exactly two more years to bring it here. It's impossible for him to be unaware that his oppose votes will invariably cause the very drama on RfA that many of us have been pleading for years with the community to avoid. One way of cleaning RfA up is to make an example if those who come with the intention of disrupting. I can't understand how he, as a mature, intelligent person can coolly participate with other established users at real life events knowing that they are aware of his otherwise mean spirited proclivity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

futile attempts] to justify himself. You'd prefer he not justify himself? All I see on the page is people objecting to his oppose vote by giving their reasons, and he sticking to his position by giving his reasons. Whether his reasons are right or wrong isn't relevant. What "drama" is there on the page and why is it important? Andrew D. made exactly three comments on the talk page, two of which were replies to others. Besides, the RfA passed easily. If people think that Andrew D. was trolling, then just ignoring them is the best option. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian, we're talking about a very clear, long term pattern here. One which is unacceptable and invariably causes unnecessary drama of the kind that gives RfA its bad reputation and puts candidates of the right calibre from running. It's not a case for brushing it off with a simplisitic 'Besides, the RfA passed easily' . Perhaps if you were to investigate for yourself... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support- RfA is already a thankless, stressful process for candidates. We don't need people whose personal standards for adminship are so far outside of the project's norms that their participation in RfAs is consistently disruptive and damaging to the process.- MrX 12:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Honest question - Is giving one's opinion on a RfA a vote or a !vote? If it's the former, then we need to let him vote his conscience, and only take action if his rationales are disruptive - simply having your personal standards be out of line with the community standards isn't enough. If it's a !vote, and voters whose standards are wildly different from the communities should be reigned in, then I need to both protest the echo chamber formed, and re-evaluate how I approach RfA voting personally. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Formally it's more a !vote since there is no fixed numerical formula and bureaucrats have and sometimes exercise the authority to give more/less consideration to particular rationales (it's usually more the oppose rationales that are so scrutinized) in borderline cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. There is a numerical formula that 'crats follow: above 75% the candidate is successful; in the 65% to 75% range, the 'crats have discretion; below 65% the candidate fails. The latest adjustment to the ranges was the subject of well-attended RfC that you can read about at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC #C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%. It is clearly the case that – unlike this discussion – an RfA is most definitely a vote. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, above the "iffy range", 'crats invariably promote, and far from me to detract from their good work (as a former 'crat myself), if someone's getting 88% with 188 supports (say), it's a no-brainer that they're getting the mop. Reading through each and every support and oppose vote and then determining that the 88% were wrong is something that has never happened. It's a numerical vote unless it gets into the "iffy" range. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

See, I was working off the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship page which says nothing about a firm treshold. But yes, in practice it usually works like a formula; I recall a lot of conversation on WT:RFA on whether that should be called "it's a vote" or "it's a !vote". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support a t-ban from the RfA process. As noted, it has had a reputation not far short of AN/I when it comes to unsavourary behaviours and outright personal attacks, and Davidson's peristent near-trolling can only have contributed to that atmosphere. This is not a situation that can be rectified by codifying their own criteria. They are contributing, effectively, to putting editors off from standing at RfA, and that is severe enough to warrant a tban. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I am disappointed that someone tried to initiate this banning. The selection of admins is one of the aspects of Wikipedia that can most strongly influence its character, so it's important that prospective admins be well vetted. Andrew D. is rather famous for having particularly stringent criteria, but I've heard several times that his input has been a turning point in a discussion when he brought up something that others hadn't considered. On the other hand, a single vote against a candidate won't block him or her if others feel that the positives outweigh the negatives – as many of the examples above demonstrate. A successful admin should not be so fragile that he or she is bent out of shape by a bit of debate on the RfA page. If Andrew D. is banned from RfA, it will be a chilling sign for the operation of Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a fine-line between constructive criticism and trolling.I don't know how opposing an RFA due to non-disclosure of gender, his irrelevant thoughts that all technical positions (CU, Botops etc.) must not be alotted to volunteer editors, etnically-biases gems like this and more of the like falls in the former category.The former must be promoted whilst the latter must be curbed.Winged Blades^Godric 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't buy his argument that example that you mention either. (Some confused logic that an nominee may have had a previous account.) But neither did anyone else, and the RfA went forward to acceptance. His arguments may be appear peculiar in some cases, but Andrew D. is definitely not a troll as you have claimed, and, in some instances, other editors do find merit in his arguments. He is a "special" individual who has done quite a bit for Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think anyone here doubts his input to the project; concerns are very specifically being raised as to his position on one particular portion of it. The somewhat idiosyncratic "specialness" of his input there has so far gone unrecognised. The disruption it has caused (two trips to this noticeboard, multiple discussions on the RfAs he participates in, talk page etc) has clearly not gone unrecognised, however. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no actual rule that Andrew D. has broken, except for a very subjective reading of voting against the grain on many discussions as being disruptive behavior. In fact, the RfA rules specifically grant broad latitude to editors in what arguments they can make. Thus, I actually believe that Andrew D. is not just following the letter of the law, but actually the spirit of the law. The way that RfA is structured, a dissenting voice is not going to break the process, but may in fact strengthen it.

Serial Number 54129, you suggest that only banning one aspect of this user will not affect his other work, which you admit is good. However, I don't think that we could delegitimize this user with a (false) ban because we think he can be irritating (but not breaking any rules) and then expect that this user won't be harmed in other areas. For users who violate a specific rule in one area (e.g. continued violation of the 3-revert rule on a particular subject), topic bans are advisable. But this is not the case here. OtterAM (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kingsindian. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Furthering from the 'bot operators', Andrew writes But there isn't a desysop process, is there? Nor are there term limits, probation, supervisors, audits, or other standard features of good governance. In such circumstances, it is prudent to be cautious. I'd consider this excessive obsession and worry over the admin corps, which doesn't appear to be healthy, and it's not Andrew's job to worry about this. If he wants to lodge some proposals about introducing these sorts of things, he can. The caution appears uncalled for. This oppose is for Andrew's good. Take a break. Don't worry. There's many other people who can be an RfA to stop a cowboy admin from winning. As for Kingindian's rationale, we clearly aren't tolerating Andrew, so it's merely hope that we can. If this proposal fails I fear ArbCom some time in the future. !dave 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Everyone's entitled to their opinion no doubt about it .... however with Andrew he seems to try and find every reason to oppose, Maybe he doesn't want any admins here who knows however at present his constant opposes are disruptive and I would go as far as to say some of his !votes could be considered trolling, His comments are of no value to the RFA process. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle - An equally effective solution would be to fucking let it go. For me, the turn off at RfA - just voting on one, let alone being subjected to one - is the constant bickering over every single ill thought out comment. One lone or even a few soppy sad opposes on flimsy to no grounds are significantly less toxic than all the other bullshit RfA's go through. Mr X brings up the significant disruption evidenced by the shear(sic) volume of unproductive discussion caused by... the fact that people can't let it go. Believe me I have the same issue. I see a stupid comment and I want to drop a note to the person who made it advising them to re-evaluate their life, but, most of the time, this has absolutely no effect and certainly no positive one. I would prescribe a simpler remedy; ask your questions, read the other questions and answers, make your vote and then just leave. People keep saying that the Bureaucrats will give this oppose all the consideration it deserves, but, either ya'll don't believe that or you just want to exert control over the process. Again, I've done it too. I've told people their comments are wrong, I've moved discussions from the RfA to the talk page, and I've argued with people I believe to be behaving inappropriately. RfA's would be much quieter if none of those things happened and, by consequence, more pleasant too. Actually that's in part why I've reduced my participation at RfA and have no intention of participating in the current confirmation or re-confirmation one. Beyond that, I would merely be re-affirming what I stated in January this year, I don't like setting this precedent and therefore won't be supporting it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: (I have already !voted above). The events at Muboshgu's RfA should be clarified here. When I read the OP, it seemed to suggest to me that Andrew D had done something naughty in the Muboshgu RfA. This is not true. Andrew D asked a question about a RevDel (the contents of which he couldn't see). Their edit contained no BLP violations: indeed, the edit was simply redacted by a 'crat as a precautionary measure and not revdeled. This is similar in principle to a courtesy blanking, and does not imply any wrongdoing (Xaosflux can clarify, if they prefer, whether the redaction implied any wrongdoing.) I note that at least one admin Ivanvector objected to even the redaction (though they accepted the action and didn't revert it).

  Leaving aside this matter, Andrew D.'s oppose (not related o this matter) is a bog-standard oppose: they disagreed with the user's judgement at AfD. Whether one agrees with their rationale or not, it is a completely legitimate reason to oppose. I'd like to see someone show otherwise.

  Bottom line: Andrew D. did absolutely nothing wrong in that RfA, and it is illegitimate to use that as part of some "pattern of behavior". Why is it that every case of purported outrageous behavior collapses under the barest scrutiny? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  (In reply to ping) As I noted at that RfA's talk, in clerking that RfA my redaction only considered the exposure to the article's subject - I did not evaluate Andrew Davidson's behavior or intention as part of that clerking action. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Kingsindian, who has managed to persuade me that the only way the community will be able to deal with the toxicity of Andrew’s RfA comments is through a full topic ban. Short of this, he will only take encouragement from those who oppose any type of restriction on any action on Wikipedia on principle. The thing that is most wrong with Wikipedia today is that we forget that the people who we work with are actually people and treat them like enemies or worse yet, robots who have no feelings. If those opposing the topic ban of Andrew aren’t even willing to have a conversation about how his actions might be seen as disruptive, I don’t think anything short of a topic ban will be able to show Andrew that the community finds his behavior disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @OtterAM, Kingsindian, and Mr rnddude: Except for those rare occasions where even Davidson can't find an excuse to oppose, such as Ealdgyth's, RfA is still very much 'a horrible and broken process' . Those who even narrowly miss being 'promoted' after a 'crat chat can be left with a very daunted enthusiasm for the project - which does not rhyme with Davidson's efforts to win new users at the editathons he facilitates. If he were t-banned from RfA, it would help make it a healthier place and attract more candidates. It would also serve as a warning to plenty of others who rejoice in the fact that RfA is the one venue where they can be as obnoxious as they like with impunity - there really is no other forum on Wikipedia that is such a cesspit. Note that we're not talking about an isolated RfA here; we're talking about at least 10 years or so (long before you ever knew about RfA ) of often being the sole, or one of very few opposers on RfA that are clearly destined to succeed. That's definitely petty, small-minded, and the antithesis of magnanimity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

-and let alone collegiality >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add to this, as a general comment -- there's one way to fix this right here, right now, and that's with a topic ban. The opposers wait for a useless thing called hope for a future solution. !dave 16:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, I don't think anything needs to be "solved" regarding Andrew D. His dissenting !votes are unique points of view, written courteously, and sometimes influential but often judged to be insufficient to change an outcome. People like this are necessary to keep the system honest. As others have pointed out above, disruptions to the RfA arise mainly from users who fight with each other because they have difficulty accepting that others have a different point of view, not lone dissenters like Andrew D. OtterAM (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

OtterAM, this is a serial opposer who just can't stand seeing an RfA that's going to pass with flying colours. His votes might be basically harmless, but they are based on any contrived or at least weak rationale and are designed with the full knowledge that they will create drama. That is premeditated disruption and totally in conflict with our 5 pillars. And that is why his votes and the trouble they cause are superfluous to requirement. People like this are not necessary to keep the system honest - to the contrary, they maintain it as a 'horrible and broken process'. It's exactly the reason why we don't get many candidates nowadays - they've told us so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, since everybody else is being too polite to point it out, at 63 opposes serial opposer Andrew Davidson trails well behind your own 99 opposes (or my 129, come to that). ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: the statistics don't quite match. For one thing, you're only counting Andrew's votes since March 2014, when the name change occurred. In that time you have 10 supports and 10 opposes (a 50% ratio), Kudpung has 66 supports and 24 opposes, a 73% support ratio. The editor in question has 63 opposes and 21 supports, a 25% support ratio. Counting oppose numbers prior to 2012, which you have done, is extra skewed because the number of RfAs has dropped to such a great degree. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree with most of Andrew's votes, some of them I find ridiculous, but he's entitled to his opinion and we should be careful not to stray into the realm of banning people just because we disagree with their opinions. No single editor has any great influence at RfA; if Andrew is out of step with consensus, his opposition will be greatly outnumbered and the candidate will pass easily, as often happens. If his comments cross the line into being excessively personal or offensive, that should be dealt with at the time (as it should, but rarely is, with any editor) but I see very few of those presented here and a lot more comments that most of us disagree with. Sorry, but rigorous scrutiny is the point of RfA, and RfA will certainly not be the last time in an admin's 'career' that that somebody draws absurd conclusions about them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. My views on this matter has not changed since January. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower678's RFAs are exactly what not to do when voting in RFAs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is long overdue, he should have been topic banned since the previous proposal which is well presented with strong evidence. Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I'll start by agreeing with a number of points in the proposal... I do, strongly, disagree with the Oppose votes of Andrew's that have been raised and which I've examined - in fact, I think some of them are quite absurd (The BethNaught one in particularly had me shaking my head in astonishment over how petty and mean-minded I thought Andrew was being). It also does appear to me that Andrew is making a big effort to find any reason he can to oppose, however ludicrous. From his comments it sounds like something of a protest about there being no community procedure for desysop, and while I personally strongly support the desire for such a procedure, I can not possibly support what looks to me like a very sharply pointy approach to the issue. I also agree that RfA is a nasty process, and that its nature surely does dissuade a lot of good admin candidates from running. But, actually being an admin is itself nastier by at least an order of magnitude, and admins are regularly subjected to far worse than I've ever seen at RFA - and if I saw an admin candidate who I did not think could shrug off opposes like Andrew's, I'd be opposing them myself. Anyway, I know I can be a bit of a windbag, but I'm coming to my key point. That is that I think tolerating (nay, welcoming) dissent is a core part of what we are as a community-based project, and when we start to lose that we start to lose one of our key ideals. When dissent crosses the line to vandalism, personal attacks, or whatever, we can deal with it on a case-by-case basis as we do (generally pretty well) every day. But the idea of handling mere dissent by exclusion is anathema to my view (and the traditional, if undoubtedly flawed view) that Wikipedia is an open and inclusive project. There are naysayers who say that Wikipedia is an irredeemably broken project. They are wrong. But the further we get down the slippery slope that is intolerance of dissent, the more they will appear (and will actually start to become) right. I will be very sad if, as seems likely on a current head count, this proposal is passed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WP also strives for a collegial atmosphere, one that is welcoming to good-faith users.And, what (if any) is the upper bound of dissent, so ludicrous whose functional equivalency is trolling?Winged Blades^Godric 18:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a very good question and I thank for for asking it. Trolling was actually something I was thinking about as I was constructing my oppose, and I think it's possibly the greyest area of the relevant considerations - but I was already guilty of enough windbaggery, so I did not expound. But as you have asked, I'd say when we are considering judging an editor's contributions to a part of the project as trolling, there are at least a couple of key points we should consider. One is whether the alleged trolling is doing any harm, and in this case, I'm quite convinced that it is not - no admin candidate would be worthy of the bit if they couldn't handle Andrew's opposes. Secondly, I think we should examine the totality of an editor's contributions to try to decide if they are genuinely trolling the project or are voicing specific dissent to one feature of the project. Considering that, in my view Andrew is a dissenter at RfA, but not a troll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that Andrew is a dissenter. If Andrew have a clear and consistent criteria, that may be the case. But I do think the evidence presented portrays otherwise; rather, it appears, in my view, that many of the oppose rationales by Andrew are made for the sake of opposing, therefore validating the observation that these opposes are made with the intention to disrupt. Alex Shih (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no clear and consistent criteria either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of a written criteria isn't the problem over here.In the lines of Andrew's replies to my question, even if he chooses to have a written criteria that states:--I am going to oppose candidates who don't disclose their gender, that will be still a problem.And, most often the problem is his stubborn unwillingness to shift his views and/or be corrected.Winged Blades^Godric 19:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say written criteria - I personally have no consistent criteria, not even unwritten. And if we excluded those unable or unwilling to change their views, I suspect we'd be unpersoning a large proportion of our volunteer membership. In my view, the best way to deal with dissenting (and stubborn) opinions is to welcome them, and let others see them openly and judge them as they see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like many others I'm frequently irritated by the pedantism of Andrew's opposes, and rarely if ever agree with them. But I don't think that they are disruptive. Contrary to some unfair paraphrasing above, I've never seen a !vote of his that is "baseless": his standards are extreme, but he always explains his rationale and is usually open to further discussion. Essentially he has positioned himself as the devil's advocate of RfA, and while I certainly think he could do to soften the way he expresses criticism, intense scrutiny in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I can't be the only one who looks at some of his more off-the-wall opposes and thinks, "well, if that's the best Andrew D can come up with, this must be a good candidate!" I'll admit that I was even a little disappointed that he didn't participate in my RfA, just so I could see what he came up with. It would be unfair to blame him for disruption that arises from other editors' reactions to his opposes. And it would certainly be unfair to lay the petty and depersonalised atmosphere at RfA on his shoulders – at this point any candidate must know to take his criticisms with massive heaps of salt. I'd encourage Andrew to be mindful of the opinions expressed here in future and follow through on writing a set of criteria, but I don't think a topic ban or any formal sanction is called for. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment First I would like to note that there is ample precedent for TBanning perma-opposers from RfA discussions. A whole slew of editors were banned a number of years ago when RfA really was a highly toxic environment. So it's not like we have never done this before. That said I am undecided on this, although I am sympathetic to the proposal. Andrew is in most respects a very solid editor. Unfortunately their behavior at RfA has even most of those opposing this proposal conceding that his participation is more often than not, unconstructive. I think it is worth noting that the pendulum seems to be shifting. The last time this was proposed it got shot down fairly quickly. I had rather hoped then that he would take the hint and moderate his behavior. Unfortunately that does not appear to have happened and I think I am not the only one who feels that way given the number of editors now supporting the proposed ban. It is possible that he will again avoid being tbanned. But I would strongly urge Andrew to take note; a growing number of your fellow Wikipedians now regard your pattern of behavior at RfA as disruptive. If something doesn't change I think the writing is on the wall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  Re "But I would strongly urge Andrew to take note; a growing number of your fellow Wikipedians now regard your pattern of behavior at RfA as disruptive. If something doesn't change I think the writing is on the wall.": I think a result along those lines would be ideal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support: In principle, restricting any editor on their ability to voice their opinions on something that may influence their editing experience directly, such as the RfA, fundamentally contradicts the openness of Wikipedia. Andrew Davidson is an intelligent editor, excellent content contributor, skillful patroller and overall a net positive to the project. This is what makes this discussion very painful. My support of the topic ban comes down to the principles of assuming good faith and collegial editing.
  It’s apparent that the consensus has changed considerably since the January discussion earlier this year. Why? In my opinion, this is because there is a breaking point in everything. Andrew’s comment at Muboshgu’s RfA for me, was this breaking point. Other editors have provided the context of the norms of oppose rationales by Andrew; for my comment, I will just focus on this single incident.
  Andrew has repeatedly mentioned that his oppose rationale are always well-researched and made in good faith. But I am troubled by the likely intentional cherry-picking of “facts” if that’s the case. It was obvious that Andrew looked through the contribution history of Muboshgu and found the revdel request, and presumably then went to Jacoby Ellsbury to check the revision history. This is the troubling part. If Andrew did check the revision history, in which he mostly likely did, as he mentioned the edits about trade rumors, there was no reason he did not spot the the offending edit that was revdelled and the preceding edits by the same IP user. A normal editor, in my opinion, would wonder what was in the edit and ask for clarification before jumping to any conclusions (was it similar to the other edits made by the same editor, or was it something else?). That is not what Andrew did. Andrew went on to make a fact-free baseless assumption that the revdel must have been about the trade rumors. How does this validate the rationale of “well-researched”? In this assumption, Andrew not only failed to assume any remote resemblance of good faith, and the comment itself (perhaps unintentional) also implies and establishes that Muboshgu has insufficient understanding of BLP violation and therefore made an invalid revdel request, an assumption made without any facts nor evidence. If Andrew cannot assume good faith on other editors, it is very difficult to ask for assumption of good faith in return.
  Now everything would be fine if Andrew simply clarifies that it was an misunderstanding; and that he simply made a mistake, which should have been the case in the face of almost unanimous criticism; instead, he tries to justify what is unjustifiable. Judging by the diffs, this appears to be an persistent behavior, and that’s my main concern here. Alex Shih (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  That's a very good point, and it's something I'd also observed - when Andrew is caught in a misunderstanding, instead of listening to explanations, he has shown a tendency to double down on his claims even when they are being reasonably challenged. I hope this is something else he might reflect on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: You say: tendency to double down on his claims even when they are being reasonably challenged. Here's a simple question: name one person in this section (including me), who has changed their vote after hearing to opposing arguments. Yeah, that's what I thought. People like to think that they are fair minded people who look at the evidence dispassionately but in practice, they take a position instinctively and defend it to the bitter end. David Hume made this point centuries ago. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If you asked for examples of people shifting their !votes across the boundaries in response to new developments, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 07:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I stand by my comments the last time this particular witch-hunt was tried, that if I were compiling a list of the most obnoxious "regulars" at RFA he wouldn't even make my top ten. If someone is really such a delicate flower that Andrew's often stupid but generally fairly insipid comments are causing serious upset, I wouldn't want them anywhere near the admin toolkit, since even the most uncontroversial admin is going to get considerably stronger abuse on a regular basis. Banning people from participating in any given Wikipedia process because we dislike their opinions—rather than because they're causing any kind of actual problem—is a horrible route to go down, but if we need to go down this route, there are people far more worthy than Andrew/Colonel of being the test case. ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

