Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288

Edits by user Andranik Mkhitaryan

Could someone with mass rollback rights please review the edits by Andranik Mkhitaryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Every edit has been to add {{Day Countdown}} to a number of sports tournament articles, when those articles already have the dates of the tournaments in the infoboxes. I have notified the user of this thread. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tool that reports which users/IPs added certain phrasing to a vast number of articles?

Hi all, I'm well aware that on an article-by-article basis, we can use WikiBlame to figure out who added a certain phrase to an individual article, but I'm trying to see if there's a tool that can tell me all at once which IPs/users added "Darien Amos" across a vast number of articles. I've been cleaning up after a pervasive vandalism spree by a South African IP hopper who keeps adding this content, and knowing all the IPs responsible would make mass rollbacks a little easier.

For example, in the world of spam management, COIBot can look at a ton of articles that contain a certain spam link, then tell you who added those links to the various articles, like here. Do we have anything that will do that for a search string? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm not aware of anything. Can you clarify what you would want such a tool to do? When you say you want to do this across "a vast number of articles", do you really mean you want to search all articles in mainspace for that text and then run WikiBlame on each to see who (first?) added that text? Or can you narrow down the articles and users a bit?

If not, such a tool would be relatively straightforward to write but would be painfully slow to run and I'm not sure it would be welcome on the wmflabs tool servers due to the load if more than one or two queries per day were run. The reason is that the tools servers don't keep article revision content in their databases and you have to look up content through the API, which is rather painful when you're searching for text.

Let me know if you can qualify your requirements a bit more and I'll see what I can do. GoldenRing (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: See User:GoldenRing/Darien Amos for a preliminary list. I've done a search using the (equivalent of the) search box for 'Darien Amos' and then found the first revision that includes the string 'Darien Amos'. I've not included a check for any sort of variants. The script's still running and I'll update the page if there are any more results. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: The script is very helpful, thank you. What I was looking for was something that would identify each IP that added this, so I could then go into the IP contribution history and mass rollback all their edits. This is quicker than going article-by-article to identify and revert the addition of "Darien Amos". So for example, for 197.86.6.240, you'll notice that there are no Twinkle rollback options for their contributor history, that's because I previously identified them as a problem IP and rolled all their edits back. So the script you've set up helps me locate more of these IPs to rollback. Thanks for your help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Glad to be of help. Feel free to make future requests - if you're specific, it'd be pretty easy to provide eg just a list of unique usernames / IPs. I'd consider setting up a tool to do this, though I'm a bit reluctant as any serious usage of it would have load implications. But very happy to run one-offs. GoldenRing (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to standardise arbitration enforcement procedures

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked accounts

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.

---

Good day, admins and Wikipedians! This user, PogingJuan, has been now almost one year. I really don't know where to put this one. I really just want to clear my Wikipedia conscience. The following accounts are under one person (all were used to evade blocks):

• John.neilvin (talk · contribs) (10:45, 21 March 2014) blocked Compromised account
• User:Neilvin John Aventurado (talk · contribs) (14:59, 9 May 2014) blocked Abusing multiple accounts: abandoned alternative account of now blocked editor
• Starofthiscentury (talk · contribs) (15:24, 5 June 2014) blocked Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: WP:NPOV vandalism and disruption; Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: lift autoblock likely hitting a school
• Neilvs (talk · contribs) (12:04, 23 November 2015) (blocked now)
• NeilvsJ (talk · contribs) (18:41, 16 June 2014) blocked Abusing multiple accounts
• PogingJuan (talk · contribs) (05:54, 22 May 2016)

I can't open some of the accounts stated, because I forgot the password. My latest account, User:PogingJuan is where I have realized Wikipedia guidelines seriously. It is where I seriously contributing in Wikipedia (25 articles created [that is undeleted] with 1 good article (Roman Romulo; also nominated by me). That, I think, may serve proof/s that I will not violate any Wikipedia policies again. I am willing to follow all instructions that will be given to me by administrators. I also promise not to use accounts, above User:PogingJuan, even they are granted the unblock. I will just put them in this user's archives. I am really apologizing for violating Wikipedia policies and promising that I won't do it again. I also want to ping my blockers: Yunshui (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), Huon (talk · contribs). ~PogingJuan 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this. Of course socking is bad, and given previous bad-hand accounts someone may want to make sure this is the only active account, but on the other hand, this is a voluntary confession after having written a GA, so that counts for something. More than half a year since the last problematic edits (other than block evasion that went unnoticed). I'd say PogingJuan should be welcomed back, while being limited to that one account from now on. Huon (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion (for what it's worth!) is that given the forthright approach here, the editor indeed deserves another chance (just the one!). They've pretty much made a fresh start and I look forward to reading more of their articles. If @PogingJuan: could just respond here after reading through the Sock Puppetry policy to confirm that they understand it, then I can't see any issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

One last chance is fine with me. People can change. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I confirm my understanding on the said policy. I will surely comply with that, along with other policies and guidelines. ~PogingJuan 11:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! You have very clearly reformed since your past misdeeds. I would advise you to limit yourself to one account only, as you promised to do above. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Voluntary confession, has been doing good work, I say welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• all were used to evade blocks What was your first account? I say this basically as a matter of curiosity, agreeing with others that we should accept your confession with thanks but not sanction you. Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes, all were used to evade blocks that were laid because of vandalism. But with opening this User:PogingJuan account, due to User:Starofthiscentury block (due to "Mao Zedong" vandalism) and User:NeilvsJ block, I promised to myself that I will be a better Wikipedian (At first, I hadn't thought of confession.). My first known account was User:John.neilvin, which was used to create an article about my school, Manggahan High School. ~PogingJuan 11:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay; your wording made me think that it was the first sockpuppet account, i.e. one preceded it. As I said, just curiosity; that doesn't affect my opinion at all. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I really wanna thank you all for giving me another chance to prove myself. I promise to comply with my stated promise and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will do my very best to take part in improving Wikipedia. ~PogingJuan 11:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not to be a wet blanket, but PogingJuan on your userpage you state that that your first edit ever was on 22 May 2016, which is untrue, since you've been editing since April 2014 or before. Please change that. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, 22 May 2016 was the User:PogingJuan's first day. And currently, my user page is under major revamp, as an effect of this confession. Definitely, Softlavender, I will change that one. ~PogingJuan 13:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Wait, I thought 'first edit' under 'account statistics' of the infobox user is for the specific account and not overall, as a Wikipedian. So I thought, it is all about 'first edit as User:PogingJuan.' Nevertheless, I'll state in my user page body my 'first edit ever as a Wikipedian.'~PogingJuan 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so you're clear, PogingJuan, your first edit ever as a registered Wikipedian was actually on 28 April 2014 (unless you had some undisclosed accounts prior to that one). So that would be what you would need to change the date to on your userpage. It would probably be simpler to state that you had some previous now-defunct accounts prior to the current one, and that your first edit with this current account was on on 22 May 2016. Or just omit all that "first edit" information altogether. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• PogingJuan, you still have that blatant lie misinformation on your userpage. Your first edit ever as a registered Wikipedian was actually on 28 April 2014 (unless you had some undisclosed accounts prior to that one). But your userpage still says "I made my first edit ever on the same day I created this account." Please delete that sentence. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC); edited 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some softer words would be more helpful here, and they might better draw attention on the user's talk page. This is likely a misunderstanding of your earlier comment, Softlavender, and in fact he may not have seen your comment. Given the fact that he didn't respond to your earlier message on 8 April 2017, it's quite possible that he doesn't have notifications turned on, or (like many other editors) doesn't routinely review them. I would encourage you to post on the user's talk page; "please remove the incorrect information in the text of your userpage or change it to show correct information" is the clear intent of your post above, and "blatant lie" isn't necessary. I will note that PogingJuan has correctly identified his first edit in the infobox on the right side of the userpage, where most people would look first, and has identified his prior accounts in this same section. This tells us that we can assume good faith that he is attempting to be forthright and transparent about his prior accounts. As he has indicated the userpage is still under construction, he may simply not have got around to correcting the information in the other text, or didn't notice that it was still there. But thank you for following up and redirecting PogingJuan's attention to the incorrect information. Risker (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good catch Risker. I had checked every single edit he made to his userpage since this thread was opened, and even though he promised to change that, there was no direct edit to the userpage to that effect. The change to his infobox was made via a template: [1], and thus the change was invisible in the diff. In any case, he does need to remove the misinformation in the body text of his userpage. I will try letting him know that on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Still on my WikiBreak. I would just have not to confess if I would just 'blatantly lie.' Well, my user page stated it is 'under construction.' That included my alterations on infobox. It just happened that I haven't still worked on my introductory paragraphs (due to I haven't still thought of what I will write [I will actually overhaul what is currently stated there]) which included my background as a Wikipedian and as a real life person. Don't worry, I am to change my userpage's homepage once I have returned from my WikiBreak. This is PogingJuan. ~PogingJuan 08:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PogingJuan, you're clearly not on a wikibreak: [2]. Please just remove the sentence "I made my first edit ever on the same day I created this account." It will take less than five seconds. If you like, I can do that for you. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender No need. Don't stress yourself. The time I posted my last message, I was on my Wikibreak, where I can't almost edit Wikipedia due to slow internet connection (and I was using phone then) on the province our family went earlier. Now, we're back home and now, I'm not on a Wikibreak. Wait, I'll just have to update my header, saying "Taking wikibreak." ~PogingJuan 14:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender For the record, I started stopping my Wikibreak when I started using my laptop at home on 12:48, 14 April 2017. ~PogingJuan 14:18, 14 April 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.