With recent years in mind, some examples of those who are more serially disruptive than Andrew would be handy.Winged Blades^Godric 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If you really want me to name names, I'll do it privately, given that I'm not calling for them to be banned from RFA either (although it should come as no surprise that the editor who prompted this comment from me would be on that list). The people who try to skew RFA by serially-supporting every candidacy with a vote of "why not?" are a fairly obvious case, too. If you haven't already, you may want to examine Andrew D's actual recent history at RFA, rather than the few cherry-picked examples of purported disruption. ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..How long back was The topic getting the more favourable treatment is a branch of the Catholic church – a particular interest of the candidate. This does not seem to be the even-handed treatment one would expect from an admin.? Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per BethNaught and MrX. For every good vote he makes, there are two (ish. I didn't do the math) baseless oppose votes that are based on the flimsiest of comments or pointless questions, wasting community time as people argue over something that is completely avoidable both on the RfAs and, well, here. I don't buy that this isn't disruptive, or the slippery slope silencing of dissent arguments. This is someone who asked a candidate to reveal what they'd asked to be revdel'd, FFS. If you have some sort of ideological reason to oppose RfA, just say so; don't go looking for some trivial thing to oppose. ansh666 19:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Per Ealdgyth" already suffices, but hey. I can't go "per Iridescent" because I don't think it's a witch hunt. I think the disruption caused by Andrew D.'s opposes is limited enough, and can be limited even more: uninvolved administrators or crats can simply discredit/discount the vote; I do think removing dumb opposes is valid in an RfA, and nonsense like that trade stuff (above) should be moved or removed. And if you think Andrew is trolling, don't feed the trolls. (I do not think he is trolling.) Also, Andrew: come on. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  This merely continues on the same theme of hoping that people will stop replying, which leaves a blank guarantee to whether they will or not. I did an RfC about removing 'dumb opposes', and the folks who came to vote didn't like it. We're not discussing that such general matter, this is about Andrew, and stopping the crowd from getting 'baited' by Andrew's comments (they are not trolling in themselves but they do causes the effects of trolling). Obviously, allowing Andrew to vote but telling him, 'anything that is likely to cause more hysteria is likely to be summary removed', is a proposal, sounds a bit silly but maybe it might work. DS in RfA, woo! !dave 19:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ambivalent oppose - Probably more time wasting overall is the feeling that a single oppose on an RfA with 150 supports really needs a two pages long discussion from five editors when it's fairly obviously inane in a way that could be well covered in a single comment. As to RfA generally, I really don't think anyone has a single dependable but ultimately meaningless oppose vote in mind when they decide to edit quietly in their little corner instead of standing up before the whole community. I'd be willing to bet what they have more in mind are instances where those who want to defend the civility of RfA in discussions like these, and would be first in line to cast a moral support on a NOTNOW, (people they've worked alongside for years and have grown to respect) decide that a experienced editor who may be somehow unfit in one or two particular ways, is the right time to bring out the knives and question their basic competency and moral character because they've dared volunteer to help shovel the horse shit out of the stables. If you've not been around long enough to see an RfA where we're lucky to have retained an editor, much less not gained an admin, then you may not have been around long enough to participate in this discussion. GMG^talk 19:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support - I agree with users who have said here that anyone should be allowed to support or oppose an RfA for whatever reason they choose or no reason at all, and as Andrew D. will always be the first to gleefully point out, many already do under the support column. But I also fully endorse the comments of BU Rob13 and Beyond My Ken, and numerous others, that Andrew D.'s opposes do seem well-researched but less in the sense of balanced evaluation and more "digging up dirt" to oppose for any flimsy reason. And I especially endorse Alex Shih's observation that when Andrew's flimsy logic is pointed out, he never corrects but instead doubles down, and this leads to fiascos like BethNaught's RfA where his comments turned out to be unnecessarily offensive.

Because this has been a pattern for years, his comments attract an unreasonable amount of the sort of drama that keeps quality candidates from putting themselves forward and causes others to leave the project, and while Andrew is not the only participant in that drama, he is the source of it. And for all that drama, he rarely influences anyone's opinion. I realize this is far from a perfect analysis, but a search for "per andrew" in RfA turns up only four instances where Andrew's oppose led to other editors agreeing: Oshwah 2 (successful), Ad Orientem (successful), K6ka (successful), and my own (successful). As such it seems that the value Andrew adds to the process is minimal, while anyone who's looked at RfA in the past two years (at least) can see the drama is immense.

As we've done with other users in this situation with a fair bit of success at reducing disruption, I support restricting Andrew D. to one simple bolded comment in any RfA in which he may state only "support" or "oppose", with no additional comment or subsequent follow-up. However I do support a full topic ban if that is the consensus here. (edit conflict with proposal below) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, you're only finding five "per Andrew" comments because he changed his username relatively recently; there are quite a few more under his previous name. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out. I was pretty sure I had to be wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Somehow people don't see the blatant contradiction in their claims. If Andrew D is responsible for "attract[ing] an unreasonable amount of the sort of drama that keeps quality candidates from putting themselves forward and causes others to leave the project", then one should see a lot of derailed RfAs. Instead, all the examples shown are of successful RfAs. This means exactly the opposite: Andrew D's votes are usually ignored and don't affect RfA outcomes. How exactly does this deter candidates? Do RfA candidates dread that their RfAs will pass 180-3 instead of 180-2? One can't simultaneously claim that Andrew's opinions are insignificant and significant at the same time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any "blatant contradiction"; my reading is that people are saying Andrew's opinion is insignificant in influencing outcome, yet it is significant in generating unnecessary hostility among RfA participants due to the nature of these comments. Alex Shih (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Most oppose !votes seem to attract challenges, unlike most support !votes. The situation is not unique to Andrew D. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously oppose !votes will and shall attract greater scrutiny.When RFA's are launched, support votes come with the default assumption that the nomination statement is merely agreed upon and there's no need to restate that.That's why RFA's depend on good noms and quality nomonation statements, in most of the cases.No RFA does ever appear with a chunk of text titled :--Here goes the reasons why this candidate ought not be a sysop.Thus, it's the responsibility of the opposer(s) to make a good rationale for oppose or cite someone with a good reason.And, AFAIS, only oppose votes that borders on I don't like him but there's no/ludicrous reasons are affected to strong protest.

On a quasi-equivalent non-RFA note, if some editor chooses to award you a barnstar for your works etc., in all probabilities you are not going to ask him the details for the reasons behind awarding etc but if another repeatedly comes to your t/p saying that you are biased against certain ethnic groups etc. without any sort of credible evidence and after being repeatedly pointed out that his beliefs are almost everytime wrong by a mile, I don't think you will be in the same state of calm and extend him an olive branch.Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the reasons stated by me in the subsection below. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose simply because it seems like almost a borderline case of censorship, and has been noted many, many times above, if the rationales provided by Davidson are so continually absurd, they should be allowed to stand, indeed they should be actively discussed so their apparent absurdity can be exposed to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While some of Andrew's opposes at RFA are ridiculous, banning him from commenting on RFAs is not the right way to deal with them. RFA is not a vote and other contributors and especially closing bureaucrats should be considering the strength of the arguments made. A ban strikes me as a heavy-handed approach that is opposed to our general principles of free and open collaboration. Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per HJ Mitchell. Plus, while I agree the editor in question's motivation look to be disruption, I can't help but think the topic ban looks like censorship to some degree. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support A lot of editors here have argued banning Andrew D. from RfA is against our guidelines for free collaboration; only problem is, as the diffs above show, Andrew D. never intended to collaborate in the voting process. He makes disruptive, baseless claims, either to argue with other editors who actually fairly evaluated the candidate or to be a troll. If this behavior occurred at any other venue, would we be so permissive?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (I have already (!)voted above.) Even though I do not believe that it is not what this is about, I can understand the principle expressed by some opposers: wanting to not silence dissent. However I am saddened to find comments along the lines of "even if Andrew's comments are absurd/unkind, admins will experience much worse during their 'careers', so it doesn't matter so much". RfA is indeed about determining whether a candidate is qualified for adminship, but how do we want to do that? We could either examine their presumably extensive editing history to see how they have behaved themselves and conducted disputes, or we could let voters take pot-shots from the peanut gallery with false assumptions and bad-faith PA. If we allow one editor to take the latter course, we must, for consistency's sake, let others do so—but then RfA risks becoming a wiki-hazing ritual. Would we want to allow our children to tease and mock others, because we know their targets can take it? No. And as adults we should aspire to higher standards. So whatever your opinions about who's right and wrong here, please don't use this argument in your opposition. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mr. rnddude. Just let it go people. It is not like Andrew's !vote is actually going to change anything. I am also strongly against disenfranchising anyone from voicing their opinions, regardless of how ridiculous they are, in who receives a mop. Let the 'crats do what they were put in place for. Perhaps if everyone stops giving so much attention to the nonsense it will just go away on its own. --Majora (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support a considerable net negative at RfA. He won't go away on his own. At some point consistent bad behaviour needs to be mitigated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral I haven't taken a position to this point, and going through these most recent posts I realized that I'm not likely to be swayed off the fence. There are points to be made on both sides, and I'm not willing to choose one side over the other. However, I do want to express my agreement with what BethNaught wrote above. Yes, admins will have to deal with unpleasantness, but as a community we should hold ourselves responsible for maintaining a respectable forum in which we can discuss admin candidates in an intelligent, relevant manner. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Mr Rnddude. Lets be honest, Andrew's contributions to AFD RFA are silly, unhelpful, and unconstructive. The votes say more about Andrew than they say about the candidates. But they wouldn't be nearly as toxic if people didn't carry on like pork chops at such obvious provocations. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

  I presume you mean RfA there. But this is a POV I don't understand. You agree that his votes are "silly, unhelpful, and unconstructive... obvious provocations" (emph. mine). This is textbook DE. But you oppose preventing it. What gives? 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, yes, I mean RFA. I don't feel comfortable with the notion of sanctioning people for having unorthodox or unpopular points of view, even where I disagree with them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

• Oppose Ruffled feathers are not a reason to single out an established editor and exclude them from a process as important as RfA. It seems to me that his edits are just as much commentary on the process as they are opinions on the perceived qualifications of the nominee, which could be said of a pretty huge portion of other RfA input. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. Paul August ☎ 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose let him comment, he is an experianced contributor, his comments are not going to create as much chaos as this thread. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Boing that considerable latitude for dissent should be extended to voters at RfA. Andrew's comments at BethNaught's RfA dives into a personal matter, and does cross the line of what is acceptable. But besides that example, most of Andrew's votes are along the lines of "not enough experience" or "I found a minor flaw in this editor's created content, so oppose." These oppose votes may be far-fetched. But ultimately, they are expressing opinions based off a subjective standard, just as subjective as the regularly tolerated RfA oppose rationales of "this candidate is temperamentally unsuited for adminship" and "this candidate has too many automated edits." I cannot support banning an RfA participant merely for having unusual or subjective voting standards. Altamel (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the end after a lot of thought, I come down on the oppose side. However, maybe we have to make clear what is allowed at RfA and what is not allowed. I think asking questions whether a person is male or female is totally unacceptable. Asking anything about a person that they have not seen fit to put on their home page is unacceptable. It should be a clear principle everywhere that what we know about an editor comes from their edits, including what they put on their home page and on talk pages. We should not ask questions to get more than that information. We should also be careful what we say about people that we know from personal contacts, such as with my contacts in Wikimedia Australia. The reverse is that all views on RfA should be based on an editor's edits. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also suggest people not being allowed to post new questions to the candidate once they have !voted, or at least have them procedurally strike their vote first. (See my 11:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC) comment above for background) No point asking a question unless it will honestly sway your vote.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I will strongly oppose that.Many good-faith !voter's 2nd question, even after they have themselves !voted can bring out very interesting aspects about a candidate.Andrew's 2nd one was an outlier and should not lead to a shift in policies.Winged Blades^Godric 08:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Understand, the intent is not to discourage followup questions. Perhaps it's a knee jerk reaction to Andrew asking the meaning of the candidate's user name after they have already opposed. There has still been no explanation on how that the Q was even relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, users may oppose an RFA for whatever reason they like. If it's a rubbish reason, then the RFA closer can and will ignore the vote. Suppression of non-harmful views contrary to our own is not a good thing. If an opposing RFA vote (I won't say !vote, it's mendacious) causes drama, that is not the problem of the opposing voter, it is an issue around the hive mind's overly-defensive and combative attitude. fish&karate 09:35, 27 December 2017 (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.

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.

---

• I think there have been enough input from a variety of different editors, with valid points being raised on both sides. I think it's unlikely that any strong consensus (to topic ban Andrew Davidson from RfA) would emerge from this discussion. I have two proposals to be put forward for community consideration.
• Proposal 1 (serious): Andrew Davidson is hereby restricted from commenting in RfA nominations until further notice; he may vote in the nomination and comment in the nomination talk page instead.
• Proposal 2 (humorous): Andrew Davidson is hereby sanctioned to forcibly run for RfA himself for full 7 days regardless of outcome, to subject his contribution history to be fully scrutinized by this community. Alex Shih (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  I'd actually like Andrew D to run for RfA in a serious way. It has been suggested to him before. !dave 19:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, because RfA is not a vote, and being able to "vote" without being able to comment is nonsensical. If the proposal above does not produce a consensus for a topic ban, just accept it (as I will if there is a consensus to ban). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think my thought was instead of commenting on the main nomination page, Andrew should comment on the nomination talk page instead (as many of the extended discussions about Andrew's opposes have been moved to the talk page anyway), and hopefully this would be a form of compromise. Alex Shih (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • But the RfA page itself *is* a discussion, *not* a vote. I accept that moving extended discussions to the talk page has been established (with some benefits), but denying the right to actually comment other than just vote is the exact opposite of what RfA is supposed to be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, because that would be awesome! OtterAM (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've pretty much always found Andrew to be specious when our paths have crossed but an unexplained !vote is not an improvement and, silly as his rationales often appear to be, he is entitled to his opinion. I felt much the same about the restriction that was imposed on Eric Corbett. At least at RfA, Andrew's opinions are generally one among a hundred or more - he's actually a greater problem in this regard at AfD. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  I've only had to review five of RfA candidate User:Muboshgu's AfDs to find two nominations without arguments for deletion, one applying event notability to a politician [38], and one only looking for notability in the sources in the article [39].  The target of the OP is not a sheeple, and if his contributions at RfA are not substantive, why aren't they being ignored?  Finally, feedback is essential in functional systems.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If he is to !vote, his rationale should be clear so that editors can see just how baseless it is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rob. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either do it right or not at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per B!sZ. I've gotten so accustomed to AD's being oppose #1 at RfA (I'm sure he opposed mine, although it was an experience to which I don't wish to return) that it's become a God's-in-his-heaven-all's-right-with-the-world thing—as I'm sure it is to the crats. However, topic-banning wonky votes is a slippery slope. It's telling that he's never made an RfA himself. Miniapolis 23:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose let him comment, in the weight of things it's just his opinion, we want a broad spectrum of opinions from useful contributors. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. Paul August ☎ 01:15, 27 December 2017 (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.

86.179.83.0/16

Can an admin please block 86.179.83.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing? The entire range appears to be used by long term abuser Iniced. Thank you! Hastiness (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there are legitimate anon contributors on 86.179.0.0/16. Also, please don't create IP user pages like this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new user group

Relevant discussion: "Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians." >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard of a user group on Wikipedia not referring to user rights/flags. An explanation of what the term means in this context is probably warranted. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Personally I'm a bit surprised there's no "opposition" section in the discussion. If you only get the option to support or do nothing, then of course it's going to be implemented. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  User groups, in the context of editing, refers to who are the admins, rollbackers, confirmed users, etc. User groups, in the context of organization, refers to affiliates that gather for a common theme like Art+Feminism. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  I also thought it was the former that was being referred to, so I was a bit confused at first when I read the proposal. BTW, the pointer to it would have been more appropriate for the Village Pump rather than here, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  Me three. Saw "user group", thought "userright", got very confused. Looks just like it's a proposal to start a sort of meta-level wikiproject. Neat idea. If there's any thematic group it'd work with, it'd be the milhist folks. Anyway, looks like there's nothing to see here. I move to close/archive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidents Regarding Bigg Boss 11

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,

Since tomorrow, Incidences regarding Wikipedia as a fan site as some users got confused about what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not, Topic is about the page Bigg Boss 11 and various Bigg Boss and Big Brother related pages that having their tables 'Weekly Summaries' and 'Voting History' getting removed for the reason "Encyclopedia becoming a fan site", that involves 2 users to get in attack towards each other in arguements and resulting in vandalisms that occured by Broken nutshell tomorrow, these users are Broken nutshell and ScrapIronIV, that made Broken nutshell to vandalize ScrapIronIV for the incident as per Proof 1 and proof 2 that happen tomorrow, as I'm the new user just joined then just I saw Broken nutshell and ScrapIronIV continuously engaged in fight for What Wikipedia Is Not, Bigg Boss 11, Bigg Boss related pages and Big Brother pages that articles got involved in as a fan site. as I'm not complaining for it, I need somebody to please resolve this issue at all and stop users for fighting and resolve this incidences that happening continuously and resolve the confusions regarding Bigg Boss and Big Brother relating articles. Thank You. Oasis Gravel (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (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.

Permission error over-ride needed for Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm 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.

---

When I try to routinely create an article for U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm, which should be non-controversial, I get message:

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. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. ....

Could someone please do whatever needs to be done to over-ride the block on this page. It is very normal, routine, to create an article on a historic site listed in National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Lane County, Kansas. Specifically, could you please move User:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm. And I am curious to learn what caused the problem. Is it a general block on usage of the word "Schwartz"?

By the way, I already tried variations such as Alexander and Anna Schwartz Farm, which are also disallowed.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved the article. The title is blacklisted because it matches .*anna.*schwartz.*, which is related to OfficialPankajPatidar.​​ — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay that is very obscure. All done here. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89, argh, I cannot create the corresponding Talk page. Could you also please move just-now-created User talk:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Talk:Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm? TIA, --Doncram (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! All done here, knock on wood. :) --Doncram (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (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.

Permission error over-ride needed for Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm 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.

---

When I try to routinely create an article for U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm, which should be non-controversial, I get message:

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. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. ....

Could someone please do whatever needs to be done to over-ride the block on this page. It is very normal, routine, to create an article on a historic site listed in National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Lane County, Kansas. Specifically, could you please move User:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm. And I am curious to learn what caused the problem. Is it a general block on usage of the word "Schwartz"?

By the way, I already tried variations such as Alexander and Anna Schwartz Farm, which are also disallowed.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved the article. The title is blacklisted because it matches .*anna.*schwartz.*, which is related to OfficialPankajPatidar.​​ — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay that is very obscure. All done here. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89, argh, I cannot create the corresponding Talk page. Could you also please move just-now-created User talk:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Talk:Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm? TIA, --Doncram (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! All done here, knock on wood. :) --Doncram (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (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 mass rollback a sock's edits?

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.

---

These socks have already been rolled back.

-EEng

Those of Zeshan Mahmmod (talk · contribs). I did a mass delete but don't seem to have the script for the rollback. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2017 (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.

Unban request by User:Iaaasi

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.

---

Iaaasi has requested on their talk page to be unbanned. The text of the request is as follows:

Hello. I am currently banned from English Wikipedia and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my errors that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems.

I was site banned in 2011 after committing successive violations of the 3RR rule. However these wrongdoings did not represent a wilful defiance of the 3RR rule, but were the result of misinterpretations of the policy. Now I am more mature and less impulsive, so I would be able to be more rational during tense situations. I am aware that dispute resolution processes can be slow sometimes, but I am confident that I will be able to be more patient and refrain from edit warring. I will try to impose my opinion on the talk page and gain consensus there, not matter how long it will take, and I will have the strength to accept an unfavorable decision. I realize that edit warring is not acceptable in any circumstances. I've learned many things from being blocked/banned. I've become conscious of the fact that it is much simpler and convenient to wait several days for a content dispute to be settled than to edit war, get blocked, and than wait several months/years to get unblocked.

It is true that I created some sock-puppet account after my ban, but I think that the harm inflicted to the project while evading my block was reduced. I did many constructive edits in this period of "illegality" and I also initiated new articles like Lia Olguța Vasilescu or Antonio Alexe. Now I accumulated some time (~1 year) since giving up using sock-puppet accounts. I hope that now I fulfill the conditions for being accepted back into the en.wp community. There would be a zero moment, a possibility to start everything over again, and I am sure that I will not repeat the mistakes of the past

Bringing it here for community discussion. Huon (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not crazy about this given the minimization of the socking conduct. There are 143 entries in Iaaasi's confirmed socks category. That isn't "some" socks. That is a lot of socks. Plus arguing that the edits done while socking were constructive isn't a good sign of understanding. It also would appear that if this block is lifted, there is a standing DS restriction under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. The conduct that led up to that (edit warring, violating 3RR, and claiming the other side's edits were vandalism) is not inspiring. Pinging Sandstein (talk · contribs) (who imposed the DS, the last indef, and handled the 3RR case that led to the last indef). I am preliminarily opposed to granting an unblock but willing to listen to alternative ideas. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral for now That ban was really 2011? Yeah I think the level of disruption is understated above, since it's still memorable. But there were always some good contributions from Iaasi and there's the potential for more. Does anyone have a summary of Iaasi's post-ban incidents and socking, particularly since (say) 2015? Iaasi, have you contributed to any other English-language WMF projects that we can look at? 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This is so old that I have no particular recollection of the case, but after reading the user talk page, the block log and associated discussions I believe that this is a case where the level of previous disruption is such that the person is, as a matter of character, simply unsuited for participating in a collaborative, consensus-based project. The mere passage of time is unlikely to alleviate such deficiencies, particularly given that the user does not indicate which notable constructive contributions they have made or intend to make. Sandstein 20:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Iaaasi's long history of socking and disruption are bad enough, but the level of harassment of at least one editor that I've seen from them is inexcusable. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD, who I trust on these matters. Continuing harassment of other editors is inexcusable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD and long-term socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can confirm an attitude towards other editors unsuitable for a collaborative project like Wikipedia as of July 2016, my latest interaction with Iaaasi before this unban request. That's some time ago, but it's not in the least addressed in the unban request, and I doubt it has changed. Huon (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD - The socking is the nail in the coffin for me, You may well be a reformed person and you may of changed however I can't Support anyone who's created nearly 140 socks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While I wouldn't say I would always oppose an unban request from a sockpuppeteer, I would have to be thoroughly convinced by their statement that their return would be a net positive as well as taking clear responsibility for their past actions. However, neither of these are clear here. The harassment hasn't even been addressed so forget it. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The report on this editor says "persistent edit-warring with nationalistic bias", and "persistent sockpuppetry", and "long-term abuser, continuing his nationalistic and fringe edits and beliefs". I see no reason to lift this ban, and countless reasons not to. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've rarely seen a talk page with so many unban/unblock requests. However sincere the appeal may sound, the socking is the deal breaker. I have to agree with DoRD and Cullen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User access lock

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 User is Blocked from editing in fa.wiki Because he edits for the government of Iran and removes the correct information in this Article. He is iranian. Mohammad13701 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (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.

2018 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:

• Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining OS)
• Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2017 at their own request:

  Checkuser: Casliber, Keilana, Kelapstick

  Oversight: Casliber, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Casliber and Kirill Lokshin at their request.
• All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of GorillaWarfare and Drmies at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2018 Arbitration Committee

Drmies (right) passes the torch

–EEng

• I can't believe it's almost over. It's like a dream. :( Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Every November/December, I consider running for a seat. But, my refusal to hand over personal info, gets the best of me. Oh well, I wouldn't get many support votes anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure what personal information you think you are expected to turn over GoodDay, you don't even have to provide committee members your real first name if you don't want to. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Kelapstick: I believe he is referencing the requirement to identify to the WMF. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • You haven't had to provide any personal information to the WMF in at least two years (it was a requirement when I became an oversighter, but not when I joined the committee). It has all been converted to signing a non-disclosure-agreement. It's all covered at Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information, even the identification noticeboard at Meta has had it's name changed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I won't sign anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Well that is clearly a different reason than handing over personal information, which was the reason you said you would not run. Regardless, whatever you wish to do or not do is of course your prerogative. This is not the first time I have heard people saying they don't want to run because they don't want to email a copy of their identification to the WMF (which in the past was used to verify age, then destroyed), a practice which is no longer used. I just want to make sure that people understand that they no longer have to do that. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• At least we can't blame Putin for this result. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Need help with a copy/paste 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.

---

Hi all, I could use a hand fixing a copy/paste move and merging histories or whatevs. A user wanted to move Untitled Anand L Rai film to Zero (film), but the target already existed as a redirect, so he copy/pasted the content. There have been several improvements to the article and I'm not clear on how this should be remedied. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I moved the old article over the new one and then undeleted the relevant parts of the history. It'd have been much easier if the user had first redirected then created the new page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Jo-Jo!: Happy new year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Help Wanted at AFC

Sorry to intrude on everyone's Holiday week but the perpetual backlog at WP:AfC is getting really bad. There are currently near 2500 drafts awaiting review. Any experienced editors (this is not reserved to admins) who can lend a hand are encouraged to do so. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is User:Seraphim System's alt-account for AFC - but I can't get helper script working. Do I have to do the whole 90 days, 500 edits thing as an alt-account?SeraphWiki (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Afaik, the script checks whether you are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. I'm sure Ad Orientem can help with adding you there if you has proven the ALT-ness of your account. Regards SoWhy 14:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for helping out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

More U2's please

User:Train2104/sandbox contains a list of talk pages for nonexistent users. I've gone through and checked them all to remove things that should probably be moved/redirected instead, could an admin d-batch them? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well. I didn't see this before posting on 78's talk. Uh... where did these come from? Because I have at least a few on my watchlist for reasons unbeknownst to me. GMG^talk 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I on the other hand thought somebody reaaly wants more Bonos in the world... :o >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Some appear to be from account renames. In some cases leaving the redirect is appropriate after a rename. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Several which have "(page does not exist)" after a real username came from an old pre-Huggle vandalism tool - I deleted a bunch of those that Train tagged a while back. New users also sometimes make articles in the user talk namespace for whatever reason. ansh666 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: None of these were redirects or ever were redirects. Anything rename-related probably came from the fact that AFCH was (is?) not taking into account a rename if the user talk page was a redlink at rename time. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive discussions on Stanley Kubrick talk 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.

---

The bludgeoning on the Stanley Kubrick talk page with regards to the infobox is continuing, this time by another editor who has started another discussion, so soon after the last formal RfC, despite being pointed to the archives. This is becoming a joke.

To date, there have been 12 attempts to force a box onto this article, despite there being a clear consensus not to have one. The article, on average, is receiving one discussion every couple of months from random people/socks stoking up the same old subject and trying to involve the same old people.

This is beyond disruptive and the latest discussion, as given in the last diff below, needs to be archived before it too gets out of hand. This was the first discussion which was followed by another. Then when that was unsuccessful, another one was started, followed by the first RfC, which favoured no infobox being added. Apparently, a consensus can change after a few months, so a second RfC was started, followed by a survey and then another dicusssion. When that failed, another discussion was had, followed by another, and another, oh, and one more. All of that, as well as the result for the second RfC, resulted in a consensus of "no infobox" and we were again lulled into a false belief that we were able to finally get on with our lives.

Oh, but wait, what's this? It's another discussion, this time started by someone who has a mere 16 edits on a two year old account. This latest discussion needs to be archived as it is only going to gain momentum before a thirds RfC is started. This makes a complete mockery of the RfC process and is sucking everyone's time out of being able to improve other areas of the encyclopaedia. Cassianto^Talk 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about the links? My device could be the one to blame but the first RFC seems to have been procedurally closed and the 2nd one was a No Concensus with very specific ideas about a future RFC.Also, a RFC can consist of many sub-discussions. I think it would be best to propose a moratorium on the talk-page (something of the sort at Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 6#RFC: 612-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions) and get a concensus for that. Winged Blades^Godric 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the "first RfC" is somewhat irrelevant bearing in mind there was a second. Who cares; the salient point is that these discussions keep taking place and it's becoming disruptive. Cassianto^Talk 10:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless your device is the fine rolls :p there's probably no need for all the "abbs." Just op. ed. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

abbs??Winged Blades^Godric 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

abbreviations; "RFC", "proc.", "NC", "T/P". Etc etc. WP:TMAIYPPCUFTFC (too many abbreviations in your post, please consider using full terms for clarity). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't conversing with newbies:) Anyways, amended per Integer's wishes Winged Blades^Godric 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The second RfC ended in "no consensus" rather than "consensus not to have an infobox". I agree with Godric above- if you really find this annoying, propose a moratorium, otherwise you've got to accept that every-so-often, a newbie will stumble across the article, and ask why there isn't one- that's a natural part of not having an infobox on such a popular article.

Jayron32 made this salient point last time round, which I'll repeat here again: New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A "newbie" (the user who's started the recent discussion has been around for two years, so is not a newbie) should be advised to go to the archives, read them, and respect the outcomes of previous discussions. That's happened and they've stuck two fingers up to any kind of archive referral. Cassianto^Talk 13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user (my emphasis on the part. phrasing) to me! And, my evaluation is not based on his' being registered two-years back.Winged Blades^Godric 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: No, I'd bet the opposite. Plenty of editors are "drive-by editors" and it appears that User:PheonixDev is exactly that. Hell- some our recently elected arbs are long absence returnees, if everyone just screamed "SOOOOCK!" at every returning editor we'd be missing the vast majority of our community. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You're the first one using the word "sock". We hope (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: ***cough, cough*** AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user to me! from Godric above is pretty explicit isn't it? There's no other way anyone could construe that comment. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No-it's YOUR mind who's made that connection with the remark-the remark as written is that this isn't a new user and it's been left at that by the original poster of it-original research on your part. We hope (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"It's your words, he's using your words, when you said the words and he's using them back, it's circular using of the words and that's from you!" jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was to be at least a semi-serious discussion. Looks like that's wrong. We hope (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto used sock in his opening statement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I see "random people/socks". The first inference of trying to connect a returning editor to possibly socking was here re: another editor's comments about the editor not being new. We hope (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If a moratorium is possible, why was this comment made at the Cary Grant A mandatory freeze on infobox RfCs cannot be enacted via RfC. RfC? We hope (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: moratoriums are definitely possible- see Talk:Trump, Talk:Hillary Clinton for example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we have to explain this to you, Jcc, but “not a new editor” may just mean someone who used to be an editor, and are now retuning under a different guise. Do you even know what a sock is? Cassianto^Talk 15:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

From someone who just removed a condescending remark aimed against them, you seem to be dishing them out to others. Yes, I know what SPI is thanks- my contributions will show I've helped to expose a UPE ring or two. Do you even know what UPE is, Cassianto? Maybe I'll have to explain it to you... jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a moratorium at the article-in-question. The repetitive calls for an infobox there, are quite tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try putting an {{FAQ}} at the top of the talk page explaining why there isn't an infobox first? It's unusual for a well-developed biography not to have infobox, so it's not surprising that uninvolved editors keep bringing it up. Jumping to a 'moratorium' seems extreme and unfair; WP:STICK doesn't really apply when it's different people raising the same point in good faith. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

An FAQ is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto seems to be seriously misrepresenting the situation. First of all, the RfC closed as no consensus. Second of all, there hasn't been that constant discussions like he's saying. All those "survey" and "threaded discussion" that he's saying are all part of the second RfC. Since the RfC, 11 months ago, there has been only one discussion - this one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC) It looks like there have been 4 discussions. One in 2015, One in 2016 15 days before the 3rd attempt which involved one main RfC, and now this 4th discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw the links to parts of a same RFC but did not check the precise timeline.If Galobterr's one is reasonably correct, in that case,I think a moratorium is not yet necessary.A FAQ pointing to the 2nd RFC will be sufficient.But, one year is a rational timeframe to restart any discussion esp. since the closer gave some specific ideas to be tried at.Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no misrepresentation regarding the disruption whether it's an RfC or not. "I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop yet another set of reverts over the infobox. As Graham Chapman once said, stop this, it's silly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC) No mistaking who the cheerleaders of the disrupion are either. We hope (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