Request for 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.

---

• April Fools Day After (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Donald Trump (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This user appeared in my watchlist yesterday posting at Arb Enforcement. Because of the user's account name and area of interest I suspected trolling, and on investigating their brief history found two posts at Talk:Donald Trump ([3], [4]) which appeared to be more trolling. It appeared that the user had been adequately warned prior to their retaliatory AE post, and so I indeffed the user for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. The user appealed; Yamla declined.

Afterwards, another user left a note on my talk page questioning my block. Vanguard10 has accurately observed that the first of April Fools' posts ought to be interpreted as commentary on an emerging meme (e.g. [5]) though I don't see reliable sources on it. Further investigating the user's short history doesn't really reveal anything else of concern, and so now it appears that my block may have been overly harsh.

Please review this block. I'm inviting the user to comment on their talk page, please check there for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted, I already reviewed the unblock request. I'm very sure this user, April Fools Day After, is just deliberately trolling. When I investigated the block, I took a look through the other contributions which appeared to be straight-forward vandalism, though looking further, it looks like there's one source (latimes.com) claiming a cruise missile hit the water (albeit not claiming that 60, instead of 59, were launched). If that turns out to be true, my belief of straight-forward vandalism would be overly harsh. I would still think the user was engaging in vandalism, but there may at least be hope that the user might contribute productively. --Yamla (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Malice vs incompetence. I can't honestly tell whether this is somebody who is trolling, incompetent (which would be fine if they weren't also doing things gun-ho), or just very young. I can't give them more than say 13/14 years of age based on their attitude. "In contemporary times", does anybody at all use phrases like this? My gut instinct is that we're dealing with a child who is trying to think and act well beyond their age with zero apt to do so. Potential for productive contributions appears to me to exist, but, not without a guiding hand. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• The reason I gave a final warning after reverting the Trump talk page was because this [6] appeared to be ethnic/political trolling (which I just reverted now because I didn't realize it hadn't already.) The last line here also suggests someone trying to troll the Air Force. Combined with some of their edit summaries and username, in my mind, you have a user who is trolling Wikipedia but is doing it in a more clever way than some. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector the user posted this on their user talk:

Indefinite block is like a life sentence or death penalty. Not right when there are questions about the block. If you want to punish me, make it end this Friday. That is my compromise to accept some punishment for Abu Ivanka and other crimes.

The Faroe Islands is not having an election today. Also use of the word today isn't right if someone isn't checking the article often.

Several sources including the BBC and The Guardian, a British newspaper, report Abu Ivanka.

Puerto Rico is part of the US, not independent, not Russia, not Jamaica. Nothing sinister.

Nothing was meant against the USAF. It was a stub that I was certain others would expand.

Also there is an error that millions of people are not fixing. 60 missiles were fired, not 59. 59 hit Syria, 1 hit the water. There are reliable sources but nobody else is looking for them.

I've left them some advice on their user talk [7]. I also think it would be fine to unblock them now per WP:LASTCHANCE. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• After thinking about it for probably too long I came to the decision to reduce the block length, but I would have reduced it to a time which has already expired so I just lifted it. I've left a note on their talk page, and I also left the WP:ARBAPDS sanctions alert for good measure. TonyBallioni's note suggests the user change their account name, which they can if they'd like to but I don't think it's a WP:USERNAME issue so I can't force them to. All wrapped up, I think. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the rename note was a suggestion. I think its a good one that would save them some needless reverts by people, but I agree it doesn't fall clearly against WP:USERNAME. Thanks for your work on this, Ivanvector. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Shortly after the block was lifted, this user was reblocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of Samswik (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Welp. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:50, 13 April 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.

Admin Ian.thomson

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

---

I was struglling with this admin Ian.thomson to block a user who was doing a wrong edits but he was very slow to detect the wrong behavior 1 also he processed my report and charged me instead and did not fixed until this admin listened to me 2--S!lVER M. (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Notified Ian.thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 23:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have problems with many admins. [8] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilNYes and i can name some diplomatic admin for you if you need to know like User:Coffee and User:Fenix down‎S!lVER M. (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

When you "notified" Ian.Thomson (via a talkpage note that didn't even the name the editor you were complaining about) there was no reason to block him, which is why he didn't. He was later blocked for edit-warring (for edits that occurred after your note), and then you went back to Ian.Thomson's talk page and left a snarky note "thanking" him. This isn't the way we do things here, and you'll have far more joy if you (a) stop going round demanding people be blocked, and (b) use the noticeboards (WP:AIV, WP:AN3) if they are vandalising or edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Black KiteI have never use any wrong languages in my talks...He did not respond me although he was already gave a warning for the targeted users even after me and other users warnings. I thanked him because i am not replying the ignorance with least thing so i thanked him this my way..i may thank users who revert my good faith edits also. this was the second time ever for me to report a user. the first was on this user:Gwots that was making a systematic vandalizing for at least 3 articles i think more..I am not the one who report for reason and for no reason--S!lVER M. (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Islam84 this is the user blocked after a revolutionary request by me!User:Black KiteS!lVER M. (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My target of this notice is to invite admin not leave Stigma in other innocent user logs talk page..I was misunderstood due to this issues--S!lVER M. (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for you all to post this discuss her User:Black Kite, User:Ian.thomson, User:Amortias... I am not feeling peaceful as i did not used to complain others....I withdraw this and i am sorry...Its my problem...Thank you--S!lVER M. (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Silver Master. This isn't my job -- being an administrator is volunteer work. I actually have work that I get paid for that I have to focus on, and I actually have a life outside of this website that currently requires a lot of unpaid work to keep in order. (I'm going to be moving to the other side of the planet in a couple of months, with intentions of moving around the world again next year -- not something that I can just wait until the last minute to start preparing for). There's another message on my talk page that mentions that (although I grant it was not addressed to you). I'm not the only admin here. Next time, try reporting edit warring at WP:3RRNB and instead of expecting everyone to jump to your every order. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 13 April 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.

Admin -- Amortias

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 admin "Amortias" charged me as a spammer because those articles Safety and health training and Data gathering and representation techniques because i have added an external links which he considered me making promo....The admin was bold and revoked my auto review right for this reason directly..he did not remove his suspect external links..I think this is a not wise decision from an admin!S!lVER M. (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would have removed the autoreview right as well, because you're creating articles full of spelling and grammar errors, and sentences that make no sense at all. Examples: "Distribution techniques are utilized to portray that shapes compatible with the information created amid a quantitative risk analysis" and "Training for safety and health helps representatives comprehend and take after built up methodology". These are meaningless, as indeed are much of the articles. More importantly, they do not provide useful information because they have little context about why those subjects are notable - I suggest you improve them quickly or they will probably be deleted. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I wont comment on whether they should have been granted autopatrolled in the first place (and that's probably an issue for Schwede66 to weigh in on), the links in question seem... well, fairly educational, and I'm not really sure that they're a valid justification for removal of the right. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern to their EL sections, and it looks a lot like an editor googling the topic, and adding the most relevant thing they find to ELs. Either way, there probably should have been some preliminary discussion. TimothyJosephWood 23:36, 12 April 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.