An RfC that closed as no consensus (snow oppose would be disruption) is disruption? Seriously, you seem to regard as if its 20-1 against there being an infobox. Ah, so raising an issue 11 months after it closed as no consensus means someone is a cheerleader of disruption? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying the issue came up twice in 2017 plus the RFC (which started in 2016 finished in 2017) rather than once plus the RFC (which started in 2016, finished in 2017)? Okay fine. But where's the high level of disruption you're referring to? Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the OP exaggerated the disruption, Nil Einne. As others (Joe, Jayron) have said above, the fundamental thing is that it is unusual, from the standpoint of a new user/rare user for an established biography to not have an infobox- thus we shouldn't be surprised if every few weeks someone tries to add one, or discusses it on the talk page. What we shouldn't do is jump to report them on AN, or scream "LOOK IN THE ARCHIVES YOU FOOL" back at them. Instead, we should politely refer them to the RfC, which resulted in no consensus to add one, and explain to them that on this particular article, the editors decided not to add one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Not referring to the results of the RfC-this is a general disruption which isn't confined to Kubrick. You appear to be stalking Cassianto. We hope (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on two infobox discussions which reached AN. If you seriously want to, launch an ANI. The same could of course, be said for you. You seem to have spent the whole day replying to all my comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead take me to ANI because I could give a crap. There's no point in even TRYING to edit anything anymore with all the conflict.We hope (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not going to launch an ANI against myself. Or are you going to claim those were my words, until someone corrects you? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a flaming f in Hades. 17:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)We hope (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You do, however, appear to be treating the discussions on infoboxes as a WP:BATTLE against other editors to be won or lost, not a discussion, as illustrated by this comment ("Sometimes these discussions work- like on Kristen Stewart for example, and sometimes- like on Kubrick- we lose some.") Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So you think this is constructive then? The battleground mentality is not being perpetuated by me alone, but sure, take me to ArbCom. I don't know why, but I had thought better of you- as if you'd take the time to actually read the talk pages, where you'll see this isn't one sided. Anyhow, this isn't how I imagined spending my day, so I'm going to gracefully withdraw now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was constructive - I was simply pointing out the language you were using which IMHO isn't helpful either. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why not simply add a FAQ to the talkpage, explaining why the article doesn't have an infobox and with links to the relevant discussions? Then it's the matter of a few seconds to answer any editor, whether good faith or otherwise, that raises the situation. We do this on other articles where te same questions arise over and over again (i.e. Muhammad with reference to images, or Homophobia with reference to the meaning of the word). Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• In reponse to this earlier comment of Cassianto's: "and we were again lulled into a false belief that we were able to finally get on with our lives" I think if Cassianto is looking for someone to blame for that mistake they need to look a little closer to home and realise that they can't keep making their problems everyone else's problem. I, for one, do not care in the slightest whether or not Stanley Kubrik's wikipedia page has an infobox on it. It is madness for Cassianto to try and dictate that their arbitrary dramas become wikipedia policy. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to post a diff of me trying to "dictate that [my] arbitrary drama[s] become wikipedia [sic] policy?" Or are you doing what everyone else in the other argument seems to be doing and casting wild claims of nonsense? Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to get the administrators to instate a ban on people talking about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrik's wikipedia page [sic] which is what I was referring to when I said "it is madness for Cassianto to try and dictate that their arbitrary dramas become wikipedia policy". It was new years eve, and I wasn't exactly sober, so it is possible my language slipped a little and what I said doesn't really work as a sentence. It's not so much your drama that I think you are trying to make policy, it's a a specific arbitrary rule that can only make sense in the context of your drama, which you seem to be expecting the administrators of this website to have an intimate understanding of. Perhaps I went too far in stating "dramas" rather than "drama". It's a mistake that I always try to stop myself from making where I lazily conclude that some particular event is part of a larger pattern of events. In this case I do not have a second instance to hand to demonstrate you requesting the administrators enforce a similarly arbitrary rule so I have struck the "s" from my previous comment. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 20:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No I'm not, I'm asking an administrator to cast an eye over yet another infobox discussion and for them to give an opinion on this, the umpteenth attempt to overrule a quite obvious consensus. Maybe they could be the ones to add a Q&A in the edit screen explaining why this article is without an infobox, as has been mooted about here? I find it hilarious that if I went about repeatedly starting RfC's on certain articles that had problematic infoboxes, asking whether they were needed or not, every six months or so, I would quite rightly be in the shit for it. But because this is the other way round it seems wholly acceptable. Aside from Black Kite, their silence, here has been deafening. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There was an editor who started RfCs and disruption whenever he wanted to change the wording of a biography to suit him. He was banned from Stanley Kubrick, banned from Peter Sellers. He was also active at Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe. Just 2 of his Chaplin RfCs. The last visit to AN/ANI resulted in a topic ban from all biographies for his disruption-why is this oh so much different from that? We hope (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cassianto, This is misrepresentation: "attempt to overrule a quite obvious consensus"? What consensus? The RfC 10 months ago closed with no consensus. That is your existing 'consensus'. Administrators are expected to be able to read consensus, and they are. You just don't like what they are saying. A moratorium is only going to happen if you can establish an existing consensus for no infobox. Currently, you don't have one, you just have a status quo and no consensus to change it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not up to me to find an infobxless consensus as there has been a "silent consensus" in place for some time now. You think I'm presuming by saying that ten months ago, the RfC closed as "no consensus for adding an infobox", but you're also being as equally presuming by saying it closed as "no consensus for it to be deleted". So, if the last RfC closed as "no consensus" for neither, what do you expect it to have? Obviously it has to have either one or the other? Oh, and did you see my compromise below? Tell me what you think about that? Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the user in question here, and honestly I am sick and tired of Cassianto's constant harassment of me over this matter, and has extended to far beyond this matter. This man has so far responded and disparaged me on every single thread on the talk page for several days, and then took it to the next level by raiding MY talk page, and now here he is disparaging me here too. This man is beyond immature, and a quick google search shows I'm not alone here. So I'm putting a request in for either a temporary or permanent suspension. This cannot be the model that Wikipedia allows to be the standard. PheonixDev (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Harassment? You came to the Kubrick page first! I didn't repeatedly approach you, asking for you to post there. Also, this is a discussion. Therefore we discuss things. You cannot hold me as a harasser when you are willingly taking part in that discussion. But now that you've told me you find me to be harassing, I will not engage with you further; but please, if you have to post here, do not mention me, talk about me, ping me, or insinuate things about me. You've made your opinions pretty clear how you feel so there is no real reason why you should still be here. I have to, sadly, as as I am the OP and the problem is still very much obvious. Cassianto^Talk 20:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PhoenixDev has made four edits to articles, the last more than two years ago. [40] This user re-appeared within the last two days in order to argue about infoboxes, be confrontational and create drama, attempt to bludgeon editors who actually produce high quality content. His contributions are "the model that Wikipedia (cannot) allow to be the standard" imo.Smeat75 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This man has so far responded and disparaged me on every single thread on the talk page for several days... So I picked a random edit of yours: "extremely inflated sense of self" and "There's a lot you do that most would consider not right". Well, I've had my dose of irony for one day. To put it to you bluntly, Cassianto has dedicated time and effort to constructing complete and reliable articles for the encyclopaedia that have been read by thousands of readers. So far, of your meager twenty edits, all you've done is wind a constructive contributor up with comments that are unacceptable: like this one and the one I linked above. Without editors like Cassianto, there wouldn't be articles for people to read, let alone articles that can be considered well written. Any credibility to the arguments you're trying to make is lost because of the infantile attacks you throw into each of them. So far, you have successfully demonstrated that you are ill-suited to help construct this encyclopaedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think wikipedia owes more to the people who donate money to keep it running (like me) than it does Cassianto. And I find his attitude gratuitously unpleasant. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So it owes me too then. Why do you presume that I don't donate too? What's this, more guess work without evidence? Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used myself as an example, I doubt anyone would notice if I stopped sending my five pounds a year or whatever. But you have garbled my meaning Cassianto, so let me clarify (you chose to only focus on half of what I said, but we can put that to one side). I was responding to this comment of Mr rnddude's: "Without editors like Cassianto, there wouldn't be articles for people to read". The point I wanted to make was that wikipedia owes its existence to a far broader range of people than just a few high maintenance featured article writers. And I would add to that that I don't think it is healthy to try and shield narcissists from the consequences of their own behaviour. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Funnly enough, I think it's perfectly healthy to shield morons from adult discussions; so if you wouldn't mind, please go and do something else. Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto,{u|Woscafrench}}, no personal attacks please. Try to keep the mudslinging to a minimum. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Its not cool to come access as desperate to achieve future RfA diff evidence, Insertcleverphrasehere. Cassianto^Talk 06:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your "random edit" you picked was a response to him AFTER a long drawn out discussion with several insults by him and on my user page. If you want to argue that I am somehow toxic, you need to actually look at the context of the situation. Again, I have also addressed this "oh you haven't been around" fallacy several times. I am a constant user of Wikipedia, I am not a frequent editor, and so I come to you with a unique perspective that Cassianto et al. seem to not consider which is an extremely important perspective: the user. The user who does not know everything about X, and is coming for information about X. I came here to argue for the user and the response has been less than appropriate. PheonixDev (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In Brief: I did not come here to argue the merits of my edit history, I came here to offer a perspective not considered. Regardless the response from Cassianto and his equally rude friends has been to escalate the toxicity beyond what is appropriate. In what world is this kind of harassment acceptable? PheonixDev (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Has any side here actually taken the time to consider that it doesn't matter at all, and that if you just let the other side win it helps build a better encyclopedia because we're not doing this? GMG^talk 00:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Happy New Year, and how about not mentioning the topic for the month of January, everybody, - just trying how much time we win for articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctantly, and as a way of compromise, I would settle for a collapsed infobox, such as that seen on Frank Sinatra. That way, we can all go about our business and PheonixDev can be left to go on another two-year wikibreak until the next major infobox drama. If this compromise is scoffed at and refused by the pro-infobox camp, and the drama continues, then inferences will undoubtedly be drawn by those looking in as to who the actual troublemakers are around here. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the IB proponents are unwilling to accept a collapsed IB as a compromise for long and then start yet more disruption by demanding it is uncollapsed - as happened on Frank Sinatra. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In my book a collapsed infobox looks even worse as it's by default empty but I really don't care, I have better things to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. But notice it's us offering a compromise, and not the infoboxinistas. It's been a few hours since this offering and surprisingly, not a dickie bird. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this song has been played too many times before. Here's the 2016 version. The claim is repeatedly made re: nothing to do with boxes and then there's things like Auf in der Kampf? off to the battle? And this plus this edit to fix the supposedly comic box. I don't believe there can be a resolution of any of this without ArbCom. The 2013 ruling was reasonably successful at putting a stop to these wars-that is until the sanctions were lifted in 2015. We hope (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We are in 2018. I saw 2017 as a relatively peaceful year, but don't have my eyes everywhere. We could do even better in 2018:

1. No edit war, period.
2. Think twice before adding an infobox (check "whose" article it is, to avoid conflict), but also before reverting a stable infobox (the longer it was in an article, the more likely that people will miss it sooner or later)
3. Find a few admins willing to watch that it is observed.

I don't care if Cary Grant, Kenneth William and Stanley Kubrick have an infobox. I don't believe we'll ever have "consistency", just compare Verdi's operas to Handel's, but that's no problem for me, I just can't help smiling when I see the composer's image in a work he wrote as a young man. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actions speak far louder than words. We hope (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ps: Compromise has been tried, and been stable: Percy Grainger (2013) and Ludwig van Beethoven (2015), for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Holy shit, the box on Percy Grainger is a fucking travesty! Cassianto^Talk 01:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell Brianboulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he knows; maybe he just can't be bothered to have you appear like a bad itch if he removed it. Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to add the link in my comment above that it seems the disruption is to provide "amusement" - the link with the relevant edit summary is only available to admins as it was on a page that was deleted after a community discussion; listing of reverts etc does still seem to be continuing to be maintained though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I reckon that infoboxes will likely become mandatory in all bio articles. Something I don't relish. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And then from my part, the box brigade can take over everything I was formerly doing because I won't do it any more. We hope (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay. For the record, I would support a collapsed userbox in this case, and will support any consensus that is developed, one way or another. I actually doubt that it will become 'mandatory'. The problem is that people expect consistency, so if you choose something highly visible that isn't consistent with the vast majority of other articles, it is human nature that people will come by to try to change it back or 'fix it'. You aren't going to magically get people to not add an infobox to this article every so often, you'll have to keep defending it, and discussing with users why there isn't one. Personally I think that this isn't worth it, but won't begrudge others if they have the opposite opinion and are willing to put in the effort to keep the article in their preferred format (assuming of course that they have established consensus for that format). However, this insistence on treating other editors with outright hostility that some of the "no infobox" editors have been doing is something I can't get behind. If you want to have something that is inconsistent with other articles, and is highly noticeable, be prepared to have to defend and discuss it, often, and not get exasperated at continued discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox, is a solution. See Frank Sinatra article. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(in response to this) Yes, I support a collapsed infobox as a compromise. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• If we're striving for consistency, then infoboxes must either be mandatory for all articles or removed completely. I've just pulled up the articles for several well known, influential filmmakers (Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, Cecil B. DeMille, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Charlie Chaplin), and each one of those articles has an infobox. Therefore it is no surprise that new editors or readers will come to the talk pages of popular articles and ask why there is no infobox. They would also obviously be oblivious to the fact that certain editors prefer not to use them for reasons that are justifiable. Unfortunately I think the only answer at this point can come from Arbcom. They will need to decide if consistency across articles coupled with a ratio of readers that expect infoboxes outweighs the preferences of the main contributing authors to certain articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, those articles' infoboxes should be collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Mr Anon. Maybe I should go to the articles you list above and start an RfC on them, asking if the idiotboxes need to be removed? The fact they are there doesn't make it right. It just means that no one has contested them...yet. Cassianto^Talk 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The post above was mine User:Cassianto. I’m not sure why I have so much trouble remembering to sign. I agree with you that such endless circles of RFCs are tedious and can be disruptive to the main contributors who have volunteered so much time and energy to make such high quality articles. I’m just proposing a few possible reasons why they occur so frequently. I also think we need a mandate from on high about how to handle it, but there’s no clear way forward where everyone would be happy. I’ll spend one last sentence expressing my wonder that we have a place to go and freely learn about nearly any topic we fancy. I’ve recently read another one of your fantastic articles - Michael Hordern - how interesting that an actor found success communicating radar information about enemy troop movements, and then later went on to organize entertainment featuring his ship’s staff! I never would have known about such a person had you not taken the time to write about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Simple question: what do you call "so fequently". I count to three (named further up), in all of 2017. Someone dared to make a joke with a deity box, I found it funny, but this thread is the result. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "so frequently" was the wrong description of the occurrence rate. The sentence works with or without this phrase. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Everybody who missed it please look at Talk:Michael Hordern, to see how things can also work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The collapsed box is the last hope for a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--The law of diminishing returns have set in and nothing productive looks likely to come out of this thread. In that case, can somebody please close this thread? Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia article deleted

Hello,

Article of Ms. Sarita Raghuvanshi (wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarita_Raghuvanshi) had been deleted. It was up from several months. No prior notification/clarification was seeked.

Kindly explain the issue. All required information will be provided. The content on her article is all verifiable by media links. Still if there is any content that may be promotional, kindly edit it and restore the page.

Thanks, Anand --Anand.bhate1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising. The best place to go is WP:DRV. I can’t guarantee that anything can be done if people there if people there agree that the article is purely promotional though it is your best shot.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Query about protecting a deleted page against re-creation

Resolved

• I have been asked to delete a page, and I did so: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Expectations (Bebe Rexha album). I was then asked to protect it against being re-created, and in the instructions I found a link to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection. This rule seems to have been changed; as this rule stands now, what is the procedure in getting permission to protect a deleted page against being re-created? My work so far has largely been in history-merging and in attending to the speedy-deletion category. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I went ahead and full-protected it from recreation. SQL^{Query me!} 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack by Coffee in edit summary.

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 still be here.

Short explanation - Coffee does not know what a BLP violation is and accusing me of making one, when I'm quite hardline when it comes to enforcement of the BLP is a personal attack.

Longer explanation: Recently ITN ran (another) Trump story about recognising the capital of Israel etc. ITN decided not to run the subsequent UN vote where almost the entirety of the rest of the world told him where to go. Supposedly the comment at ITN about it continually running Trump's racist and divisive statements is a BLP violation. Despite it being trivial to reliably source that Trump makes racist statements, supports racists, re-tweets racists, promotes racist political policies etc. About the only thing you couldn't easily source if pressed would be 'Trump is a racist'. Which is a good thing I didn't say that. (For those genuinely want to delve into the sewer, his political positions article has the most relevant sourcing) It certainly is not a BLP violation, nor is it worthy of hiding over 300 revisions with an edit summary that indicates I have done something I have not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Last one wasn't hard to source [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] - it is not like this is only one or two articles.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What? I know I've been on vacation for a few days already, but to claim a policy-backed redaction from the record with a clear explanation: BLP violation by xyz editor is an attack is something I don't know I've heard of before. Seraphim (Redacted) The links provided are to opinion pieces and about particular partisan's comments. Misrepresenting those as RSs is quite unhelpful, (Redacted). As for Only in death: your comments are not acceptable on a forum linked to from the main page. Period. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, even if it is an opinion piece, David Rothkopf is a Senior Fellow of American Foreign Policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He absolutely is a reliable source for his expert opinion which is "It has become clearer in the past several weeks than ever before that at his core, Donald Trump is a racist committed to promoting division and intolerance as a core political strategy and central policy initiative." - what I am concerned about is that you are calling these sources "particular partisans" like an editor involved in a content dispute in the arbitration area where your recent sanctions have been called into question. I am not active in that area, but I am concerned based on the discussion here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, it is extremely inappropriate to say that I am raising this concern because I "detest the current DS system". I was neutral about this, having never interacted with you outside ARCA and AN, but I now have serious doubts about whether you have the temperament that is needed for administrative responsibilities which includes not personalizing disputes, remaining uninvolved, remaining professional, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you didn't come here because of our previous dealings, I must ask if you comment at most/every thread on AN. My comment above was only my best deduction based on the fact that you and I had just been discussing the DS system within minutes of your comment here. If you do frequently comment here (and by frequently, I mean often enough to provide reason for your comment here to be literally unrelated to any prior history) I will happily retract my comment. Diffs or whatnot would be appreciated as I haven't the time right now to look through your contribution history. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think making you feel like this is a "pile on" is going to improve the situation and that wasn't what I meant to do. This thread should probably be at ANI anyway. I thought this board was mostly for requesting that admins move pages or asking why they deleted something, COIs, and other issues I'm not involved in.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you weren't an established editor, it would have already earned you a NOTHERE block for your persistence in re-adding the offending comments after being told they were not acceptable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're wrong here, Coffee. I would have said you had misread but your doubling down makes me now think you've misjudged. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Profanity should be allowed on ITNC regarding nation-states and world leaders? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sorry, forgot to ping. Interested in your response. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, so your concern is perceived civility issues, not BLP? Even worse. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I don't believe I said that. I am referring to profanity used to refer to nation-states/particular world leaders and borderline-libelous commentary about a living person. I was actually asking, and interested in your input. I didn't know a snide remark was all you would reply with. As such I'll be awaiting admin input before changing my action. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So now its 'borderline-libelous'? Any other false statements you want to make? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think mine was a snide remark then I think that goes a long way to explaining the problem here: you're imposing a rather thin-skinned outlook on things. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If the issue is one of profanity, why have so many edits been hidden? Were they all profane? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It came across that way... but I don't think any administrator action is required for snide appearing remarks. Nor would I take action against you even if you made a personal attack, as I would be markedly involved at this stage. I'm not sure how this reflects in any way on my decision to redact any edits that you did not make. If I'm understanding that wrong, I'm interested in having an actual discussion. I just don't like my time being wasted or my chain being yanked (which happens quite often to administrators on this forum). I don't even know where I know your username from, but it could be that we have a prior history. I have no idea to be honest. Which is why I asked the first question to you. I just didn't anticipate your tone... if you didn't intend it to be snide sounding, then my apologies. I just would prefer this be handled professionally. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: It is an unfortunate bug caused by the way threaded conversation works. It is due to the offending edit appearing in all of those versions before it was removed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why cannot the profanity just be struck? To a non-admin who cannot see the offending text, it seems, hmm, less than optimal from an admin-PR point of view, that dozens of edits have to be hidden just because someone said a rude word. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: I actually take no issue with profane words themselves, and neither does our policies that I'm aware of. It is the way it was used in this particular case, directed at a well-known living person whom we have a biography about (and a contentious area by its very merit... I think you might agree the Donald Trump topic area is extremely contentious). That type of comment violates our BLP policy and is therefore redactable per WP:RD2. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note to ANI passersby: This issue was being looked at by me before my flight, and it apparently continued to get out of hand (per pings that I got sent). Only in death was told by multiple users/admins (including myself) on the talk page of ITNC that their behavior was not acceptable. They simply re-added their comments regardless. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you were not an admin I would have removed your comments under WP:NPA as it stands this is what your ill-thought actions have brought you. Saying 'The rest of the world telling Trump/the US to get fucked' is not a civility issue, since it is not remotely connected to any editor. And this board has consistently upheld that 'fuck' when not aimed at an editor is perfectly fine. Secondly stating an editor has made violated Wikipedia policies when they clearly have not, is a personal attack. So, provide evidence its a BLP violation or retract it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest you made the comments about another editor... you made them about and regarding world leaders. We are an encyclopedia, not a political forum. There's no place for such commentary here, especially when it is purposefully profane. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

'Fucked' is not grossly profane nor is it grounds for revision deletion. Again, please list the evidence that I have made a BLP violation, referring to the relevant part of the policy or retract your personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"get fucked" is a grossly profane usage of the term in my eyes. I'm willing to hear other administrator's opinion's though. I suggest you wait for others to comment, as I don't wish this entire request you've opened to get lost in a useless back-and-forth about this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This will be the third time asking. And I will do it in caps since you seem to be missing it in the 'back and forth'. PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE I HAVE MADE A BLP VIOLATION WHILE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT PART OF THE POLICY. Or retract your personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What exact article is the topic here? GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Precisely no article. The issue concerns some posts made at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely. Donald Trump was specifically referenced, and the rules of BLP apply across all of our pages (especially at ITNC due to it being directly linked from the Main Page). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an admin and thus I can't see the revdelled posts, but this thread seems to explain the meat of the issue: [46]. (Since I can't see the exact text or edit summaries in question, I also can't opine well on the merits of the claims of either side of the dispute. I suspect both have merits but both are going at this a bit too aggressively.) Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any reason that this is here and not at WP:ANI? – Joe (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(A) It is a report about an administrator. (B) It concerns revdelled material that only administrators can view. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that precludes it from being posted to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as suggested at WP:ADMINABUSE. There is a reason that some of us don't watch the drama boards! – Joe (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Two reasons: ANI is for immediate action/attention, AN is for longer discussion. As Coffee's actions are already being discussed on this board, it makes more sense to have it here, rather than ANI (as I am not looking for immediate administrative action against Coffee at this time). Generally discussions about administrative conduct happen here unless its urgent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: While you're here... could you be so kind as to help calibrate me here? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've been aware of this issue since before any revdel was done, so I've seen the original comments. I can say with absolute assurance that they did not, in any way, represent libelous, slanderous, defamatory, grossly obscene, uncommon, outrageous or in any ways qualifying as a BLP violation.

Regarding the claims of "gross obscenity", I would like to point out that I commented "Fuck Trump. Fuck him hard, with a sandpaper dildo." in response to comments about this, to which nobody batted an eyelash, and rightly so: obscenity is not a metric of defamation. Defamatory comments need to cause something worse than offense (or laughter).