Action should be taken regarding Silver Master

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 this editor cannot write in coherent encyclopedic English -- and these two complaints show fairly conclusively they cannot -- they need to be blocked per WP:CIR. This person should not be editing articles, not to mention creating them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Every single one of the articles I looked in the list of "Articles I created" on Silver Master's user page requires substantial re-writing to make them into comprehensible English. In some cases I plain have no idea what is being said, and I ain't no idiot. This editor needs to be indeffed, or blocked from creating articles, and someone who knows these subjects has to rewrite the articles, or they should all be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why does the user say they have 50K contributions on their userpage? Even counting other wikis, they don't have anywhere near that number of edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why some of the content is in bold, which may possibly mislead (other than the english), although I personally interpret "I was fond of Wikipedia since i noticed it over 10 years ago but unfortunately i blame my self for not doing more contribution as i did not reach 50k contribution till now" as meaning: "I blame myself for not having reached 50k edits in over 10 years". —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 01:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly possible. Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken if you see i deserve blocked or deleted....it is OK as i am harmful to Wikipedia Sorry for you all--S!lVER M. (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite:@Bbb23:@Amortias:@NeilN:@Ian.thomson: I rest my case. Either this person is trolling, or this person cannot properly express their thoughts in English, or this person has admitted to being harmful to Wikipedia. Any of those possibilities should, I think, result in a block. The sole remaining possibility -- that this person is joking -- still raises questions about their having the level of English needed to edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: re-ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Your opinion means nothing to me...i had many comments with many people but no one spoke effrontery like your words...You are not going to learn me how to write articles her...First go and learn you self, how to speak about people--S!lVER M. (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Master: Did you intend to direct that comment at Beyond My Ken? Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes corrected!S!lVER M. (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Silver Master's distorted English above speaks for itself, can we please get a WP:CIR block for this editor whose command of English is not of a level to allow the creation of coherent articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Silver Master, would you be willing to cease creating articles? Primefac (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac of course not...I am going in my way i am contributing bilingually in two Wiki projects, If some one have a reviewing notices he can freely develop it or cease speaking and leave the mission for others...May i ask you, Why are you saying this?--S!lVER M. (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Silver Master, there are calls to block you entirely, so I was thinking of offering a possible alternative option. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

PrimefacWho called this for what...I am not that bad in English i got my high education (degree) where the subjects were in English....Please say something useful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Master (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Silver Master, it was requested by Beyond My Ken that you be blocked from the English Wikipedia (at least, that's my interpretation of it). I felt that was a little extreme, which is why I asked if you would be willing to stop creating problematic articles. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I think ceasing creating articles is not a positive reaction of me, and this incident is not requiring a reaction like this...I will review my last articles and try fix problem (If found) and proceed for new...Regards--S!lVER M. (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• My (non admin) impression: I acknowledge some technical abilities that Silver Master has, so it doesn't seem like gross incompetence. However, because of the language barrier, his contributions would need more people to look at. The autoreview right seemed contrary to this, so I agree with its removal. Other than language, my impression is that the topics often have to do with organizational matters. It appears to me that too many primary sources were used, and that some of those articles could have been merged into existing ones on the same topic, or may be redundant, but I'm not sure. I'm confused as to what can be salvaged in his contributions. I'm uncertain (for technicalities more than personality issues) if it would be possible for Silver to in the future contribute more collaboratively with someone who might be interested in the same topic and is more fluent in English. And this message to Silver Master: I don't think this is so dramatic as to be considered stigma. Also, if you ever happen to get blocked, note that those blocks are for technical reasons, not as punishment. It may also be unnecessary, depending on the outcome. It may also be possible to contribute on the English Wikipedia on aspects which do not require extensive prose. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • PaleoNeonateFinally found someone can give proper talks!....I acknowledge that i have romanced this matter but, i was shocked in the beginning (I couldn't sleep) and i appreciate your suggestions if i could "contribute on the English Wikipedia on aspects which do not require extensive prose"..For you are saying helpful suggestions, and for others (They know them self) they are here for Destructive comments!S!lVER M. (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Also opining as a non admin, but Silver Master your comments and responses have been very close to less than courteous commentary (see WP:CIV). Your rudimentary grasp of the English language and how to communicate your thoughts in it are part of what's causing this concern. I strongly suggest that you cease editing the English language Wikipedia until your proficiency is better, otherwise the crowd that feels your competence in writing in English needs drastic improvement may push forward and get the restriction on your editing privileges. Hasteur (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • HasteurThank you for the intervention...I am going to resolve the problem in my way...It is Ridiculous that i became editor with "rudimentary grasp of the English language" overnight by posting in this board...Please note: i am registered 9 years ago! and what do you mean with crowd :). Do mean this "Beyond My Ken", and i said there is many destructive comments and yours unfortunately is one of them!S!lVER M. (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • And there is a prime example of SM's inability to understand the English idiom and how my comment was warning them that they need to slow down otherwise they give the campaign for "Block" more ammuntion. I wash my hands of SM as offering advice has been met with either an intentional attack or incompetent attempt to represent their thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know how many ways that this can be said, so this is the last time I'll say it: Silver Master cannot write in the English language at a level which allows them to create coherent articles. The evidence is in every comment he has written here, and in every article he has listed as created on his user page. He needs to be topic banned from creating articles at the very least, or, better yet, since a topic ban would still allow his to insert distorted English into other articles, indef blocked as incompetent to edit here. Silver Master says he is bilingual, so he can continue to edit the Wikipedia of his primary language, but he is not qualified to create and edit articles here. I sympathize which he desire to share his knowledge with the world, but he simply cannot communicate sufficiently in English to be an editor here. This is so blazingly obvious that I don't really understand why it hasn't been done yet. C'mon, admins, please take care of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold and waiting to see if Silver Master would heed any of the advice given to them here, and it seems clear that they will not even acknowledge there is an issue, when even those supporting them also see that there is an obvious language and behavioral problem that hinders clear communication and article collaboration. Examples of it abound in this very discussion. I have therefore indef blocked Silver Master. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 13 April 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.

Vandalism

I would like to report a vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BF8:B100:31AC:2736:67BB:A412 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You may want to go to WP:AIV for that then. That's the page to report vandal edits. Can you give details on what edits, what editor etc? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This anon is the vandal. 2a02:c7d:bf8:b100::/64 given some time off to do something else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I always appreciate it vandals report themselves. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Best of Luck Nikki

Could an admin take a look at User talk:Best of Luck Nikki? This appears to be a userspace draft mistakenly added to a usertalk page. It's being edited by multiple editors so it appears to be a legitimate draft. Perhaps an admin could move it to the draft namespace? Another problem is the username. I'm pretty sure the creator of the page probably was not familiar with WP:ORGNAME, so I think it is just an honest mistake. I'm not sure if there's one editor claiming this as their userpage, so it's not clear who to inform about changing the name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the user doesn't exist at all it appears. I can move this to draftspace and can remove the User talk space. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was incorrectly moved from article space on April 11th. Moved back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore and NeilN:. Thanks for taking a look at this and helping to sort it out. Also, thanks NeilN for re-adding the logo; I only removed it because it was showing up as being used on a userpage. Just for reference it looks like the same editor who moved that article has done similar things with some other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that catch Neil, I hadn't seen that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And I have fixed the bot edits incorrectly "fixing" double redirects momentarily created by this bad move. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, my bad. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast

I've placed 24 hours semi-pp on this article as following today's news of the operational use of the bomb the article has been attracting a lot of undesired attention. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper indeffed for violating community sanction

Wolfkeeper has been indefinitely blocked per the SPI case for violation of their community-placed editing restriction listed in the ER archive log. This sanction was formed on this board and this posting is a courtesy notice to the community.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Help

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 reset the pending changes settings for Naruto since it's semi protected? Thanks. -- 1989 22:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, of course if it ends up being spammed by AC editors then PC1 may need to be reapplied (or bumped to EC protection). Primefac (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: You mean PC2? That was discontinued, unfortunately. PC1 can't be made for that purpose, since their edits are automatically accepted, unless an IP or new user edit is still under review. -- 1989 22:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew PC2 was retired, I just forgot that PC1 is bypassed by AC users. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 13 April 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.

Link rot, domain squatters, and spam in reference metadata

Here's how it happens:

1. Someone cites a source in a Wikipedia article, but does it as a bare URL.
2. the site dies, and gets domain-squatted.
3. a bot goes through the Wikipedia article, and inserts metadata for the bare URLs... which are now SEO'd-out-the-ass domain-squatter pages.

Result: we have over 200 articles whose references say that THIS DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE AT HUGE DOMAINS. I've been fixing this by using archive.org ([9], [10]) but there's over 200 such pages and I can't handle this all myself.

I should also point out, Huge Domains is hardly the only offender ([11], [12]). DS (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot can add archives for you.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but this issue is rather tedious to fix manually. Each article takes about 3-5 minutes to process (have to find the dead link, plug it into the Internet Archive, find an archived url, then copy it into the article). So far, all of the dead domains I've come across have been different. It doesn't seem yet like there is only a small pool of domains that have expired. Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Request review of RfC close

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 RfC was closed but today editors are continuing to comment and one editor is undoing the close.[13][14] I suggest the RfC should be re-closed today. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• RfC was closed prematurely which was my mistake and I only closed it because QuackGuru kept hounding me to and new information came to light that I felt was pertinent to the discussion. Also, they are removing other editor's comments [[15]]

SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• News comments after a RfC was closed are usually deleted (or moved). Commenting like this does not help. After it was closed there is no policy-based reason to reopen it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• And there was no policy based reason to close it. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) QuackGuru, editors are allowed to re-open RFCs they have closed (I've done it a few times upon request). As long as she's not undoing someone else's close, there's nothing we can do. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 15 April 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.