Coffee's reaction was and remains a gross overreaction. Those defending Coffee have done so without any argument more compelling than "it was at a highly visible page!" which, one might notice, doesn't address the actual nature of the content. I would remind everyone here that the vast majority of people who are aware of Trump view him as a racist, and a large proportion of them would like him to "get fucked" or "go fuck himself" or something. The claim that Trump is not a racist or that the UN resolution which OiD characterized as "Fuck Trump" was anything less than a diplomatically worded version of "Fuck Trump" is such a minority view on a worldwide scale that I wouldn't think twice about applying the principles of WP:FRINGE to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not wish to be defended. I wish to be informed from outside eyes. Although I will note I did not see your comment on Only in death's talkpage, I don't have the energy to police individual talkpages (if another admin wants to act on that so be it). The comments I have issue with occurred on ITNC, in the project space, which is why I thought them to be actionable. Your concerns and opinion on the matter are noted however. But, at this point I'm still awaiting any other administrator to help me see if I'm entirely reading our policy on WP:RD2 wrong or not. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

MPants, your profane statements were posted on a usertalk page, not on a page directly and prominently linked on the mainpage. The thing is we've had this exact same scenario play out very recently, wherein Drmies (if I'm not mistaken), hardly a Trump supporter, removed and revdelled a very similar and even milder (if I'm not mistaken) edit, comment, or edit summary as a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to add: I think it had something to do with the title of a YouTube video posted on EEng's userpage (and it may not have been Drmies who took the admin action, but he supported the removal I think). 14:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The main page regularly has far more offensive content actually on it. But still not seen (despite asking repeatedly) a link to the relevant part of the BLP I am supposed to have violated. Which is why I opened this. Given Trump's articles outright say nothing different, it is not a BLP violation to state the same on a talkpage. BLP actually allows more leeway on talkpages, not less. Coffee's inappropriate use of revdel for minor profanity is unimportant. Given his recent history of inappropriate blocks, topic bans etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Other questions aside, I think we can simplify by dismissing the claim of NPA vio, which is the main thrust of the thread per its current heading. The applicable policy is sufficiently vague that the BLPvio claim was not clearly baseless; ergo there was no PA. If one had to be 100% certain before alleging a policy vio lest they risk a sanction for NPA vio, no rational editor would ever allege one. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Coffee I will be straightforward with you: I would understand (but disagree) if someone were to use the "grossly obscene" portion to justify revdel-ing my comment at OiD's talk page. My comment is one I would consider a borderline case, and it was explicitly crafted to be as close to a BLPvio as one could get while still expressing a personal opinion, and not claiming a fact. However, my primary point was to demonstrate by the lack of immediate action on the part of even an admin who was fundamentally agreeing with you and defending your actions that my statement -far worse than OiDs- was not a clear-cut violation. To suggest that OiD's statement was such a clear BLPvio is beyond the pale. The result of your reaction (and those of others: you were neither the first nor the worst, merely the one who used the admin bit) was to suppress OiD's very valid concerns and then bury them and any onlookers in a different discussion so as to discourage him voicing them anew. In short, it was disruptive. I'm not suggesting that this was intentionally disruptive, but it was, nonetheless, a disruption of what was an otherwise unremarkable discussion.

Softlavender In comments subsequent to the one in which I made that statement, I addressed the exact same argument from Masem. Talk space is something which may seem highly visible to us WPians who overuse it (and I admit being one of them), but I have serious doubts as to whether our wider readership, or even the majority of our editors would agree. Even among pages which I've edited a number of times, I don't always have even a single edit to the talk page. I rarely even read talk pages unless I have a specific reason to. I don't think Talk:ITN is as visible a page as many have argued that it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It currently gets around 2000 hits per day which is like a bad DYK. And it's pretty clear that a lot of those hits will come from editors making nominations or passing opinions. I saw all that chat and didn't blink. Perhaps it's because I'm British. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ITNC still has a very visible and boldfaced link right at the top right section of the Main Page. (I'm not arguing the merits of Coffee's action[s], because I can't see all the data; I am merely stating a fact, which he has presented as part of his rationale.) Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Its completely baseless. If its good enough for article space, its good enough for a talkpage. Unless you are going to go into the Trump articles and remove all the references to racism? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• One of the sequences of revdeleted edits begins with this (admins only). This is in no way readable as a BLP violation (WP:BLP#Legal persons and groups), and revdeleting it was egregiously poor judgment. —Cryptic 14:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with Cryptic. Coffee, you should restore any revisions relating to at least the above revision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Looking at this, the obscenity did not violate policy. The "racist and divisive pronouncements" comment requires the admin to exercise some common sense. It might be a borderline revdel if the subject had never been part of a serious racism debate. This isn't the case with Trump. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: @SarekOfVulcan: (edit conflict) x5  Done I highly appreciate your input. It was needed. I must misunderstand something here, so I would really, really appreciate it if either of you could expound a bit more on how the comments did not fit into WP:RD2 which supposedly covers "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Coffee: I think it's fairly clear that "(Dear US, get fucked, signed, everyone.)" is not grossly offensive, and I'm not sure why you're asking for that to be explained in more detail. Crude, yes. Offensive, possibly. Grossly offensive - that's another category altogether. Notice the emphasis on not ordinary incivility in the criteria. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You're moving the goalposts here a bit - the deletion summary you used was "RD2: Serious BLP violations: by Only in death - admins: block if behavior ever continues". If you didn't mean it was a BLP violation, you shouldn't have labelled it as one, no matter what the dropdown-menu default is. RD2 as a whole? This clearly isn't a slur or smear, and is mildly offensive at worst. If you aren't at least considering revdeleting it here, too, and blocking the users who've repeated it - and I sure hope you aren't - then it's not gross enough. This is squarely in ordinarily-incivil territory. —Cryptic 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @SarekOfVulcan: (edit conflict) x6 I assure you I'm not playing dumb. I feel dumb as hell here though. I thought RD2 didn't require slurs/smears/etc to be "grossly offensive". And I thought the "get fucked" and "racist" would fit under that description. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Coffee: "get fucked" is neither an insulting insinuation (slur), nor a false accusation (smear).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @SarekOfVulcan: what about "racist" when referring to their actions? I would have certainly thought that was a slur if not a potential smear. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Coffee: That's not as obvious a call, especially since the actual quote is "Trump's racist and divisive pronouncements", and it's fairly trivial to find reliable sources that say Trump has made racist statements -- here, for example. I'd also be hesitant to revdel a straight "Trump is a racist" statement, for similar reasons, but I probably would let that one stand as deleted, from an abundance of caution. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Coffee, I think the issue here is what NeilN says in terms of context: I think editors should be careful in how they interact on talk pages, but if you Google "Trump racist actions" you will find articles in many reliable sources classifying his actions that way. These are normally op-eds or editorials, but there are enough of them where a discussion on Trump's actions in regards to racism has become part of the public discourse. I wouldn't advocate Wikipedia reporting on that is his voice, but I also wouldn't classify a talk page post as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, which is the standard. To RD it needs to be grossly inappropriate, not just an ordinary issue, and I think SarekOfVulcan also makes a good point on the distinction between calling him a racist and discussing his actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: I am not intending to move goalposts... I just believed that if it was deleteable under RD2 it could be de facto understood as being a BLP violation. I'm only asking for help here. I had no intention of not listening to the advice I'm asking for. And I'm looking for good solid advice, because apparently I entirely misjudged this. I don't particularly enjoy this type of stress... so I'm asking for calibration. If I was simply dead wrong, I'll have to re-evaluate how I interpreted a policy. I consider that to be a big deal, since it's my duty to get it right. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Coffee: RD2 can be used to remove BLP violations, but that's not the only use for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Would you revdel editors making points about the "racist statements" of David Duke or Don Black (white supremacist)? Context matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @NeilN: No, as I understand it they've actually publicly taken stands for racism. I understand Trump has made severely gross comments before, but I was not aware of reliable sources existing that stated he had made racist comments (I'm not considering opinion pieces or statements by partisans). The closest thing I could think of was his anti-Mexican comments, but those are actually anti-people-from-one-country (I may have missed the RS that may have stated this in the thousands of Trump related articles out there). Are we sure this isn't a call made because we might find his comments to be racist? I personally dislike the man, but I'm trying to be impartial in my administrative work. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not saying editor are free to smear Trump here. But look at news reports. This isn't Republicans chanting, "lock her up". There is ample sober reporting and commentary on the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @SarekOfVulcan: To clarify: do you not think smears/slurs are BLP violations? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Coffee: I'm really not sure how you're getting that from what I said above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I was only replying to this comment: RD2 can be used to remove BLP violations, but that's not the only use for it. I swear I am not trying to upset you by asking these. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Grossly offensive material may be removed under RD2 without the offensive material actually being a BLP violation. Therefore, not all removals under RD2 are BLP violations. This doesn't mean that BLP violations can't be removed under RD2. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oh. Facepalm Of course that's what you were referring to. Jesus. I've successfully made myself look like a jackass on this one then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Commenting only because I was mentioned: I pointed out the need for context to understand if some of these were BLP. The "Trump is a racist" on a talk page like ITNC is a BLP vio when said by a WP editor clearly expressing their opinion, but the other ones, like the UN resolution one, I agreed it's likely not a BLP. The overall problem is that ITNC already is a page where a lot of editors involve carry chips on their shoulders and there's a lot of language that is used to fan the flames to try to justify their point. EG: the UN comment "Dear US, get fucked", while I agree is not anything actionable, should clearly be the type of language to be avoided on that page, and the more the same editors continue to use it, the more disruptive they become. --Masem (t) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately since I didn't say 'Trump is a racist' that's a non-issue. What I said was "If we are going to tacitly support Trump's racist and divisive pronouncements by giving them front page coverage and then not give the bare minimum to the response, we are just being used as part of his hate machine." - which is under no possible interpretation of the BLP a violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It is effectively what you said and are repeating here. You're making very factual statements in an editor's voice on very contentious claims about a BLP, atop a passive-aggressive stance towards other editors at ITNC. That's completely unneeded in the context of the situation where it was discussed and needed to be removed. --Masem (t) 15:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is not 'effectively' what I said, unless you do not know the difference between 'X is Y' and 'X said Y'. Given you, Coffee etc are administrators with significant experience, you should both understand the difference and how it is applied with regards to policy. If admins are unable to tell such a basic difference they shouldn't be an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion at ITNC , there's no way to take what you said, particularly with the "part of his hate machine" at the end, as anything else less than "Trump is a racist" in your voice; even if you are just referring to his policies or his statements, that's still a personal attack towards a BLP, since you're claiming those labels as facts in your voice. And given the context, where no one else brought up those claims, and has nothing to do with if we should be including such claims on a mainspace article (the allowance BLP allows), its completely out of line for ITNC. --Masem (t) 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean in the context of why ITN posts Trump PR but doesn't post the worldwide response despite it fulfilling the ITN criteria? Fortunately your opinion of what is relevant to *my* !vote for an item to go on the front page is meaningless. No one else needs to bring it up for me to mention it. If you are seriously arguing that comments at ITN that do not directly address the criteria for posting should be removed, then do so. See how far that goes. Secondly, no it is not a personal attack towards a BLP to repeat what is currently covered in both his articles on ENWP, and the wider press, peer reviewed articles etc. You can keep saying it, but it does not make it true. Its neither prohibited in policy, guidelines or anywhere else. You might not like it, but just because you do not think it is relevant does not suddenly make it a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What Wikipedia article refers to Trump as a racist in wiki voice? Not Donald Trump, the characters racis occur once, and not in reference to Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There are several ways to make your same core point to support the ITNC (That we posted Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, thus we should also post what the rest of the world as represented by the UN said about it unanonymously against it) without touching at all anything about your opinion on Trump himself or his statements or his policies. That's the context problem, why it is a BLP, coupled with the fact that every regular at ITNC should be aware how much of a hotbed for editor conflict it is. --Masem (t) 16:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is not 'personal attack', even if mistaken, otherwise there is no way to discuss violation and enforce BLP, or indeed any other policy. If we were to accept the logic that it is a 'personal attack' to label an act a violation of policy, we would have to hold the OP guilty of 'personal attack' because it accused someone of a violation of NPA policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue about the personall attacks stems from Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. which is listed as a type of personal attack at WP:NPA. In this case, Coffee's comments were made during the revdel, which occurred well after it was abundantly clear that whether or not these were BLP vios was a matter of serious contention. Rather than accepting that and asking for a review of other admins, Coffee went ahead and revdel-ed the edits, while accusing OiD of BLP vios. In short, rather than accepting that their view was controversial in the face of unambiguous evidence that they were, Coffee plowed forward with actions and words that accused another editor of violation policy without evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that I acted with deliberate malice, I cannot stop you from believing that. I simply was attempting to redact something that I thought fit the letter of RD2. I don't usually ask for a review of something before taking action, as the admin corp is spread damn thin so we need to be able to make these calls on our own. I cannot express my disappointment in myself for apparently getting this one wrong. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that I acted with deliberate malice, I don't, and I'm not 100% convinced that your comments in the revdel were sanctionable personal attacks. I merely understand the arguments that they were (even if I'm not totally convinced) and was attempting to explain them. If I were to venture a guess at characterizing your actions, I would say you acted in undue haste without the proper level of consideration for an admin, though as I mentioned, I think it's borderline whether or not your comments constitute personal attacks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not a PA, not sanctionable, no further action required. Coffee clearly had a good-faith belief that there was a BLP violation in what was revdeled. I am even prepared to say that Coffee's belief was a reasonable one, even if there appears to be emerging consensus that such belief was incorrect. To the extent that there were any incorrect revdels, they appear to have been undone. I see no reason to go beyond that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The revdels have been undone, and Coffee has accepted that they were not clear BLP violations based on additional comments from uninvolved admins. I doubt Coffee is about to go on a campaign of calling OiD names over this, or start stalking him looking for policy vios to sanction him over, so I think the only thing left to discuss is between Coffee and a few others, which could be taken up at user talk. Can we close this thread? I don't see any good coming from continuing to gripe about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (in response to MPants' comment directly above): I think this thread has further pointed up that Coffee has, since his return to Wikipedia after an eight-month absence, engaged in a series of rash controversial (unilateral, or fairly unilateral) actions, many of which have been challenged or overturned. I would hate to see this pattern continue, and if it did, I think some consideration of his current fitness for adminship may be in order. Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee seems like a wise person who will listen and assimilate all of these comments to become an even better admin. Hopefully we can all keep some perspective in this new year. Happy New Year!- MrX 16:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Okay. I think I've got the right idea now. I was clearly a bit jumpy on the idea of us potentially being potentially degrading/offensive/at issue with BLP on this call. I will ensure to properly enforce what I've calibrated to now when I return from the rest of this trip (or whenever/if I pop my head back in before then). I'll note a little less harshness would have made this less stressful, but I do understand the reason for being upset here now. I was only trying to make a redaction I actually thought fit the letter of the policy. From this experience I've identified two issues: 1. my former understanding of RD2 (I'll note I wasn't around when the revdel policies were created, so I wasn't entirely sure how the community had interpreted them when they were written to policy) 2. my instinct to distrust editor motivations on "drama boards" can improperly light my perspective. I intend to think on this over the coming days. Other than that, I need to get offline or I am going to feel like hell tomorrow trying to get to the airport. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This whole thread has the appearance of polishing a turd. This not the place to discuss anything outside articles for Wikipedia. If anyone wants to discuss Trump or the U.S. or their "sandpaper dildo," go do it elsewhere. Arguing that it's "allowed" because of technical interpretations of minutiae rather than the broad WP:NOT purpose of the project is not conducive to a collegiate editing environment. Put a link to your blog on your user page so interested parties can read your irrelevant bullshit. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Question If we topic-banned Coffee, Sitush, "Seraphim System", and "Only in death does duty end" from all pages and discussions related to American politics after 1974, broadly construed, would this problem and subsequent ones all largely disappear? MPS1992 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? Sitush?! Winged Blades^Godric 06:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest of us be like ... hey, why don't we close this discussion?SeraphWiki (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that there are some editors who are so sacred that their names may not be mentioned in such a way. MPS1992 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For anyone else who had to check, "SeraphWiki" who is here proposing to close the thread as quickly as possible, on the authority of "the rest of us", is an acknowledged sock of "Seraphim System" that I mentioned with regard to possible restrictions just now in this same thread. The "SeraphWiki" account is operating outside its stated purposed as acknowledged on its userpage and as disclosed to a member of the Arbitration Committee. MPS1992 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I thought you were joking if you were serious we should definitely leave this discussion open long enough for you to get BOOMERANGed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That essay refers to the person who opened a discussion on this and related noticeboards being sanctioned. I did not open this discussion. Did you come here with clean hands? If so, why swap between accounts so quickly, especially accounts whose "purpose is maintenance related tasks including AfC and making improvements to new articles" -- an account created less than a week ago -- and where it needed to be stated that "The creation of this account has been discussed with a member of the Arbitration Committee"? MPS1992 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have questions about how alt accounts work you should ask me, or preferably someone more senior then me on a talk page, not in an unrelated AN discussion. There is a huge banner on my userpage. Multiple admins know the account is verified. I even made the names similar as possible because I saw the bullshit complaints coming. And yes, it was discussed with Doug Weller, he told me to link the accounts publicly - that way anyone with two firing brain cells can figure out I am Seraphim System.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting removal of autopatrolled

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, please remove my autopatrolled flag, and send my recently created pages into the NPP feed if possible and desired. I have only written about two articles (excluding disambiguation pages and redirects) and I'm not entirely sure why it was given to me. Jc86035 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

So done. The reason why it was granted to you is because when reviewing your articles is unnecessary, having to review them anyway wastes reviewers' time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Because while you don't create new articles as such, you have created quite a lot of new pages (see the discussion you linked RE templates/mods etc) which also need to be patrolled. I gather it was added based on your contributions in those areas rather than articles. Unless you plan on making a load of duff articles, I don't think it needs removal - as now NPP'ers will need to patrol your non-article page creations. Which you have clearly demonstrated doesn't need to happen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Can I get this post removed?

Can I get this post at Talk:Swim_Team_(album) removed [47]? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Removed. I've also given notice of this thread to the editor who made the comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at AfC requests for permissions

Resolved

Due to the extensive backlog at AfC, we should probably process requests at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#January in as timely a manner as possible, the oldest outstanding is from 6 days ago (Famousdog). He is also a NPR in good standing, so not seeing any particular reason why he and others have not been processed yet. Perhaps too few admins are aware of the need on that page, hence this reminder. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved. Thanks Alex Shih. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

An edit that should have been blocked

Resolved

Would it be ok if this edit was blocked from public viewing Special:Diff/312495857 Reason why: It’s very offensive. 174.232.137.5 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-mobile link: [48]

This is an edit from 2009, and although vandalism, I don't think it's worthy of oversight or suppression? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's petty vandalism, not really worth suppressing. Tasteless perhaps, but doesn't seem to qualify for revdel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely does not warrant revision deletion. Very old, and is just ordinary vandalism. If it happened today on a BLP, I might consider it as possible RD2, but this is just someone vandalizing a company 8 years ago. I'm marking this resolved (and I would ask that no one put the annoying purple box around this. There is no reason to close every conversation here.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Using of instead of have, on the other hand, is reprehensible. nagualdesign 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cary Grant RfC help please

Since I'm part of the discussion, would someone who isn't move this comment to survey? Also-there's a comment re: mandatory freezes can't be done by RfC. The editor who started the RfC is a blocked proxy, so he/she can't change it. Not sure where this leaves the RfC itself because of the wording, but thought I was told a freeze couldn't be done by RfC some time ago. Thanks! We hope (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA (and WP:AIV)...

... if anyone fancies dealing with it, mainly bot reports.

AIV reports pushing back to yesterday too. Nightfury 10:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

AIV is mostly clear now, but UAA remains backlogged... –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

UAA cleared. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I will leave my standard note that AIV is never actually backlogged. All of those reports had been reviewed and not blocked. No one feels like declining or getting yelled at for being "weak on vandals" so most people just ignore the bad or borderline ones. A report sitting stale for more than an hour or two is a de facto decline. No comment re: UAA, because I don't work there and don't really know how their backlog works, but it likely isn't something major: if they were actually causing disruption, they would likely also have been reported to AIV and blocked anyway. There is rarely a need to make a thread reporting backlogs in either. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re: AIV - Or we're waiting to see if more activity takes place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks for adding that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• If two hours is a de facto decline, then it would make sense to have a bot go ahead and remove reports that are stale for more than a few hours? Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd likely let it be a bit longer in case there was an actual case where like NeilN said, we were observing to see if it continued, but in general, I think the bot clearing after X hours would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Care to take a rough guess at an appropriate value for X? I'm thinking 4-8, but I've done very little with AIV. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Realistically you want to set it at the outside edge of an editors editing window. So assuming vandal gets up, vandalizes, goes to work, comes home and vandalizes some more, goes to sleep - 8-10 hours will cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd go with 8-10 hrs. If it hasn't been acted on by then it can reasonably be called stale for AIV. But if we are looking at creating some kind of auto decline I would also add a note suggesting ANI as an alternative in the event that the nomination was not something that could easily be identified as vandalism or persistent spamming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would say 8 hours would be very safe. SQL^{Query me!} 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I originally said 4-5 on the assumption that if the disruption continued, it would be back at AIV in a second. I have no problem with 8-10 though, and I'd prefer it be on the shorter end of that scale. I'd opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Bot_to_clear_stale_reports. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I say this every time someone complains about the AIV backlog, but you can greatly assist us administrators if you provide some details if it's not an open and shut case. Particularly where you have editors messing around with markup, changing genres/labels/years active, it's alleged block evasion, or if it's an LTA, it can be difficult for a "cold" administrator to work out exactly what the problem is. Keep in mind that the admin reviewing your report probably will have no idea about what you're talking about, and format your report accordingly. This will mean it can be dealt with a lot faster. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

And if I can offer an example of what I mean, Sidaq pratap has reported 160.202.36.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for "vandalism after final warning". The IP's talk page is a pretty simple progression up he ladder of warnings, but the IP's contribution all seem to be adding television programmes to lists concerning various Indian TV channels and production studios. Is this "obvious vandalism"? Perhaps they're nonsense, I do not watch Indian TV so I have no idea. Some of them have references though which looks valid. I do not mean to pick on Sidaq pratap specifically, since this kind of report is pretty common, but it's also very difficult for an admin to dissect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Censorship of Farsi Wikipedia administrators. (Remove 2017–18 Iranian protests images without reason)

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

---

Hello. The Iran Islamic Republic's terrorists remove images of people on Wikipedia from 2017–18 Iranian protests, they get money from the government and have access to remove images. They do not want people to see the protests :( As a typical Iranian citizen, we do not have much familiarity with Wikipedia. Please report to the administrator. if you want see this.. They also reject our edits in the article in farsi wikipedia and they say iranian people do not have problems with terrorists and "islamic Republic of iran" See this Closed this user's access and many other of normal iranian people! Mohammadmosalman (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) They do not want foreign people to see pictures :( Mohammadmosalman (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page has no control over anything done on Farsi Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons so neither of these are something we can assist with here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, unfortunately on enwiki we cannot do anything about farsi Wikipedia. meta:Wikimedia forum would be the port of call for such complaints, I think. Or commons:COM:VP if the issue is at Commons, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked for it there, but im not a professional user i want more help.. i mean we (normal people of iran) want more help. They choked our voice and many people do not have the Internet Mohammadmosalman (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

and one more friends: Farsi Wikipedia is afraid of dictatorship and many users of it are Related to dictatorship and support it Mohammadmosalman (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wordpress subdomain blacklisted

The below note was posted on the Commons admin noticeboard:

A notice to admins that I recently globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com due to a ferocious and broad WMF-wide spambot attack. There will be consequences with that while it is blacklisted. I am unsure whether it is just a temporary measure, or whether it is has anything more than occasional inconvenience. At the moment there seem to be about 4000 links to that domain (special:linksearch/*.files.wordpress.com, 2000- links and special:linksearch/https://*.files.wordpress.com, 2000+ links). If this blacklisting is seen as not acceptable to Commons needs then we should whitelist some or all of the sub-domains in Mediawiki:spam-whitelist. If you are prepared to wait some days to see whether the spamming stops/has stopped then we need do nothing. Look forward to hearing your opinions, especially in light that it is not an authoritative domain for source files.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Since we host a lot of files, I figured there ought to be some note here. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some recent spam has had several wordpress.com links on a new page. If it's just this type of spam an edit filter may be possible. Peter James (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the benefits of this will almost certainly outweigh any harm. Links to this subdomain are often either spam or copyright violations. They are very rarely going to meet WP:RS, and if they do, they will probably have been published elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:

• one account restriction
• topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
• prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
• prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).

The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Original announcement

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Request to assist with merge discussion on Erica Garner talk page

• Talk:Erica Garner

There is a discussion on the talk page of Erica Garner regarding whether to merge the article with Death of Eric Garner. There is some edit-warring going on and although a couple of editors (including myself) have suggested the merge suggestion should be closed at no consensus, other editors disagree. Could a non-involved admin kindly take a look and advise. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I've noticed Gregory Lauder-Frost, currently a redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance, has been apparently protected from editing since 2008, after a controversial edit history and legal threats from the subject (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance). I'm wondering if it is worth opening a can of worms to discuss a stand-alone article, assuming WP:NBIO is met. Lauder-Frost has been described as "a former leading light of the Conservative Monday Club and a well-known figure within the British far-Right" in 2013, and a "well-known champion of traditionalist causes" in 2015. He made news back in 1992, and was profiled in 2013. He has had significant involvement with several notable groups, including Conservative Democratic Alliance, Monday Club, Western Goals Institute, International Monarchist League, and Arktos Media. Regardless of one's opinion of such groups, this is further evidence of notability. Note he also has extensive coverage in the (non-RS) Metapedia. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Pinging @JzG:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And @Alison:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The main issue is that Lauder-Frost is not prepared to accept a biography that includes his criminal conviction. I am fine with a WP:NPOV biography that includes these, and his neo-Nazi sympathies, but consensus in 2008 was that notability was sufficiently marginal as not to be worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• He's still very much around, and editing. Any time I pop back here, it's clear that he's been sanitizing article around British conservatism, the far-Right, and BLPs that he's connected to - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• You mean the troglodyte Nazi-sympathizing embezzler? He certainly deserves an article now. Ping me and I'll be happy to help. EEng 03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of unused template subpages per TfD

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

---

Hi, could an admin or admins delete all pages beginning with Template:ISO 3166 linked from Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/8? This is per this TfD. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, watch out for redirects in that list. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, they were all redirects, but that really doesn't change anything. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

AE Appeal

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

---

On 12/1 I was Topic banned for 1 month under the BLP ArbCom case from editing articles on American Politicians. On 1/3, an AE filing was presented against me for edits regarding Erica Gardner. That complaint was baseless. However another editor listed an edit I made to Joe Scarborough removing a long standing conspiracy theory regarding the death of an employee. I certainly didn't consider this to be a violation nor was it raised as one when I made it. I was enforcing a longstanding BLP consensus.

Lo and behold, after the expiration, the original admin decided that I needed a new 30 day topic ban with a wider scope to include AP2. So the DS flipped to a new case, from an edit to an article that is not under any AP2 restriction. No rational person would presume to say that I waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it. I made a good faith BLP edit to an article that has routinely had allegations regarding the death of an employee. Even WaPo denounced the conspiracy theory. It's punitive and arbitrary and does not serve the project. --DHeyward (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [49]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.

• This is the last comment I will make here: I did not note that I was involved. I said that you were commenting on the MisterWiki case where I was the filing party, so I didn't think I should block. I did that out of an abundance of caution as previous blocks of editors commenting on Arb pages have been controversial, even if the block was related to another sanction. That does not make me involved. If that was the case then I would consider myself involved with literally every editor who commented there, which was well over 50 when counting the case request. I have also explained plenty of times in multiple forums why I saw this as different, even considering that AE action. Finally, please stop construing this as a unilateral action. Every admin who commented on that thread with the exception of Sandstein, who suggested that I be the one to close the thread, supported reseting the TBAN and several supported expanding it for clarity. I would never have imposed this otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• And Sandstein is the one that said it was poorly worded on December 9 and allowed the edits to Kris Paronto. You agreed that it was confusing. You didn't seem bothered by that? --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. An edit to an article about a former congressman is unambiguously a topic ban violation on editing articles about American politicians. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you really think I would have made the edit on the 31st day of a 1 month topic ban? The edit removed the launching point of accusations listed here[50]? There is long-standing consensus that this theory is a BLP violation. I've removed it many times over 10 years. --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this kind of endorsement simply backs up the fact that some individuals are completely inflexible and see these kinds of things legalistically, in black and white, with no chance of any grey areas that can be discussed. It's far easier to just point at the ban, the date and say "yep, infraction!" and move on to the next topic. We should find individuals in whom we can place our trust to actively seek to resolve these issues rather than those who simply punish editors for doing what they think is right, even in purportedly risky circumstances. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this is simply a continuation of the ongoing inability of certain admins and arbs who appear to be completely unable to communicate with individual editors without having to resort to kangaroo court proceedings where grudges are reintroduced time and again. Some common sense could have been applied here, but sadly was not. I'm no longer surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've already explained this elsewhere, but this topic ban was only placed as the consensus of all uninvolved admins that commented on it agreed that DHeyward had violated his topic ban, and that it should be reset. I would not have done this without the consensus of other administrators and if I had not been specifically asked to be the one to close the thread by two of my colleagues. The edit DHeyward removed was not a BLP violation, and would not have been exempt from his topic ban. This was changed to AP2 because other administrators suggested that it would be helpful in avoiding any future confusion. I do not mind community review at all, but this was not a unilateral action. For reference this is the original thread. All administrators who commented on the merits of the case saw a topic ban violation and recommended a reset. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Most cited an admin that mistook the edit and dates. I am being sanctioned based on a filing that was deemed insufficient with the filer being warned along with the fact that TBAN had already expired. Further, TonyBallioni had already brought me to AE on a violation that failed. He's involved. Admins should not be sanctioning editors after they lose a sanction request. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have only had administrative interactions with you. I was asked to be the one to deal with the report since I was the original sanctioning administrator by @Sandstein and EdJohnston: Sandstein being the admin who convinced me to withdraw the original filing. That was filed out of an abundance of caution since you were actively commenting (along with many other people) at the current ArbCom case and I didn't want to be the one to sanction because of that. I do not consider myself involved with every editor who has commented on the MisterWiki case, nor with any editor who has a disagreement with my admin actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to" broadly construed. You were a party that asked for AE sanctions. Why don't the "broadly construed" rules aplly to you while you seem to generously slap them on me? You apologized for the poorly worded original sanction and then doubled down with a new, boader sanction. Fix it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Phony violation. Obviously, Scarborough is no longer a politician. See, for example, Wilts, Alexandra. "People close to Donald Trump say he has dementia, claims MSNBC host", The Independent (November 30, 2017): "Mr Trump took aim at Mr Scarborough earlier this week, appearing to call for a probe into the death of a staff member who was found in the former politician's office in 2001" (emphasis added). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, the article is routinely vandalized with "details" trying to implicate Scarborough in the death. It's a consensus BLP violation to keep this info just as we don't list the death of Vince Foster in Hillary Clinton's bio. It doesn't matter how many CTs are out there, it's defamatory to keep it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how it's possible to argue that these edits didn't violate the topic ban. The ban forbids edits about "living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics". This is the edit to Joe Scarborough, who is an ex-congressman who is now a political commentator - easily falls into the scope. Furthermore the edit concerns what a politician (Donald Trump) said about him. If there are any BLP issues in that paragraph I don't think they're nearly bad enough to justify violating a topic ban. There were also edits to Erica Garner concerning what she said about Bill de Blasio - again definitely a politician. I think that's reasonable justification for resetting the topic ban. Hut 8.5 22:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • • Even if the topic ban covers people who were "recently" politicians, Scarborough hasn't been one since 2001. I suppose every article at Wikipedia is "related" to every other article because they're all at Wikipedia, but such vague language in a topic ban is a recipe for abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that if an article is under category:20th-century American politicians and category:21st-century American politicians, then an editor topic banned from "articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed" would stay away from such articles. This is not complicated. If in doubt, ask the admin who imposed the sanction or just stay away from the article.- MrX 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Which happened on Dec 9th when Tony and Sandstein concluded I could edit Kris Paronto, known for Benghazi and afterwards. --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Hut 8.5 Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [51]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Dandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • • I'm not sure I agree with that. It appears to me that TonyBallioni withdrew the request because it hadn't been made sufficiently clear that the topic ban was meant to cover those sorts of edits, and that it wasn't fair to sanction you for them as a result. That doesn't really help you here. Even if you're right and we accept Sandstein's interpretation (which is just Sandstein's interpretation), I don't see how you can say that an article about Joe Scarborough, a congressman, isn't a "politician-related article". (I think you had a much stronger case in that AE request than in this one.) Again, it seems like you're testing the boundaries of the topic ban, and using wikilawyering to justify it. That isn't how topic bans work. Hut 8.5 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
      • No, topic bans work per WP:TBAN, and this isn't one of those. And as for using "wikilawyering" to justify it, please see your own arguments. They are just as "wikilawyerish". There needs to be some COMMON SENSE applied here. And it's problematic that there isn't. You need to step back and realise we're all human. Just undo DHewyard's last supposed transgression(s) and ask them if they were aware that they were (perhaps) infringing their ban. Then give them two days, and allow them to make the very same edits unhindered. Talk about deliberating perpetuating a non-crisis, mountains and molehills etc. Get a grip you people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Joe Scarborough is not a congressman just as he isn't a lawyer or college student. Tony had the opportunity to clarify what he meant but didn't implying that Sandstein's interpretation was correct. If they thought my edit to Scarborough was a violation, a request to revert would work. It was the last day of the sanction. I was not gaming it and have a long history of removing those springboards for slander. How can I divine what an admin intends when there is so much confusion andd no clarification. --DHeyward (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Check the dates. The Erica Garner edits were not considered violations. Only Scarborough. And check the dates. If Trump tweeted about Hillary Clinton killing Vince Foster, do we add it to her bio? Don't think so. Scarborough isn't any more a politician than he is a college student. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're stymied by the joke wording of the sanction "broadly construed". It should read "intelligently interpreted" (Redacted). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Er, no. The topic ban was imposed on 2 December and lasted for 1 month. The Erica Garner edits were made on 31 December, which is before the topic ban expired. You don't stop being a politician just because you left office, and even if that wasn't the case the edits concerned Donald Trump. Topic bans apply to all editing, not just unconstructive editing. If you wanted to get the material removed then you could have posted on the article talk page, WP:BLP/N, or just asked someone else. It's hard to avoid the impression that you've been testing the edges of the topic ban here. Hut 8.5 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, forgive me, I didn't realise that Erica Garner was a politician. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, she wasn't, but the edits exclusively concerned comments she'd made about Bill de Blasio, who is undoubtedly a politician. The sanction wasn't limited to biographies of politicians, it included "related topics" as well. Hut 8.5 19:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I get the feeling that because this (among many) sanction has been so poorly worded, we will be forever at odds with "broadly construed" and "related topics". I think your point is completely bogus, you think your point is completely relevant. That, in my opinion, sums up the value of the wording of the sanction – INADEQUATE. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Um, I might have missed something very obvious, but isn't the venue for an AE appeal, AE itself, not AN? (Note: I didn't comment on the original AE). Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: It can be either. This is probably the most appropriate venue (well, this or ARCA) because the sanction was a result of consensus at AE. Doesn't make much sense to go immediately back there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• OK. I'm also going to weakly endorse this. If it had just been one edit that was on the edge of being a violation (i.e. the Scarborough one, where the BLP defence is not unreasonable), I wouldn't. But together with the Garner one and also those listed by Volunteer Marek at the AE case, suggest to me that DHeyward is deliberately skirting the extremes of their topic ban, and that isn't a good idea. As I say, it's a weak endorse, but is it really that difficult to just stay away from an area you're topic-banned on? No, it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• all the other edits passed muster. Only the Scarborough edit was cited. You can read why. I wasn't banned from AP2, only articles about politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Scarborough one was the originally cited one - and as I say I would just about be prepared to give that one a pass on BLP terms if it was the only issue - but I don't see how the Garner one wasn't a violation, as DeBlasio is a current politician. Of the others, Flynn was a recent politician, and the Mandell diff references Obama. That's the way I'm looking at it. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Black Kite Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me because he presumed he might be involved: [52]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Dandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.
• Black Kite, yes, that was my thinking as well. Scarborough was the unambigious violation in my mind, but as I said on DHeyward's talk when questioned, the totality of the diffs presented shows one unambigious violation (unlike you, I don't buy the BLP argument), and several potential violations where this rose to the point of reseting the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Black KiteHow was editing Garner a violation of his tban? TonyBallioni wrote a horrible piece of crap tban, that did not forbid editing articles that mentioned a politician, it only mentioned editing ARTICLES ABOUT politicians, such as Deblassio, etc. but editing an article about Erica Garner is not a violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it's not the best worded sanction, but it does include "and related topics, broadly construed.". Hence my only weak endorse (and it is a really weak one). Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• How is Garner a politician or even remotely related, even broadly? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Did you read the diff? I'll presume you didn't. But even if the edit hadn't been about a current politician, Garner (a political activist) clearly comes under "related topics". Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Black Kite See the clarification one week into the sanction. I added it aove. December 9 AE action brought by Tony as the filing party. Edits in articles can be abought politicians as long as the article itself was not about a politician. Garner is not a politician. This was accepted by Tony as the interpretation on Dec 9 when he IARd all rules and closed the AE request. He noted the interpretation in the closing statement. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse - I followed, but didn't comment in this AE request. DHeyward unambiguously violated the topic ban (which included the words "and related topics, broadly construed") at least once and ambiguously violated it few more times. All the wikilawering in the world won't change that. The sanction was mild, proportionate to the offense, and well within the norms of admin discretion..- MrX 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• As I'm the admin that DHeyward is talking about in this, I did correct myself about the self-revert as soon as I could (but I did indicate that in that self-revert they did not spell out that it was due to a TBAN, and the next immediate edit was an editor restoring that content claiming that DHeyward's revert removed sources. I don't think failing to mention that one is self-reverting due to a TBAN is anything actionable but this is something a TBANed editor should be careful about). This leaves the Dec 31 Scarborough edit, which falls within the TBAN's 1 month period. I see one brief discussion on that article's talk page with no clear consensus if the paragraph should stay or go (with at least two editors saying if it stays, it should be carefully worded) and that was before the new bump in the accusation due to Trump's call out (making the situation different from when this material was previously added). I do note most sources that reported on this clearly established the rumor was debunked (using it as yet another sticking point in their issues with how Trump uses social media). It borders on a BLP violation to be included, but it is not 100% clear to qualify as an pure exception to a BLP violation given the lack of consensus discussion that it is one or not. Given that the TBAN was still "broadly construed" to politicians, I would think it be wise for such an editor on a TBAN to stay away from even former ones. That said, DHeyward's behavior towards the AE and myself is of questionable concern. I tried to get back ASAP to fix my comment on the self-revert (I was driving during the time some of this way going on), and I feel that that was somewhat poor behavior to demonstrate if one is already under a microscope. (I'm not going to take a stance whether this should be endorsed or not, I'm explaining what I saw). --Masem (t) 23:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn. Why are we sanctioning editors for upholding the BLP policy? Additionally there were issues with TonyBallioni’s poorly thought out original topic ban. Even he didn’t know what it meant as seen by Tony’s retracted AE filing. It makes no sense to be sanctioning editors for breaking bad sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Do you see anything wrong with the following chain of argument? The text was out of the article for two years, so there's an expectation that the "consensus version" is out of the article. A sock/troll, with total 3 edits (together with various IP editors, likely to be the same person) edit-warred against consensus and tried to include the text under various phrasings. There was no talk page discussion which found consensus for any phrasing, so WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a part of BLP policy. Therefore, using the literal definition of BLP violation, it is a BLP violation.