CfR dscussions in need of closing

I'm in the process of trying to normalize the entire group of organization category trees; as a resulkt, I keep creating new discussions, with overlap which can make things confusing. It would be nice if admins here would keep up with closing these - there are currently 4 which can be closed: Animal welfare, Greece, business, and Iran. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Laser brain's departure

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

---

For those not aware, unfortunately Laser brain got discouraged and left Wikipedia and resigned his bit. Here is the background, which has been closed and is now in the archives: [16]. I'm posting this information because Laser brain's departure may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to (A) the surrounding brouhaha and (B) the fact that I NAC-closed that ANI thread immediately after the user in question was unblocked, because at least one person felt the thread would spiral into more heat than light. In any case, I'm alerting those who were unaware of LB's departure. My mention here of LB was not a ping, as I have no intention of bothering him or creating drama by pinging him here. However, I always think that reaching out to departing/departed Wikipedians, either on their talkpages or via email, can have a salubrious effect. And my observation has been that LB was and has been one of the finest, clearest, most objective, most rational, and most intelligent admins and editors we have had on Wikipedia. It would be a real shame if we lost him for good. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• It would be a real shame if the person who started this whole mess by spouting off when they knew good and well that the eyes of the entire active portion of the community were squarely and attentively on them, managed to take the time to write LB and explain in repentant detail, that worse than making a very public mistake, for which they'll surely be forgiven by the community, is having the loss of one of our best editors on their conscience for the rest of their editing career, and make any and all assurances that they'll do whatever is necessary to help restore faith in both mission and station. Then again, that might be a disturbing sign that we care more about the project and the community than we do about bits and badges. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Three comments: (1) Do you really want to make matters worse by stirring more ****? If I thought that was going to happen in any way, shape, or form, I would never have posted this here. This is why I closed that ANI thread immediately after the unblock -- so that **** didn't continue to be slung. This thread is for healing and for goodwill and for alerting people of an admin who has left, not for hostilities. If you have a complaint about an editor or feedback for them, please say it to them on their talkpage or via email, not here. (2) Your first sentence doesn't make sense grammatically in the way you seem to think it does. (3) Your post ignores that fact that the triggering event for LB's departure was the block of a third party by an administrator, not specifically or merely the comment by the person you are referring to (though LB did bemoan the immediate lack of sanctions for that). Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I just want to echo what Softlavender says. An admin doesn't get frustrated and leave over just one issue (I know, I've been there), so finger-pointing here will achieve nothing but further bad feeling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going on a witch hunt here. It was a mistake made out of frustration, and I think it's pretty well already been admitted and forgiven as such. But I don't think the usual "'tis a shame" comments from you or I mean nearly as much as they would coming from the people involved, and their absence is conspicuous. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood, Coffee is currently blocked. He can't respond even if he likes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

re-ping; Timothyjosephwood Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothy: (1) The user is blocked. (2) What part of "this isn't the place to remonstrate an editor or advise them to do something" do you not understand? Apparently you do not understand any of it, because you are repeating your backhanded attacks, which frankly appear to me to be unfounded. If you have something to say to someone, say it to them rather than sniping about them elsewhere in a thread about someone else. Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well fuck me. Now we've lost two of them. I'm logging off. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

One resigns, one gets a punitive block. Thanks for making everyone who didn't know anything about this fully aware of what really goes on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, Timothyjosephwood, Laser brain's walk-out had little to do with Coffee's block, and more to do with my one which was an ill-judged and extremely poor action by Amortias - who, I hastened to add, has still not apologised to me, despite saying that they would do. Cassianto^Talk 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my Wikipedia, I do know of these that therefore only are reputed wise for saying nothing when I am very sure if they should speak would almost damn those ears which hearing them, would call their brothers fools. TimothyJosephWood 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This response is wholly unintelligible. Cassianto^Talk 06:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern translation: "The only reason they’re considered wise is because they don’t say anything. I’m sure if they ever opened their mouths, everyone would see what fools they are". (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/merchant/page_8.html). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• What's the root cause of the walk out though? Actions of particular individuals, straw that broke camels back, or the as-stated "I no longer want to be a part of a system where this kind of bullshit is tolerated and admins are held up on a special platter"?

If it's really the latter, recall that last time I tried to talk a lowly regular editor out of retiring, I was called out by a "veteran editor" (whatever that is) that maybe WP:TANTRUM applies. When I pointed out that no one says that when long-established admins have "resigned", and on occasion we have seen month-long love-ins, I was ridiculed by a member of the arbitration committee, implying that doesn't happen. And yet here we are ... again.

Perhaps if the admin's complaint is that admins are held up on a special platter, the best reaction isn't to then hold them up on a special platter by trying to do something special. The best action would be to seriously look into the charge - which is certainly something we've heard before.

As a non-admin who tends not to keep quiet when I disagree with something (i.e. doesn't know when to keep their mouth shut) it is certainly something I've observed - there's some Admins who toss 3 of the 5 WP:5P out the window after they've been an admin for a while, deciding that perhaps not everyone should edit, frequently being rude, failing to WP:AGF, and being quick to apply firm Wikipedia rules. Typically when complaints are made of such behaviour, they are either ignored, or other admins gang together to downplay it. It's only in particularly egregious examples, where action is taken - and even then, despite completely unnecessary and highly profane language, I'm sure there's an admin out there, who would then proceed to reduce the sanction. Why is this important - because it chases away more regular editors than it does admins, and I think that leads to an unhealthy project that becomes increasingly dominated by admins of dubious judgement and self-aggrandizing delusions. Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

When an administrator makes a peronally attack, such as Coffee did, it should be considered as such, and not brushed off as simply "rude". Coffee made the PA and was allowed to continue without any intervention at all...from anyone, until Bishonen took the correct action and blocked him, a day or so later. Now it's not the biggest PA in history, but which ever way you cut it, telling someone to shove something up their rectum is a PA. If it were me, I would be blocked on sight. But then apparently my block log is now solely a reason why I should be blocked in any circumstance. On this occasion, however, there was no personal attack at all. I was still blocked by someone on who's RfA the ink was barely dry. I believe Coffee's blocking was a good president to set; I only wish it was consistent, because it's not, and some admins are allowed to go about and call people "pricks" and all sorts with nothing happening to them at all. Until these administrators are held to account, and people like me, who have only ever tried to do good for the project, are treated correctly and fairly, then people like Laser brain will walk away. Laser brain was an extremely rare breed; he was an excellent writer, a very fair administrator, approachable, helpful, and fought for the backs of the content creator from the skivvys and yes men who go about from notice board to notice board issuing blocks for no other reason other than to exert their own self-importance. He would use common sense as a tool for basing his rationale on any decision he would make, and ignore those who felt it imperative to show biased towards law-breaking new editors over those who spend their time and money writing quality articles. I would take one Laser brain over the hundreds of other administrators who exhibit the latter behaviour. It's a big loss for the project. Cassianto^Talk 06:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Returning the thread to its original intent

If you consider Laser brain an asset to the encyclopedia, please consider reaching out to him via email or on his talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have "reached out" to him, as you do delicately put it. Which is more than what this silly thread will ever do. Cassianto^Talk 10:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone here thinks that they are an asset to the encyclopedia, and are sorry to see them go. Nfitz (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Many people did not know that he had left; hence this thread, so people who didn't know could reach out to him if they want to. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 16 April 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.

Cookie blocks are live!

After 11 years of waiting, phab:T5233 has finally been resolved, thanks to Samwilson of Community Tech. As a colleague who is active here on enwiki, I thought I'd make the announcement and explain what this means. For the sake of transparency please ignore any concerns about WP:BEANS.

Cookie blocks are an extension to the current autoblock system. When admins go to block an account, they can select the option "Autoblock any IP addresses used". This is generally left turned on, and means that if the blocked user moves to another IP and attempts to edit, that IP will become autoblocked. This is nothing new, it has been this way for ages. The new functionality is that after blocking a user with the autoblock option set, the next time the user accesses Wikipedia a cookie is stored in the user's browser that points back to the original block. It will act as the mechanism that autoblocks the underlying IP, regardless of what account and underlying IP the user is attempting to edit from. So in short, if a user changes accounts, then moves to a new IP, the cookie will still be there and the user and the underlying IP will become autoblocked. Cookies expire after 24 hours (the same amount of time autoblocks expire) or the length of the block itself, whichever is shorter.