Both the letter and the spirit of the policy say that DHeyward thought that he was removing a BLP violation by a troll, one of countless attempts by many people over many years. Despite this fact, and the borderline case of Scarborough (who hasn't been a politician for 17 years), why would one believe the hypothesis that he was trying to game his sanction on the 30th day of his topic ban, rather than exactly what he says he was doing? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two things that I found: First, while all previous additions of the rumor were simply about the rumor, the last addition specifically mentioned it was raised by Trump, and reviewing news sources, they used that to jump on Trump for propagating a disproven rumor. Unfortunately, there's enough noise about that that not to mention the situation (specifically making sure the claim was disproved) would make the article seem lacking, but that would need more discussion at that talk page. The only discussion on the talk page that I saw was a quickly closed malformed RFC from far earlier in 2017, but those that commented noted that addition of the claim would require careful wording. It was not outright ruled a BLP violation. I'm not a big fan of establishing a consensus by just edit summaries, particularly for something like this where there was a new facet to the story (Trump's involvement) that should have necessitated further discussion. --Masem (t) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: If there's no consensus either way, the material stays out, again per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. So nothing changes in my argument. The crucial point is that the IP/troll did not get any consensus for their edits prior to insertion (or afterwards, for that matter). The material remains out of the article, as of the time of my comment (i.e., nobody reverted DHeyward). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The only written consensus I see is the closed RFC on the talk page which does not outright reject inclusion of the material, this is a problem. I realize the material was being added by IP, but seemingly very different IP. (If it were the same editor each time, I'd definitely be approving its removal) If I were a anon editor and believed this information should be on that page , and looked to the talk page to see only the RFC, there's nothing there to tell me consensus says to keep if off. Regulars are going to know this, new ones are not. --Masem (t) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: This point is irrelevant: the IP's edits are not at issue in this thread, DHeyward's is. I am not asking for the IP/troll to be banned; I am asking for the ban on DHeyward to be overturned. If you are extending this kind of good-faith towards throwaway IPs/trolls (all of them have only ever edited this page), why not extend the same good faith to DHeyward's edit? Or does having a "rap sheet" automatically remove the requirement to WP:AGF? As I showed above, if we take the literal definition of BLP violation, it was a BLP violation (you didn't point out any holes in my chain of argument in your two replies, so I'm going to assume that there isn't one). Both the letter and the spirit of BLP says that it was a violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn - This !vote will probably surprise some folks, but viewing the issue in context, I feel like DHeyward has a good-faith argument that this was, indeed, a BLP issue, and that he did the minimum necessary to fix it. I'm sympathetic because I have previously been under a pretty broad topic ban and ran into issues figuring out where the limits were. I do find it interesting that two years ago, DHeyward argued exactly the opposite in attempting to have me sanctioned at AE, declaring that NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off limits. It's exactly what his topic ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AFD started by a topic banned editor. Then, DHeyward sought to punish me for a good-faith effort to fix a BLP issue. Now he seeks the same mercy I was granted. Perhaps a lesson will be learned here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP is not a safe harbor for TBANned editors. And the Scarborough article is full of text about American politicians, regardless of whether a politician is the topic of the article. The article is at least partly or even largely about American politicians. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban against Heyward explicitly referred to "articles about", not "edits about" and not "article edits about". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Heyward has pounded that point quite enough. Each article is about many things. As I just said. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Scarborough article is not about Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should not entirely be a safe-harbor, but I would argue that we should, in good-faith BLP cases, give the benefit of the doubt. Contra DHeyward's argument from two years past, fixing BLP problems is not a "specious reason" for action, and I'm glad he now seems to agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Our description of TBAN's -- if this is a sort of TBAN, states that only unambiguous incontrovertible vandalism, which nobody could possibly think other than vandalism, may be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

”If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Mr Ernie (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernie, I gotta believe you know the difference between a rule and a Sanction. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn Firstly a TBAN violation has to be an explicit violation of the TBAN and there was no violation. Secondly, Scarborough is not a politician, he was decade ago but to say that extends to now is ludicrous. Garner is not a politician either. Again, for those endorsing the ban, have you read the tban wording? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Overturnas I believe only bright line violations should result in editor censorship and otherwise AGF is needed to put a stop to all this tit for tat sanctioning going on. We're all guilty of intolerance of each others views and completely closed minded when it comes to catching our breaths and seeking compromises. Seems truly incongruent with the editor I know that he would pick the last day of a month long topic ban to do something he would honestly believe might result in a longer ban. The benefit of the doubt is well deserved here.--MONGO 03:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse finding of violation but overturn for failure to communicate - Admins need to be able to communicate clearly and effectively the terms of any sanction they impose. DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed is clear on duration and entirely unclear on boundaries or expectations. Joe Scarborough, for one example, is no longer an American politician and hasn't been one for 16 years now; he is a talk show host. So he does not fall under "living and recently deceased American politicians". Further, what the hell is a "related topic"? American politics? Former American politicians? Rando's who've ever made a comment about a current or former American politician? This is ambiguous on what it's meant to mean and what the scope of a related topic is. It shouldn't have been included in the original TBAN. Nothing in the sanction even suggests that Erica Garner's article, for another example, falls under the scope of the TBAN as she is not a politician nor is her article about American politicians. If AP2 was what was meant then this should have been done right the first time. That said, this edit removing material about Trump on Scarborough's article is an obvious TBAN violation. The reverted edit is well sourced, accurately to the sources, and neutral in POV. In no way could this be construed to be a BLP violation let alone a smear against Joe Scarborough and this makes DHeywards' edit an exceptionally clear violation of the TBAN regarding American politicians that was imposed by Tony Ballioni on December 2nd 2017. So I'm left in two minds here; there is a failure to properly formulate the terms of the sanction which put undue onus on DHeyward to understand what the conditions are exactly, but, there is also at least one obvious violation of the sanction that was put in place. On an aside, Andrew Davidson's report at AE is very clearly retaliation for DHeywards attempt to have an article he (AD) had created merged into another article and the report is entirely bunkum. A warning to avoid hyperbole does not seem sufficient for, nor does it address, such vindictive behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude I have been editing out the intern story on Scarborough for years. It is consensus for years that mentioning the conspiracy theory is a BLP violation. It's a 10 year, multiple discussion consensus. A number of editors flock to expand the CT and that's why it's deleted every time. You have to go talk page history for all the discussions. It goes back to where even Jimbo weighed in against it 10 years ago. Second, Scarborough was a college student many years ago. He is not one now. He was a politician many years ago. He is not one now. And 3rd, it takes a tremendous amount of bad faith to presume that I would violate my topic ban 30 days into a 1 month ban. I didn't blink at Scarborough because I've made the same deletions under BLP guidelines for years.[53]. What starts as a NPOV mention of a non-incident in his life gets additions like this[54]. I can find many very reliable sources discussing how the Vince Foster CT is a Hillary Clinton smear. That doesn't mean we put it in her bio. It's a smear. WaPo confirms it's a smear against Scarborough and that's exactly why we don't add it in any form. It's not new or unique or controversial to not include smears in BLPs especially when very reliable sources dismiss them. Adding it just keeps the smear alive. From Scarborough's perspective, the death of that aide is not part of his life and keeping it alive in his bio is tangential and defamatory. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1. I don't think the material is necessary to the article, and Trumps twitter doesn't belong on our encyclopaedia. This, however, doesn't equal a BLP violation and your previous removals (while free of a TBAN) does not make this particular action appropriate. 2. I searched through all three archives and failed to find any such consensus against including any mention of Lori but did find at least two consensi (?) supporting at least a mention of her death in Archives 1 (2005) and 2 (3O in 2007) and no mention of Jimbo "Jimmy" Wales despite three consecutive Ctrl+F searches. 3. Donald Trump is an American politician, you edited an article to remove something specifically discussing Donald Trump, ergo ipso facto, you violated the terms of the TBAN. As others have mentioned above and below, you could have submitted an edit request to have the material removed or just let someone else handle it. For that matter, Joe Scarborough isn't the issue here, you are free to edit Joe Scarborough's article provided you stick to the terms of the TBAN. 4. it takes a tremendous amount of bad faith to presume that I would violate my topic ban 30 days into a 1 month ban 4a) it takes neither bad nor good faith to state a fact. Fact is -by my reading- you violated the terms of the TBAN. And 4b) 29 days in not 30; 2nd Dec (date which the TBAN was enacted) + 29 days = 31st Dec (date when you made the edit). You still had 48 hours to your TBAN expiring at (presumably) midnight on the 2nd of January. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Second review - I have to agree with the findings by others that this TBAN is a complete failure on clarity and that thereby DHeyward should not be punished [WP:PUNITIVE] for this failure of formulation and communication that is entirely out of their hands. In my opinion, the specific edit to Joe Scarborough relating to Trump is a violation of the TBAN. That said, the terms of the TBAN are so murky that about half the commentators here aren't even sure of what any of it means. On a side note: part of this is the repeated mentioning of the entirely irrelevant edits to Erica Garner which probably stems from a failure to read the AE enforcement request to its fullest extent (or any extent really). Erica Garner is NOT the reason the TBAN was extended, the sum total of all the edits (particularly those presented by VM as evidence) is the reason for the finding that the TBAN was violated. This finding also wasn't made by a bunch of noob admins either. Despite that, this was a badly written TBAN covering a poorly formulated topic (articles vs edits; politicians vs anyone involved in politics; and of course broadly construed) and, in this case, is effectively a moving set of goal posts. Such sanctions should not be enforced, let alone extended and further broadened. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn: The text in question was inserted by an obvious sock/troll The-internminator (the woman in question was an intern), who edit-warred on the article without consensus. I'm pretty sure they used some throwaway IPs as well -- see this, this and this. The text has been fought over for more than a decade (please read the talk page archives, where even Joe Scarborough (allegedly) shows up and pleads his case), and the consensus was to keep it out of the article for years (it is still out, after DHeyward's correct removal). TonyBallioni, who claims elsewhere that they hold up WP:ONUS for BLPs and who supports the (ridiculous remedy) "consensus required", now deems that removing this text is a "clear-cut violation"? And, I'm pretty sure that they are trolling me by citing my comment -- where I cite WaPo as saying that these are all conspiracy theories -- as supporting the inclusion (this is not the first time that they have done this). This is disgraceful behaviour, frankly. Do you guys even think about BLP, or is this all just a game where you get your jollies by banning editors? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a massive material change in circumstances between an article reporting on a conspiracy theory and an article reporting on the President of the United States advancing a conspiracy theory against someone he disagrees with. The edit in question did th latter. I would encourage people to compare the text DHeyward removed this time with the text he has historically removed. They are two different topics all together. Claiming that the material removed has been the same contentious BLP material historically removed is simply false. The article you provided showed why. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please find me a discussion on the talk page where consensus for the text was established. Can't do it, can you? How does that square with WP:ONUS which you claim to uphold? Or WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? I notice that you have a bad habit of ignoring relevant things: like the fact that the troll edit-warred against consensus (using various phrasings) till one of the participants (ScottSteiner) got fed up with the repeated insertions and tried to make the text as neutral as possible. But that still counts as polishing a turd, nothing more. Not everything which Trump says on Twitter has to be included on a BLP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that literally nothing Trump says on Twitter should be included in anyone's biography except Trump's own. Whatever aspersions he casts on his political opponents from his smartphone while watching Fox News, they probably don't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post disagreed with you and decided it was significant enough to cover. It doesn’t matter if he was enforcing ONUS, the article feel squarely within the topic ban and was not a BLP vio. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No TonyBallioni, the WaPo specifically denounced it as an unfounded conspiracy theory. WaPo obit on Scarborough will not include this baseless aspersion. Here the WaPo covered the baseless conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster prompted by a Trump tweet as welltweet[55]. We don't add this shit to BLPs and we remove it when it is added. If you don't understand that, you need to be very far away from BLPs or judging BLP editorial decisions. If WaPo is an impeccable source, add it to Clinton oer the Foster suicide. The community will give you a quick less that the fate of Foster has no bearing on Clinton's life as they did noting related to the suicide. Scarborough had nothing to do with the death of his employee and removing it is necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is an argument that could go either way on a talk page. What you removed was coverage of Trump, not coverage of a conspiracy theory. There was no obvious BLP violation here, and the text was substantially different than that which had been previously discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And the onus is on the addition, not removal. Consensus removed it. Trolls readd it and used it to disparage him. It was a tweet from Trump about an incident that the WaPo said had nothing to do with Scarborough. Trump has also tweeted CTs about Clinton and Ted Cruz involvement with the Kennedy assassination. This wasn't borderline that the tweet was unrelated to anything Scarborough did. Wikipedia is not a vessel for these blatant character assassinations and claiming that it was "neutral" when the very reliable source said it had nothing to do with Scarborough is bullshit reasoning on your part and indefensible. --DHeyward (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn This is exactly the sort of thing that is driving people away from the project. DHeyward is punished for an edit that at least 50% of editors think was fine (judging from responses) while Coffee, an admin, gets away scot-free for repeated egregious actions. 213.120.124.30 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  @213.120.124.30: Please login to cast your opinion, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse per Hut 8.5 who explains the matter well, above. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• While Coffee's conduct has been...admittedly questionable...as of late, based on the broughahahs popping up around the noticeboards, this is one that has to be endorsed. Even if we don't count Scarborough as being covered under "recent politicans" (which given the standard definition of the "American Politics since..." DS region starts with 1932 seems a little...stretching to say it doesn't count), Trump is a current politician, and as Scarborough is involved in an imbroglio with POTUS, it's blatantly a "related topic". Do I think that, as the OP claims, they "waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it"? No. But they made an lapse that violated it, and a violation is a violation. Good advice for all editors, regardless of their user rights: if you have to say "but" in order to explain why something you're about to do isn't a violation of an editing restriction, it's probably a better idea not to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:--How's this thread got to do anything with Coffee?Winged Blades^Godric 11:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

augh, it was late and the IP just above mentioned them. Thanks, that part struck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: It must still be late because WTF does this sanction have to do with "Post-1932" anything? This wasn't an AP2 sanction. But your endorsing it why exactly? You realize that I was allowed to edit articles and make edits about politicians as long as the article wasn't about A politician. This was clarified on December 9th as I finished work on Kris Paronto (yes, I was brouht to AE for that edit and it was deemed okay to edit it). --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I do, entirely. That is simply my observing that arguing somebody who was a politican in 2001 "isn't a recent politician" seems pretty recent by the standard that is applied to the area in important matters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Endorse: OP has failed to provide any argument that the conduct is not a TBAN violation. The edit was made within the one-month TBAN. Arguing "30 days" vs "1 month" is wikilawyering that we should not countenance. Arguing that the new TBAN was enacted after the old TBAN had expired is irrelevant: The prohibited act occurred, but was merely not discovered, until the expiration of the original TBAN. This is the equivalent of an admin arguing that because his sockpuppetry was not discovered prior to his RfA, he cannot be desysopped for it. The further argument, No rational person would presume to say that I waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it. is nonsensical: If there is an intent component to a TBAN, it would, at most, be gross negligence, not deliberateness. The only argument here is that the content removed was BLP violating. However, OP fails to point out that this argument was brought up at AE and was rejected. An appeal is not "round 2"; we don't substitute our judgment for the original consensus without a damn good reason.
  In fact, OP is rather severely hiding the ball: The consensus at AE relied on more than the Joe Scarborough edit, and quite deliberately discarded the fact that there may have been BLP implications in that edit. OP had committed numerous "edge case" violations as described in the AE case (the Garner edit, for instance, was far more arguable than OP lets on). Rather than the decision at AE being based on the Scarborough edit entirely, the decision was made more on the grounds of OP's gaming of the original TBAN and keeping skin in the politics game.
  To be perfectly honest, I believe we should consider the manner in which this appeal is being presented to be deceptive, and in that way, should be considered sanctionable. At the very least this meritless, deceptive appeal should be presented as evidence if OP makes another trip to AE. I would, further, continue to caution my fellow responding editors that our purpose here is not to make a new determination as to whether OP merited a TBAN, but merely to judge the consensus at AE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mendaliv The AE group did not bother to review the clarifications. On Dec 9, my edits to Kris Paronto were expressly allowed by AE (yes, I was brought there for an edit and no, they didn't bother to review nor was Tony forthcoming about it. Now a new set of admins say such edits are "clear violations." If the scope was not clear, certainly Dec 9 was a good time to clarify. But if these were clear violations, how am I supposed to divine that when the clarification was that only articles about politicians were covered, not edits about politicians. That's what they said then. Now, though, every ignores that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse and DHeywood has redirected their talk page to the AE page, which is at least childish but, more, I think, disruptive. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse It looks like the appeal arguments, article/edits and politician related/political commentator-former congressman, etc., is just too much hair-splitting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• AlanscottwalkerThis is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [56]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Topics related to politicians covers a wide-swath of topics that are not politicians, that's even before one gets to broadly construed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Sure, which is why, on December 9th at AE where Tony alleged a violation, it was clarified that this sanction (which is not under the AP2 sanction) The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. How is it a wide swath when this is the guidance? Tony at the time said Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. No further clarification was given by Tony, the worrding wasn't changed. No sanction enforce. But spin the wheel and suddenly these are all abvious violations brought 3 days after the sanction expired. The original sanctioning administrator says that this is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. If he says its not clear, why is sanctioning me for violations after it expired on the basis of an edit that are still standing? Isn't the expectation that the sanction should be clear? It didn't get clearer after it expired. --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• For reference, my edits to Kris Paronto during this period were expressly allowed. That was brought to AE on Dec 9 and dropped. --DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion There seems to be two contraindicating bits of evidence here. First, the edit in question was so close to the end of the TBan that I'm tempted to say "let it go". Are we really going to sit here with a stopwatch and make sure that editors under a TBan don't edit in the topic area until the exact moment their TBan expires? That's pointlessly legalistic. The edit was made so close to the end of the sanction that punishing the editor for it seems petty.

On the other hand, I really don't see a BLP vio in that content. It says Trump tweeted something referencing a conspiracy theory. Is that a BLP vio against Trump or Scarborough? The CS was about Scarborough, but it was Trump who actually believed the stupid thing. And it was well-sourced. It looks like an edit pushing an agenda, to me.

The kicker here seems to be that others have commented that consensus was against including this text, which is a compelling argument that it wasn't an agenda push. If others had argued against inclusion on BLP grounds, I would completely disagree with them, but that would certainly explain why DHeyward believed he was removing a BLP vio.