This functionality is by no means an effective solution to long-term abuse and sockpuppetry, nor is it intended to be. Instead, cookie blocks are aimed at your "casual vandal" that operate on mobile devices, or are aware that they can reset their router to get a new IP. Even those folks will probably deduce a cookie is causing the autoblocks, but the hope is this tiny improvement will be enough to fend off at least some of the less tech-savvy.

If you have any questions, concerns, etc., don't hesitate to ask. If you have a Phabricator account, phab:T5233 is the best place, but we'll be monitoring the discussion here.

To get you sincerely excited, allow me to inform you of phab:T152462, where we may use cookies when blocking anonymous users, in effect acting as an autoblock. This is still in the investigation stage, but theoretically it will have a much more noticeable impact. IPv6 is becoming more and more prominent, where the ISP will regularly refresh the customer's IP. Currently many admins will do a WHOIS check and see if it is an ISP known to allot a /64 range to their customers, and if so do a range block. Other admins are not comfortable with this, and will instead block the single IP. Perhaps minutes later, the ISP has refreshed the user's IP and they are able to resume vandalizing. Hence, cookies may offer an effective solution to fending off your everyday drive-by vandals, without having to do any range blocks. Stay tuned! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously, the right way to announce a new anti-abuse provision is to openly state how to evade it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah... at this point, Columbo would turn round and say 'Just one more thing-' ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  I've bolded the last sentence of the first paragraph based on your concern. We have to be transparent and keep admins informed, but the types of users we are targeting with cookie blocks are unlikely to be following internal discussions anyway — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  w/r/t BEANS, this sounds like something that would've been better handled via the next Admin newsletter than on AN. Just my 2¢. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Salvidrim!: isn't the admin newsletter always posted here too, anyways? ansh666 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is this even legal? While the US has famously lax data security laws, the rest of the world is far stricter about these things and most countries in which Wikipedia's editors and readers are based—notably the entire EU and those countries that base their legal systems on it—require explicit consent from the user in question before cookies can be placed on their system. I appreciate that the WMF is based in the US, but I can see some very nasty lawsuits ahead if an EU-based admin places a cookie on an EU-based user's system without consent, and there is no shortage of deep-pocketed organisations (DMG Media springs to mind) who'd be quite happy to bankroll a class action to give Wikipedia a bloody nose. There doesn't appear to be any way to turn the "automatically place cookie" option off, short of unchecking "autoblock" altogether—the net effect of this will just be that I'll now always ensure I never check "Autoblock any IP addresses used" at all. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  It might be if people when saving an edit agree to receive such cookies - but I don't see a single syllable in the TOU about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  There's this, a link to which is buried in the tiny-print at the bottom of every page, but it doesn't make any mention of this kind of functionality—the only cookie use mentioned is We use the information we receive from cookies and other locally stored data to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and interactions with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services, which I doubt anyone could realistically shoehorn blocking into. (Although, my curiosity is certainly raised by the casual mention of tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of "locally stored data" technologies, such as cookies and local storage being "actively used by the WMF"—do the Free Culture and EFF types who do so much of the heavy lifting around here realise just how creepy and intrusive the WMF has become?) ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure how you could even shoehorn "editors agree to have such cookies placed" into the existence of that link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  "improve our services..." (...by blocking undesirable users) isn't too much of a stretch. –xeno^talk 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, having now looked more closely at the current Privacy Policy, "creepy and intrusive" doesn't do it justice. Even Google would baulk at we might use cookies to learn about the list of articles you are following on your watchlist so that we can recommend similar articles that you may be interested in. FWIW, I've just created User:Iridescent 3 from scratch to see what messages new users actually get, and at no point during the signup process is any mention made of any of this, and nor (given that Wikipedia's spent the better part of a decade bleating about transparancy and intrusiveness), is it reasonable to assume new users would expect it. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  But that doesn't even make sense. Watchlists are stored server-side, so a cookie wouldn't be required to recommend articles based on it... BethNaught (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  The only reason I can think of for doing it with cookies would be so the WMF can track what other people who use your device are reading/watchlisting, or to monitor your reading when you're logged out. Locally-stored watchlists would seem like a very shitty idea, since most users are going to be checking their watchlist from multiple devices. ‑ Iridescent 16:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Surely m:WMF legal (@Mpaulson (WMF):?) should have signed off on this? Perhaps we should provide an option to control this separately from autoblocks, in any case. –xeno^talk 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  All I can say is that this has been approved by the legal team, and the table of cookies has been updated accordingly. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

“ From a legal perspective, this proposal is in compliance with our privacy policy and terms of use. However, I would like to echo the cautionary comments already made on this thread of overly broad blocks occurring as a result of this cookie, particularly in multi-user scenarios. ” — Michelle [Paulson], Jan 15 2015

This is in reference to potential collateral damage, not legality. A lot has changed since that comment,, and after thorugh testing we have concluded collateral damage should be minimal — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal are concerned with liability to the WMF, not with damage to individual editors. Unless and until I either see an explicit "We consider this legal in all jurisdictions, and will give full and unlimited legal and financial support to anyone who is challenged in court over it" commitment from the WMF (at which point I'll probably be too busy hiding from the flying pigs), or there's a way to set "never place cookie blocks" as a default rather than having to remember to uncheck an easily-missed checkbox each time, I'd advise all admins based in countries with cookie laws (there's a handy list here; the most important ones from en-wiki's point of view are the UK and Ireland) to avoid ever using the block button. ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't work in legal so I can't really say much, but it seems if you don't like cookies you might use a cookie blocker, in which case blocks will still work just fine (if that was at all a concern). Admins are also not affected with this change, only the users who were blocked, and there's no way to know where they are located unless they disclose such information — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If you are placing a cookie on the browser of a user from the list of countries above without their explicit permission, you are breaking the law - which is a particular issue for admins who are also located in that country. What I'm not sure about is whether it is the admin that places the block, or the WMF (who own the software) that would be held to be doing it. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently cookies and localStorage are used by default on Wikimedia sites, and there's no way to turn this off unless you use a browser extension or the like. The new cookie blocks feature does not change this — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If the current system places cookies without getting permission in advance, it might be illegal in some countries (including the UK). But, as I understand the issue being suggested here, that would not be a legal issue for admins as they are not playing a part in placing those cookies - but if an admin takes an action that places a cookie (as blocking will now do) that admin might then be liable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, well again I don't work in legal but I highly doubt admins will be held accountable. It is the software that is doing this. The block cookie is listed in the cookie statement along with all other cookies. Users are free to remove/disable whichever ones they so desire. Adding cookies without permission is something that is already being done, even when browsing anonymously (from my quick testing), so I don't see how you as an admin imposing them, intentionally or not, will change anything. This is tantamount to you setting up a central notice banner, or adding an item to the watchlist notice. These actions are done by the community and they also create or modify cookies — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you say, you don't work in Legal - and I don't mean to demean, but your legally uninformed speculation is no more helpful than mine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've had it explained to you repeatedly, but to explain again in bullet points:

1. It is illegal to place a cookie on any computer system within one of the countries on the list I link above, without the user of that computer's explicit consent. (We're not talking slaps-on-the-wrist, either; the penalty for non-compliance in Portugal, for instance, is a five million euro fine);
2. Because the US refuses to sign up to the relevant treaties, this law is not enforceable against companies based in the US (although it is illegal to transfer data to the US for the purposes of getting round this legislation);
3. Now this is live, there's a reasonable potential that a court will consider that the blocking admin is placing the cookie, not the corporate person of the WMF which is based in California and beyond the reach of the law;
4. If the blocking admin and the blocked IP are both located in countries on the list, and the courts do rule that the individual admin is the agent rather than the WMF, those admins are opening themselves up to virtually unlimited personal liability, since it's not uncommon for an admin working WP:AIV to block thousands of accounts at a time. To take an example whom I know is EU resident, HJ Mitchell has enacted a little over 14,000 blocks, and if only 1% of those are EU-based he'd be theoretically exposing himself to between €100 million–€1 billion in fines depending on where the users are based;
5. While normally this liability would be largely theoretical since it's unlikely that under normal circumstances anyone would take action, these are not normal times; there are people who would love to take down Wikipedia and will happily fund the lawsuits. If you think this is just theoretical, I'm sure Gawker will be happy to explain exactly how the process works;
6. If the WMF were willing to explain under what grounds they consider this legal, and explicitly commit to supporting individual admins caught up by this, there would be no issue. The fact that they haven't, implies that either they haven't thought it through, or they're willing to leave anyone caught by it to sink on their own.