All in all, there are issues with both arguments, but more issues with the "it clearly wasn't a BLP edit" argument, so I think I must suggest we Overturn it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you opposing the appeal or opposing the ban? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer: I've corrected my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the topic ban was for "articles about American politicians and related topics". Call me crazy but I think making edits about Donald Trump and Barrack Obama, or Joe Scarborough for that matter, even on articles which strictly speaking aren't about American politicians easily qualifies as "related topics". At best it's an attempt to violate the spirit of the restriction while pretending to observe the letter. Appropriate block (yes, I commented at original WP:AE).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Did he edit the Trump or Obama article? The TBAN was on articles only not on edits. I don't get why people can't see that. If the admin had written the tban clearly we wouldn't be in this mess. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. Hell, I even bolded the relevant part for you already. Here, again: and related topics. A reasonable person acting in good faith should figure that making edits about Donald Trump and Barrack Obama and Joe Scarborough would qualify.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• They did participate on the Trump talk page, as well as on Michael Flynn's talk page (though he was an advisor) during the TBAN period. --Masem (t) 15:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Related topics is one thing, but Garner is not a related topic. There is no violation of articles or related articles. There can't be a violation of edits, that is not what the tban specified. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not "related articles", it's "related topics". I'm bolding it again since you somehow keep missing that part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything. How is Garner a politician or even related? She's not and it's ludicrous. Otherwise, we ought to put the entire Wikipedia under sanctions because broadly construed, every page is related to one form of sanction. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you're trying very hard not to understand what I'm saying, so further discussion is sorta pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

He was banned from articles about politicians and related topics. He can write about Donald Trump and Barack Obama all he wants, as long as it is on a talk page or an article about a different topic, like the national parks or something. That's why this topic ban was so bad and should never have been enforced. The confusion comes about because it's not clear whether "related topics" clarifies "articles" or "politicians." In the face of such confusion it's up to the sanctioning admin User:TonyBallioni to help clarify or add insight, but he has not done this and even confused himself (as seen in his retracted AE filing). Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this simple: No. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"He can write about Donald Trump and Barack Obama all he wants, as long as it is on a talk page or an article about a different topic, like the national parks or something" - that's a very... creative, interpretation of the topic ban. Particularly given what led up to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can someone publish here the precise wording of the sanction? If it says "articles" then it clearly only applies to articles (for instance). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)American politics logically includes political activists, lobbyists, policy think tanks (including nonpartisan ones), judicial nominees, and a great deal more topics that are not candidates and holders of political office. Yes, broad construction is a terrible idea in most cases in my opinion, but this is neither the time nor place for that discussion. The question is whether the consensus at AE was improper or so erroneous that it overcomes any deference this discussion owes it. This is not round two of the AE discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is that logical? I am an activist, in that I speak at meetings and had ordinances changed based on my activism. Does that make me then a politician or broadly construed related to a politician? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Per TRMs request above exact wording is: "DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed." - even if everyone accepts that Garner isnt a politician, she was an activist involved in politics and the edits to her article were about an American politician. That is easily a violation of 'related topic, broadly construed'. Had the edits been to her page about her pet cat, it clearly wouldnt be. Likewise with Scarborough, while he was not currently a politician, he was also heavily involved with current politicians and the edits were about Trump. While the ban may have not been worded the best way (in future if you want to ban someone from a topic, just 'Topic banned from US politicians broadly construed' is enough) the clear intent was that DHeyward not edit about US politicians on articles. If you have to get into semantically arguing over 'well the restriction didnt say he couldnt edit about US politicians on non-US-politician articles despite those articles containing lots of US politics' we are getting into disruptive wikilaywering territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  Ok, so talk pages are not part of the topic ban, so that rules any talk pages out completely. As for who is and who is not a politician, this Erica Garner is not a politician by any stretch, so these unfortunate untimely edits (what, one/two days before none of this would have been an issue?) are falling into the "broadly construed" bullshit which is of course a complete excuse of a sanction wording, completely open to interpretation (as we see here), that someone who is not even a politician is actually under the sanction. I think this whole case is posited on "disruptive wikilawyering territory" and could have been resolved with a couple of talk page threads to DHeyward, rather than this complete overkill which has now lost Wikipedia another useful contributor. I'm sure that's not actually the real intention, but have you people never heard of "lessons learnt" or revisited what our admins and Arbs are "supposed" to be doing? Resolving things, not just dishing out further punishment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well 'related topics' rather than broadly construed. You cant really claim either of those two article pages are not related to US politicians as in both cases the edits were directly about US politicians in sections on the article that were primarily involving US politicians. 'Broadly construed' is what happens when some BLP has an opinion on Israel/Palestine and everyone gets ARBPIA ban-happy over completely arbpia-unrelated edits on their page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • This is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [57]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's clear from the wording of the TBAN that only articles about politicians are in the TBAN. Erica Garner is not a politician. Even editing about a politician on the Garner article is not a violation, the TBAN was explicitly clear that only ARTICLES, not EDITS are a tban violation. This should be a warning to admins that before they punish people, they need to make sure their punishment is crystal clear. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, if something isn't clear, we should not at all, punish people for violating a tban that is written piss-poor. The fact that many people here are confused about what is and what isn't in the tban and that many people want it overturned should speak volumes of the clarity of this tban and it should be overturned just on this fact alone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's more of a warning that the community should not continue to accept appallingly worded sanctions. Ones like this that are clearly so open to interpretation are not helpful in the slightest and not what we should expect from those who govern us. Precision and clarity is key, words like "broadly construed" just lead to trouble, dismay, disruption and retirement. This is not what admins or arbs should be doing, it's simply placing the responsibility back onto the regular community, therefore basically rendering themselves redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, I have already stated that I can get any article on WP to be part of the Israel-Palestinian conflict if it's "broadly construed" and it just opens people up to the chilling effect of not knowing if their edit will result in a block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:TBANs include talk pages and all other spaces in WP. If an editor is topic-banned from an article, and article talk pages are to discuss improvements to that article, how could one possibly participate on the talk page without violating their topic ban? It's WP:ABANs where the user may still be allowed to participate on the talk page, if the wording of the ban allows it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Then why was the wording on this TBAN specific to articles? Another error? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Right, a TBAN is EXPLICIT. Only what is mentioned in the TBAN a TBAN. I had a TBAN and I edited a talk page and was erroneously blocked, the admin unblocked me and made note that the TBAN was written piss-poor and the TBAN was then clarified. Because we are dealing with sanctions, it needs to be explicit, and if not, we can't punish someone for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sir Joseph And on Dec 9, that very issue was clarified: Note the scope was outlined here when tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [58]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.

• Overturn To quote Sir Joseph, "It's clear from the wording of the TBAN that only articles about politicians are in the TBAN. Erica Garner is not a politician. Even editing about a politician on the Garner article is not a violation, the TBAN was explicitly clear that only ARTICLES, not EDITS are a tban violation." Those !voting "Endorse" state it's important to stick to the letter of the law (i.e., the intent of TBAN). Alright, then -- walk your talk and do that: the badly written TBAN was adhered to by DHeyward, but now it's being re-interpreted to mean something else. That's unsat. If you're going to uphold the TBAN then do it as it was written, don't move the goalpost after the fact. How it was written did not include edits, but articles. That in mind, there was no TBAN vio by DHeyward. Stick to the letter if you must, but do it in all things at all times or don't do it at all. Or how about this? Do the right thing and admit a new, inexperienced admin made a stupid mistake -- don't hold an editor responsible for that error. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment for those stating what a TBAN does and does not contain, the wording of this TBAN clearly supersedes the definition provided at WP:TBAN. For it to mean precisely what those who believe it covers talk pages etc to mean, the wording should be "is banned from the topic "politics" per WP:TBAN" and nothing more, i.e. none of this "broadly construed" nonsense. Otherwise, we should be modifying the page which apparently defines what a TBAN is. In either case, DHeyward should not be penalised because the sanction wording has so many gargantuan holes in it. Erica Garner is not a politician, talk pages are allowable, BLP edits don't enter into it. This is another situation where communication would have trumped wikilawyering. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man They don't even have to read it. It was an WP:ABAN and was already outlined Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When Tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [59]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.

• Endorse - The ban was worded broadly, the violation clearly occurred on pages covered by the ban. "Broadly construed" is long-established wording that warns editors not to get even close the line where there could be doubt as to whether an edit violates the ban. The BLP thing is nonsense, as is some of the feeblest wikilawyering ever. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, the wikilawyering is coming from those defending the abject and feeble "long-established" (yet utterly hopeless) wording. TBAN has a specific definition, per WP:TBAN. This TBAN was reworded per the sanction wording. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Agreed. What's even more important is the fact that we're reviewing this on appeal, not the first time around. The AE panel considered everything that's been brought up here. As far as I'm concerned the Friday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread is wholly irrelevant to the decision to be made here, and that's whether the AE panel's decision was one it could make, not whether we would have made the same decision. The decision as to what topics fall within the broad construction or related topics is one the AE panel already made. DHeyward failed to convince the AE panel on these issues. Unless there's some compelling reason to reject the AE panel's consensus, and I see none, substituting our judgment for theirs turns this "appeal" into forum shopping. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Which article is a violation? Are you saying Erica Garner is a politician or broadly construed to be one? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• This should also be a warning to new admins to seek guidance from established admins, or even editors, before writing a TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I can agree on that. Doesn't change the outcome of this review, which should defer to the AE panel. But I agree that TBANs should be written better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The TBAN page is pretty clear that unless specified otherwise, how "broadly" a TBAN should be considered given a topic area. I do think it would be wise to update the example to specifically talk about the type of TBAN AP2 is usually around: this discussion and the previous AE show question that if a TBAN is about a politician, does it have to be current or former, and does it have to be a page about a politician , or a page about someone commenting on the politican, etc. The current weather-related example is fine, but this shows we need more clarity of what the standard definition of "broadly construed" should be taken as. --Masem (t) 18:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Masem The scope was outlined here on December 9: [60]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN. I've operated under that understanding of that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni the closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. How can I follow that moving target? It was decided at AAE what the scope was and notchanged. --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't parse "and related topics" modifying "politician"? If so, think you are distinctly in the minority on that. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Several experienced editors have mentioned the lack of clarity in the topic ban wording. See here where User:Sandstein expresses concern at the wording of the topic ban. User:SPECIFICO, you are very intelligent, so I find it hard to believe you support sanctioning editors with such poorly worded and implemented bans. Even the sanctioning administrator did not understand the topic ban he created! The edits in questioned undoubtedly improved the encyclopedia. How about we start the new year off with some compassion towards our fellow editors? We are all deserving of it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem, The topic ban was “DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed.” It’s very obvious that “broadly construed” does not extend “recently deceased” to “long deceased as well”, and so IMHO it’s just nuts to interpret “politician” to include not just recent politicians but also people who haven’t been politicians for more than 15 years. Article content is substantially affected by getting rid of editors, and that’s probably why these borderline wikilawyering complaints are often brought to AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This strikes me as an odd stance, simply because it would lead to some counterintuitive results (at least for me). For instance, would we really say that Jimmy Carter doesn't count? Just a thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Scarborough is an easier case to figure out than Carter, which is why you brought up Carter. Per the Former Presidents Act, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. Carter is known primarily for having been president, whereas Scarborough is not primarily know for having served in Congress a long time ago. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I confess, I do bring up arguments that I believe tend to prove my point. Guilty as charged! Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You have a happy Friday too. I forgive you!😜 Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment you know what, this would all be a whole lot easier if we just said that DHeyward perhaps made a mistake in some interpretation of the TBAN, but not in another interpretation of the TBAN, they are advised to go with caution, and that's the end of it. Why can't people just accept that behind each user name is (usually) a human being doing their best to Wikipedia's content better? You think DHeyward wanted another month's TBAN? Seriously? That's idiotic. And if not, a simple mistake. The vindictive and vitriolic nature of the "endorse" perspective is damaging to the core, and certainly damaging to the content contributors. You want to run this place like a prison or a public school (British version), fine, but you'll run yourself out of the people who are doing the actual work this project intended to do, i.e. create encyclopedic content. What a shameful, shambolic, vicious timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with The Rambling Man's statement in total. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You think DHeyward wanted another month's TBAN? Seriously? That's idiotic. Not the standard here. First, we're reviewing the AE decision, and owe it deference. If the decision made was an abuse of AE's discretion, then that's different; but you're not arguing that. Secondly, even if we were deciding this from the beginning, the standard is not, as you appear to argue, that DHeyward intended to violate the TBAN by making the edit, it's that DHeyward intended to make the edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all, and nor am I inclined to. My statement is standalone, regardless of all your lawyering. More common sense please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an appeal, not a second AE thread. DHeyward is not entitled to a second bite at the apple. Treating it as a new review of everything that was discussed at the AE thread, which honestly has already happened, is tantamount to authorizing forum shopping of any outcome at AE, which is preposterous. What matters is whether AE came to a reasonable conclusion within its discretion, not what you would have done. We might as well require arbitration enforcement to happen at AN instead of at AE. If you want that to happen, you are free to start a proposal to that effect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's an appeal against nonsense. So we now have two nonsense threads wasting time and assuming bad faith. There appears to be a determination to drive DHeyward from the project for such a "perceived" mild transgression. This kind of policing is becoming endemic and is utterly unhelpful. Perhaps those who approach Wikipedia this way will be satisfied once there are no content providers, just police. What is actually "preposterous" is this insinuation that DHeyward has gone out to deliberately extend their topic ban, or worse given the current hostile Arbcom climate, seek a block, or an indef ban. It would be bonkers to think that. The amount of time waste here is tragic and all the railing against common sense is a serious problem we need to address. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse - The diffs show a pretty clear-cut violation of the topic ban. And it's frankly sad that we're entertaining this level of wikilawyering. Again. Sorry but if you're topic banned you should know better than to be making edits about Scarborough or de Blasio, or discussing Donald Trump. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Fyddlestix: How about Kris Paronto? That was brought to AE on Dec 9 where they clarified that edits about politicians were okay as long as the article wasn't about a politician. This wasn't an AP2 topic ban. I guess getting "clarification" doesn't matter anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse sanction (non-admin comment) -- not out of process & valid consensus of uninvolved admins. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

User:Mr rnddude eloquently breaks it down here. If we accept that the edits were a violation of the ban, yet also accept that the ban was poorly worded, then the proper response is remove the poorly worded sanction, and not double down on enforcing it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse this common sense approach, and seek to revise the abjectly poorly worded sanction. Admitting you were wrong is the first step, and that's something those who concocted this bizarrely worded piece of prose need to accept. And then we can all move on. Why are so many people trying to get DHeyward to leave the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Some people are trying to do so as part of the long-standing ideological battles in AP2 edits. Other people are frustrated that DHeyward appears to have done nothing during his first sanction other than arguing about the sanction, and editing at the boundary of what was permitted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but I don't see how your comment helps here at all. DHeyward has (possibly) made a mistake. So we all accept that and move on. What we don't do is spank someone unnecessarily for attempting to do the right thing. Well, some of us don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree that the sanction could be worded better, it is not so bad as to give DHeyward no notice of what is prohibited. The existence of edge cases, where reasonable minds might disagree as to whether a subject is covered, is not a sign that the sanction is so unfair as to be meaningless. I could support a new sanction, but the proposal here is to enact one and give it retroactive effect, which I cannot support. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The proposal here is trying to appeal to the good faith of those who volunteer so much of their time to build the encyclopedia. What's the worst that could happen - any misconduct will be swiftly and eagerly handled. What's the best that could happen - editors are happy to edit where they want and we all move on. Seems like a no brainer to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [61]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• "it is not so bad as to give DHeyward no notice of what is prohibited" hell YES! If someone gave DHeyward "notice of what is prohibited" then we wouldn't be here would we? Instead, someone has instigated the full-on death battle. Why can't any of you actually communicate with individuals rather than drag them endlessly through these pathetic kangaroo courts? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm trying to end the endless kangaroo court here. If a decision at AE is to have any effect, it must have some degree of finality. There can be an appeal, of course, but it is not a "round two" of the AE, or you might as well not have AE. This is essentially like the sort of analysis we do at DRV, and involves the same sort of deference we generally give to blocking admins. What matters is whether there was a consensus at AE, and whether that consensus was a permissible one.
  Rehashing perennial arguments that can apply equally to every "broadly construed" topic ban is a losing argument. The fact is that DHeyward had notice that he was topic banned and notice of what the topic ban subject area was. Whatever the reason, DHeyward violated it anyway. You draw a false dichotomy, arguing that DHeyward must not have had notice of the topic area, or else he would not have violated it. As I said above, the violation need not be deliberate; DHeyward probably didn't intend to violate the topic ban, but he certainly intended the edits that were later found to be violations. And frankly, this analysis is far more consistent with topic bans being a nonpunitive measure; what protective purpose would a topic ban have if a banned editor could disrupt a topic area so long as his or her primary purpose wasn't violating the topic ban?
  And this takes us back to the AE. Where reasonable minds might disagree as to whether the topic ban was violated—whether particular edits fell within the topic area—that's where consensus comes in. There was a consensus at AE that the topic ban was violated. In the absence of a compelling reason that the AE panel abused its discretion, the analysis stops there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah... I'm inclined to just say we call a mulligan on the whole thing and move on with our lives. There's already been enough time wasted on this lengthy saga so as to well outweigh any supposed benefit. GMG^talk 23:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We shouldn't reward the wasting of time, nor should we let bluster overturn an otherwise valid consensus at AE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Pretty much GMG.Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse as a clear violation of a legitimately imposed topic ban. If you have to go into the sort of rhetorical and semantic contortions that some are going into to argue this is not a breach that some are doing here, that's pretty much the same as a guilty plea. If you're genuinely not sure as to whether an edit is permitted, seek advice before making it, or better yet, leave the job to someone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion

The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion

IP block needed

59.125.188.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs). The obvious evidence per WP:DUCK is that they keep adding unsourced personnel to albums, always using the name Richard Madenfort (diff). Richard Madenfort was deleted via G5 due to the above user creating it multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• ETA: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP edited two pages. One for an album and one for a song on the album. You say because of a "hoax" name. Yet, "the hoaxer" is sourced on Brice's previous albums and songs. So, how is it a hoax? While a site like AllMusic does not list him, for this particular album you would notice (if you have had the chance to listen to the album) that there are no female voices listed but there are numerous females heard on the album. How do we trust their information when you can plainly hear missing information?

Additionally, a Facebook page was mentioned on the previous discussion. Have you been to the Facebook page? There is a 7-figure royalty check posted. I sure wish I could "hoax" my way into that kind of money. post and image

Also, worth noting, is the fact that many non wiki/forum sites credit the "hoax" name. Where are they getting this information?

1. https://www.lyrics007.com/album/lee-brice-lee-brice/TWpBM09UZzVPQT09 - the album in question
2. https://episode.guide/soundtrack/nashville-soundtrack-music-songs-theme/ - he works on tv
3. http://www.lpdiscography.com/?page=album&album=23126
4. https://beardscratchers.com/artist/doro/release/classic-diamonds?m=c28c20a0-722c-4925-b910-d9a1c6902b36
5. http://www.muzikus.cz/pro-muzikanty-serialy/Kytarovi-velikani-CC-DeVille~23~cerven~2015/ - it may be further down the page, but he is mentioned as a touring member on a CC DeVille biography
6. https://www.israbox.cc/3137515093-cyndi-lauper-detour-2016-hdtracks.html
7. http://www.guitar2day.com/2016/02/top-100-hair-bands/ - is a member of Kix
8. http://music.tsklab.ru/b/m/z/albr.htm
9. https://www.dr.dk/musik/titel/80s+mercedes/9018100-1-5
10. https://heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=183&CDName=A+Whiter+Shade+of+Pale

And, my music program (Picard), listed his name in the credits of this and other albums. Are you sure this is a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.117.210.221 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)