Given the recent track record of making poorly thought through decisions without consultation—and given the general contempt the WMF displays towards the editing community—I'm willing to bet that there are no circumstances under which the WMF will commit to supporting anyone taken to court over this. In light of that, and especially given that they haven't even provided a mechanism to disable this functionality other than by checking a box for each-and-every block, in my opinion anyone living or working in one of the countries on that list would be out of their mind to place any block involving an autoblock element from now on. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Had a similar discussion some time ago; the admin may go free if the action is as a secondary action he can't control. If he controls it, then he is responsible. In short, if you have a box to tick, then the admin is responsible. It follows the ability to control the action. Still note that this was in a slightly different setting, so it might not apply. Jeblad (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Got an edit conflict; I apologize for taking a minute to grasp your point. We've already pinged legal here but I will also happily relay your concerns — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"The exception to this rule is when the user requests a service and that service cannot be provided without storing or gaining access to information stored on their computer." from here. That seems simple...if that is the way the system works then cookies may be required for the system to work. Our user agreement may need to be modified, maybe? ...but the software may require the cookie.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't apply here, since it's clearly not impossible for Wikipedia to provide its service without placing cookies on its users' systems without consent. ("Consent" has to be explicit; anyone who's ever used the internet in Europe will be familiar with the "This site uses cookies, click here to proceed to the site if you are willing to accept them or click here to exit" popup.) If they're going to actually try to justify it, rather than sheltering behind the skirts of the servers being based in the US, the only loophole that could apply is user‑centric security cookies, used to detect authentication abuses, for a limited persistent duration, but I wouldn't want to be the one arguing categorically that what's being proposed here falls under that. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have personally contacted legal. Sorry again for being so confused, this all went a little over my head =P While I still think we have little to worry about, you indeed raise very valid concerns and we'll get some answers for you as soon as possible — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another question - when blocking IPs, are any cookies placed, and is there any difference if the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option is chosen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Cookies are only added when you block accounts with the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option set — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify: the cookie itself expires after 24 hours, or an autoblock applied because of existence of the cookie expires after 24 hours? Or both? I ask because we currently don't do long-term blocks of IPs because of the possibility of blocking innocent users, but it's somewhat more reasonable to assume that a user trying to edit with a cookie on their system earned it by being the specific user to whom the block applies. Will there be or could there be an option to set the cookie's expiry to a longer period? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: The cookie itself expires after 24 hours. Just like the old system, any fresh autoblocks also expire after 24 hours, including autoblocks imposed because of the cookie. The expiry of the cookie itself is actually configurable (via a patch to the local site settings), but we started with 24 hours to keep collateral damage minimal. So far the data we're seeing suggests the cookies are doing their job, and the current number of autoblocks has not exceeded what we would normally expect. That being said we might get away with extending the cookie expiration, but let's get the aforementioned legal issues clarified first =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Currently, admins take no action to place a cookie on anyone's system. That is done by the site when anyone accesses Wikipedia via a blocked account. So action against individual administrators seems highly unlikely. Action against the Wikimedia Foundation is, bluntly, their problem. It's legal's job to protect the site from liability. If they signed off on this and shouldn't have, that's on them. The pre-save message above "Save changes" could possibly be amended to include a line stating that the user acknowledges that Wikipedia may use cookies as described in the Privacy Policy, but that's legal's job, not ours. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Re: "The new functionality is that when blocking a user with the autoblock option set, a cookie is stored in the user's browser that points back to the original block." That appears to mean that the new cookie is placed directly by admin action, and not when a blocked editor accesses Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Rest assured this is not the case. Creating a cookie without the user accessing the site would be impossible. I have clarified the wording — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, so the user is blocked, and then next time they visit they get a cookie - thanks for the clarification (and yes, it's obvious really). Whether that overcomes the legal concern is part of what will need to be clarified, and I would certainly not assume myself that a delay between my action and a result of my action would clear me from being held (perhaps partly) responsible in a European court. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry but delaying the action does not free the admin from responsibility. It is his action when ticking the box which triggers the delayed action. If it comes as an automated response outside the control of the blocking admin, then he might go free. That said it is still a bad solution, and in my opinion WMF will most likely break the cookie laws in Europe if they put such a cookie on the property of someone else but the blocked person. Jeblad (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• This just another prime example of shoddy software being rushed out without any thought - I'm not entirely sure why anyone has any confidence left in the WMF.. If I understand the legality concerns above correct, as an EU resident I probably shouldn't be making any `autoblock enabled` blocks until this is clarified, right? Thoroughly disappointed because this could have been a really useful feature -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's certainly my opinion that, without reasonable legal certainty, it would be risky for anyone resident in a country on the aforementioned list to make any 'autoblock enabled' blocks. In fact, as it is necessary to remember to uncheck a checkbox to avoid making such a block and it is easy to forget to do that, I personally (at least temporarily) will not block any registered users. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's cooll, our government in the US has just demonstrated it's very strong commitment to eliminating any concept of data privacy, so we'll pick up the slack. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• There'sNoTime, that's not really fair—if you look at the history of the original request it's been open since Aug 23 2005, so "rushed" certainly doesn't apply, and it was reasonable of the devs to assume that anyone with an interest would have seen it. (Because they're on it all the time, the devs have a tendency to forget that most Wikipedia editors, even the more active ones, don't even know Phabricator exists let alone read it.) Besides, it's perfectly possible either that I'm the one who's wrong about whether cookie laws will actually apply here, or that a conscious decision was made that since only about 20% of edits to en-wiki are made in Europe the benefits to the many outweigh the risks to the few. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I raised exactly the same issues as Iridescent previously but got no real response. I'm now going to have to trawl through the history to find it. In short: WMF Legal protect the WMF and (by extension) the editors/admins in the US. Other jurisdictions have much stricter data laws and editors/admins are required to comply with those laws in their respective countries regardless if the data affected is stored overseas. I cant see how Wikipedia's current cookie system is compliant with the UK's (or other parts of the EU's) regulations, but then it is not really required to. UK/EU based admins *are* required to be compliant, so frankly I would want a UK/EU legal specialist in data law to sign off on this before any UK/EU admin starts cookie-blocking people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone gets sued under UK/EU privacy law for setting a cookie on someone's machine when blocking them for vandalism, I'll upload a video to Commons of myself eating a hat. Seriously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

Well I suppose I can always raise a concern with ICO and see the response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, this seems like a good step forward which will reduce the burden block evaders place on editors and admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the majority of admins would agree with you. I don't yet know how effective this measure will be, but I welcome it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular disagreement that technically this a reasonable solution, but the legal ramifications are quite real. Consider the following scenario:

1. A two-bit Daily Mail journalist, say, Stanley McMurtry finds his article on WP, takes strong exception to being accused of racism, and blanks the text
2. A long-time Wikipedia editor, let's give them a made-up name, "Wigs on the Ping" (WOTP) reverts arguing about GNG, reliable sources, we're a wiki, yada yada
3. Upset, McMurtry blanks the context. Rinse and repeat a few times
4. McMurty tells WOTP something along the lines of "Please do not restore this content, or I will ask the Daily Mail's legal department to take action". WOTP goes straight to ANI with a thread entitled "Legal threats from editor with conflict of interest"
5. The Daily Mail already have previous for wanting to see Wikipedia crumble and squirm under their feet, and would love to knock Wikipedia down a peg or two. Who fancies blocking? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

... two-bit? Surely not. Yours, with rats at my feet, Uncle Tom 123 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a technically bad idea - I think it should be a very effective one. The problem is that many of us cannot be sure it is legal for us to use it personally, and that's a very important issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and There'sNoTime: The EU cookie directive addresses "service providers" not service users or administrators.[17] Also, the directive specifically exempts this type of cookie, i.e user‑centric security cookies used to detect authentication abuses, for a limited persistent duration.[18] IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your argument falls down, I think. Cookie blocks are not for user-centric security, they are for our security. "Authentication abuses" I would read to mean "stop person B from logging in to person A's account maliciously". Moreover the wording of the specific UK law is stricter. As I read it, section 6 of the 2003 regulations, as amended by the 2011 regulations, applies to any person. IANAL so please correct me, but with specifics. BethNaught (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. When it talks about security cookies in that section it means cookies designed to show 'Yes person A is Person A'. Which arguably is what the cookie from the cookie block does. It says editor A is editor A. However when it (the regulations) talk about authentication abuses the intent is that it means cookies designed to prevent third parties masquerading as Person A. Thats the iffy bit. As the cookie block cookie is not designed for the protection of person A at all, only wikipedia. (The UK law however is correct, individuals are generally prosecutable/fineable under almost all data law in the UK - other countries vary). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why "authentication abuses" would be limited to logging in, as authentication just means checking someone's identity/credentials, which is exactly what this cookie is designed to do. Regardless, the exemption doesn't really matter for administrators. The directive is targeted to service providers. In the case of the UK law, regardless of who breaks the law, the service provider is liable for the penalty (a £1,000 fine). (See section 5.) Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The £1000 fine in 2011 §5C applies to breaches of §5A, not §6. It is also about personal data breaches, not cookies. You got that completely wrong. Note "regulation" means section of the regulations, not the whole law. The enforcement is a complete mess of amendments. BethNaught (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, so what's the penalty for violating section 6? Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The theoretical maximum fine is £500,000 per offence, but ICO is never going to level that on an individual. As with English libel judgements, if they decided to get heavy the amount ICO would likely seek would be whatever amount they calculated likely to bankrupt the defendant—the purpose of ICO enforcement is to send a message to others, not to raise funds. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Geez you guys, calm down. This is good news and all this amateur lawyering, when the actual WMF lawyers have OK'd this is just silly. Nobody is going to get the cyber-cops at their door over a Wikipedia block. Nobody. This is just something that is going to make an incremental difference in recidivism amongst schoolboy/throwaway vandal accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The actual WMF lawyers have OK'd it based on US law, with not a word relating to UK/EU law. Unless you know better and can point us to their relevant statement - can you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. A riff on Wikipedia:Systemic bias. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to where lawyer or legal scholar familiar with EU or UK law has explicitly said that this kind of cookie would be valid grounds for a lawsuit with an actual chance of succeeding? Look, I understand your concerns but I think you are overreacting and that it is extremely unlikely some vandal is going to pop up and sue you over a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tortious interference with a legitimate expectation of being allowed to vandalise. Sounds like a rock solid basis for a claim to me!—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The real problem isn't the vandals, but people being blocked as collateral damage. Jeblad (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't point you to "where lawyer or legal scholar familiar with EU or UK law has explicitly said that this kind of cookie would be valid grounds for a lawsuit with an actual chance of succeeding?", but then nobody is actually claiming that is the case - we don't know, we are cautious, and we are *asking*. One thing we are asking is whether WMF Legal folk have actually examined the possibility - and we have no answer yet. As for "unlikely some vandal is going to pop up and sue you over a block", no, of course it's not likely, but we block far more people than just everyday vandals - and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of high profile people out there would would do anything they could to damage Wikipedia. All I'm saying is, let's be sure of the legal status - is that really so unreasonable? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And even if WMF Legal's opinion would be that it is not an issue, it only needs one monied litigant to find a lawyer who thinks otherwise and begin a test case. Yes, that would resolve the issue for good but it would likely put a lot of stress etc on the unfortunate admin. Daily Mail, anyone? - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why we have the Legal Fees Assistance Program of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The one that says "No one should rely on the receipt of assistance or take any action with the expectation of receiving such assistance", and which seems to be close to 50% escape clauses? Yep, that's me reassured. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and "Assistance provided by the program only includes lawyers’ fees and costs and may cover only a part or all of those fees and costs (at WMF’s sole discretion). It will not include payment of any incurred fines, damages (including any award of attorney's fees), or other judgments." So that means that if cookie blocks actually do violate EU law and render an admin liable to fines and/or damages, then the WMF explicitly will not cover that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that first part is in there to avoid functionaries from picking a fight with people or organisations and then expect the foundation to pay up. Like challenging another organisation over the interpretation of a legal principle, with the sole purpose of getting the foundation to pay for testing this principle in court. You can count on the program if you just do your normal work, but not if you are being an inconsiderate, an idiot or a dick (for some reason we apparently need to put such things in writing for some members of our community). And yes there are limitations to the support (because which organisation would ever upfront decide to take on any damages). But as an editor/admin, I know that legal will fight for us. And this is exactly why sometimes they will refuse to make a statement. So that at a later point in time, they will ALWAYS be in a position where they can still fight for us, as remote of a chance such may be, they need that space. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're happy in your knowledge - the only thing I'm confident of is that the WMF will protect themselves. Obviously I wouldn't expect WMF to agree up front to take on any fines or damages, but it actually says a lot more than that - it explicitly says they won't. And that's what makes the Legal Fees Assistance Program explicitly irrelevant with regard to the cookie block issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This mechanism has the potential to be extremely disruptive in countries where one or more major ISP use IP addresses with short lease time. When a blocked user goes through one of those networks the impact can be quite large. If someone use a range block on a user from an ISP the other ranges will most likely also be blocked in short time. Add phab:T152953 and you have a wildfire. No this is not a good idea. Jeblad (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Aww… It is pretty easy to abuse this to create a DOS-attack on editing. Lets say a country that controls access to internet wants to stop everyone from editing about a conflict. It is also possible for someone to block editing from a subnet, given that they have access to that subnet, for example a cell phone network (an ISP). If an adversary can poison the cache, then any targeted person can be blocked from editing. I have not set up a test, so I might be wrong. (Darn, I hope I am wrong!) Jeblad (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There are much much easier ways for a state actor that controls access to the internet to block someone from editing an article. Kaldari (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, they can pull the plug. Jeblad (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have a technical question. I'm not an expert on this at all, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding something. These cookies are files that are placed on a user's computer by the wiki software. However, how does the cookie know that it was placed there by the wiki software? Would it be possible for someone to duplicate the cookie file and manually implant it on another person's computer? If so, wouldn't this be a security issue, allowing a malicious user to block any number of users by implanting this cookie on their computers? Mz7 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really. In most circumstances if you can control someon'es computer sufficient to implant a cookie, you have much more effective ways of blocking them from ever editing wikipedia. Of course you're more likely to install ransomware. For that matter, unless for some reason this access is only very temporary and won't be repeated, you could install a keylogger and steal their financial details and use them later (at least those without 2FA). Note that barring major browser bugs or an intentional change on the part of the user to disable the same-origin policy that all websites have including for cookies, other websites cannot put a cookie for wikimedia sites. (If third-party cookies [19] are enabled then another website could allow wikimedia sites to put cookies when someone visits them, by getting the browser to access WMF sites then setting a cookie.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Note from Wikimedia Foundation legal

Hi, everyone. I'm Aeryn, an attorney on the Wikimedia Foundation legal team who works on privacy topics. I've spoken with my colleagues, and confirmed Michelle's approval for this feature from 2015. We've reviewed this under US and other rules. Like other features on Wikipedia, any cookie issued by the autoblock system is going from the Foundation's software to the affected user. The Foundation hosts the websites, operates the software that places cookies, and bears the responsibility of ensuring its software follows the law. Even if a Wikipedia administrator is involved in turning on "autoblock" for someone, they aren’t involved in setting the cookie's configurations or receiving any information back from the cookie. That is done by the Foundation's software. We’ve included the cookie set by this feature in our cookies table.

If you, as an administrator, face a legal issue related to the use of cookies, you should contact the Foundation’s legal team at legalwikimedia.org so that we can review and respond to the issue as appropriate. Legal cases related to a user’s work as a functionary can qualify for the Legal Fees Assistance Program, which the Foundation runs specifically to help protect the volunteers who do administrative work on the projects. If you have a case like this, please let us know at legalwikimedia.org so that we can review and see if we’re able to help. APalmer (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@APalmer (WMF): So have you, or have you not, examined this issue with respect to UK/EU legal requirements, and are you or are you not of the legal opinion that this does not fall foul of UK/EU law. Will the WMF commit to supporting anyone in the UK/EU facing legal action, and will the WMF commit to covering any penalties and/or costs should the use of WMF software by an admin resident in the UK/EU be deemed by law to be illegal? These are straightforward yes/no questions, so please be specific in your answer rather than giving us more evasive legalistic flannel. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think WMF Legal is going to be able to give you such a guarantee. If you believe that there is substantial legal risk (and that the Legal Fees Assistance Program isn't an adequate hedge) you are welcome to not use the autoblock feature. If lots of admins feel the same way, we can of course remove the feature entirely, but that seems like it would be an unfortunate over-reaction in my opinion. The reason we implemented this feature was because it was asked for in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey, so we know there are a lot of community members who want this feature. We will, however, respect the consensus of the community if a majority feel like it's a bad idea. In my personal opinion, the legal risk has been overblown, but I can't say there is absolutely zero risk. I take a substantial risk of being sued every time I upload an image from the National Portrait Gallery or send the WMF a DMCA counter-notice, but ultimately I think such risks are worth taking if they improve Wikipedia. There is always a chance that the law will be abused regardless of how it is written. In this case, we don't even have an actual legal threat, just tenuous speculation. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Plus, regardless of getting any specifics about EU/UK law, you have confirmation above that any legal implications will be directed at the WMF, not the admin, so it's now a non-issue as far as any individual admin should be concerned. Sam Walton (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, please read it again - there is no specific confirmation that UK/EU law will not be aimed at the individual admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"any cookie issued by the autoblock system is going from the Foundation's software to the affected user. The Foundation hosts the websites, operates the software that places cookies, and bears the responsibility of ensuring its software follows the law. Even if a Wikipedia administrator is involved in turning on "autoblock" for someone, they aren’t involved in setting the cookie's configurations or receiving any information back from the cookie. That is done by the Foundation's software." While that doesn't mention UK/EU law specifically, as I said, it does say that if you click a button that sends a cookie, the WMF is still to blame if that cookie is somehow illegal because it was ultimately sent by their software. Sam Walton (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As you suggest, that is not a statement that the WMF is of the legal opinion that UK/EU lawmakers will see it that way. And do you really think that people who initiate a software-mediated action can never be liable because "the software did it"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Everything you do in the world you could get sued for, it's up to you whether you want to do any of it. You can either accept the analysis there is no reasonable risk or not, but no one will predict the future for you.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I asked the simple question "have you, or have you not, examined this issue with respect to UK/EU legal requirements, and are you or are you not of the legal opinion that this does not fall foul of UK/EU law" - what do you people think is so unreasonable about asking that specific question? It should be easy to answer, yes? (And I wasn't asking general Wikipedians, I was specifically asking it of User:APalmer (WMF) - the non-legal opinions of random others are of no value here.) bit snarky, strike. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I think the WMF have already sort of said they did, but I agree there's nothing wrong with asking for a direct answer. I think the bigger issue which raised an eye brow with your post was whether the WMF would "commit to covering any penalties and/or costs". Technically there's nothing wrong with asking, but I think it's fairly obvious the answer is going to be no so probably if you made it clearer you understod that people wouldn't have been so surprised. Also because of this, your question did IMO miss the bigger issue namely whether the WMF will consider "Legal Fees Assistance Program" to cover fines, damages etc although still at their sole discretion etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Legal Fees Assistance Program" specifically says it won't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a beautiful piece of fobbing though. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 11:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I left out two key words there. I meant to say "will consider expanding the". I read the page so was well aware it did not currently, hence why I said "still at their sole discretion etc". There may very well be reasons why this will never happen, including legal ones. But IMO this has at least some non-zero chance of happening, compared to asking the WMF to guarantee they will pay all fines and penalties (which realisticly has zero chance of happening) or some of the other suggestions in this long thread. Of course, there's nothing stopping the WMF offering to pay even if they don't have a specific public policy in place which allows it. Aand a "we may pay, but it's completely up to us" isn't great reassurance still it's better than nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actual impact of any legal issues which may be relevant

Keep in mind that, in order for you to be punished by legal authorities for any legal violaion by your use of Wikipedia, they need to have proof that you are the peson behgind the account in question. This would tend to be nearly impossible without checkuser data; this information is held by the Foundation, which is in the US. To make things evenm harder, the European authorities probably don't know you're in a relevant country, so they probably won't even bother asking for this information. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would want to see a declaration from the WMF they have never handed over editor details to avoid a legal case against them before I would believe that. Given the amount of times various wikipedia editors actually have been embroiled in problems, I suspect the answer is not zero. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The answer is definitely not zero, as they've handed over data associated with child protection and blatant copyright violations, I'm sure. But I guarantee it's zero when you restrict the scope to "legal cases by foreign entities that have no basis in US law". There would be no legal case that applies to the WMF that's based in EU law. The WMF isn't based in the EU. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death, the privacy policy has always contained loopholes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through, and could reasonably be summarised as "we won't disclose your personal information unless we want to". Whether the WMF leaks or not isn't really the issue, since the IRL identity of plenty of WP admins is publicly disclosed, and all anyone wanting to administer a punishment beating to Wikipedia would need is to identify one of them, look through their block log for a block on someone who's themselves identifiable, and approach that person and ask them to take part in a test case. (If I were a Daily Mail hack right now, I'd be trying to engineer a situation in which Wikipedia's highest-profile EU resident admin blocked me.) The fact that it's now four days since I asked if the legal implications had been considered, and thus far not a peep from the WMF, makes me think that possibly the answer isn't as clear-cut as those dismissing my question above seem to think. If there's genuinely no potential issue, then the WMF will have no problem in making a "we will provide whatever support is necessary" commitment. ‑ Iridescent 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been involved with legal people regarding web sites and data protection, etc, issues before (unrelated to Wikipedia), and the usual response has been that if you can't say anything with certainty then you shouldn't say anything at all - to the extent that I and colleagues have been instructed to simply not answer questions. I don't expect a wildly different outcome here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. I want to note for this issue, that we record all the info about user data requests and disclosures at the Transparency Report. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Foundation has definitely released IP addresses of editors before: this incident is the main one. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this was a case of what appeared to be an issue according to US law. Block cookies aren't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to create a redirect to SOS

Resolved

 – the answer would appear to be "no." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create a redirect to SOS with the titles ***---*** and •••---••• (this is the morse code for SOS). Can you create it? It is on the blacklist. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We already have four variations of SOS in Morse code. We don't really need any more. Those particular ones are on the blacklist due to disallowed characters. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to go to the effort of typing those characters into the search box? It seems very unlikely. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy-and-paste move from draft to article

Resolved

 – Seems to be sorted. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Edvin Polyanovsky appears to have been a copy-and-paste move to Edvin Polyanovsky. Most likely was done in good faith by an editor not familiar with moving pages. Putting any notability issues of the subject aside for just a moment, I am wondering if a history merge is needed.

Now, if notability is indeed an issue (hard to tell since the sources cited do not appear to be onlne or in English, neither of which is something prohibtted per se), then maybe it should be moved back to the draft namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with copy/paste moving is that it breaks attribution and obscures the edit history, but in this case, the editor who did the move was the only one who edited the draft (i.e. attribution is unaffected), and when the source of the copying is a draft all written by the same person, it doesn't really matter if we lose that, either. No comment on the notability side. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this Nyttend. I don't think that both a draft and an article are needed. Should the draft be taken to WP:MfD or can it be speedily deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability is fine, this is a pretty well-known author, though more references would not harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to @Nyttend, Primefac, and Ymblanter: for taking a look and sorting this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also a machine translation from Russian; I do not have time right now to clean it up, will mark as a bad translation.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:XPanettaa

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 wonder if one of you with some time on their hands can look at the unblock request on this talk page, and spend a few words explaining whatever your decision is. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can't respond to this as I was the original blocking admin, but the details are in the block section at this revision of Xpanettaa's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to hear others' opinions, but the explanation — inasmuch as I can make it out at all — just doesn't seem credible. As far as I can tell, the story is that a guy he knows also edits Wikipedia from his flat, on a different device (though not at the same time), while another guy from the same school edits as an IP, which explains the technical evidence. But the evidence isn't only technical; in fact AFAICT a CU has never been run. The evidence behind the block was behavioural; they are also all editing obscure recording labels and related topics. I guess if you stretch AGF thin enough then I can imagine a bunch of friends all interested in editing the same things - but then why are they never at the same time? Colour me unconvinced. Add to this that the account claims, on their userpage, to be a native English speaker, and compare that claim with the content of their talkpage; either this is flat-out untrue or their writing is so informal as to be without use in an encyclopaedia. I'm struggling to believe their explanation and I'm struggling to see the benefit to unblocking them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'll state it here since this might not be what Drmies meant by having a few words with the editor. My words would be "Talk page access revoked". After looking, I don't believe him and do not think that the community can trust him. Also, due to the TLDR responses, he is sinking too much time.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) It certainly appears to be a case in which they are actually defending themselves against a charge which has not yet been levied (that of IP socking)- aaaand thus letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Already levied and the case is here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• On further reading, I've declined the unblock request and removed TP access. The explanation is simply not credible; not only have they allegedly got friends who edit the same articles as them at different times while "borrowing" their IP address (like you can lend it to someone while you're not using it???), the same thing has also happened at commons and at nl-wiki. I just can't see it, with all the good will in the world. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi kind of has a point above; AFAICT, the only CU that's been run was at commons and the result was 'Inconclusive'. So being all defensive about the technical evidence is kind of giving the game away, too. If anyone feels like investing more time with this editor in the hope of something productive coming out of it, take this as permission to undo my actions without specifically checking with me first. I wish such an admin luck. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 14 April 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.

Mangled history?

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

---

At Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis the original nomination s referred to by some of the !votes, but is not on the page or in the history, nor do I see the usual indications of a deleted history. Could someone take a look, and if possible restore the original nomination? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the talk page - no idea why people are !voting there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally missed that. Note to self. Next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia. ..--Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe :-) It looks like those !votes have been copied over, so at least they're not being missed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 17 April 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.

Removing of mass readded "nominated for deletion on Commons" tags

Kj1595 has been going around and removing {{nominated for deletion on Commons}} tags from files that have versions on Commons up for deletion. Is there a way to mass readd them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done them manually as there's only 56 of them according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. The same editor is not removing the {{Deleted on Commons}} templates you added. I've re-added one for File:Golemi FC Logo.svg, but haven't touched the rest yet. While I can kind of understand the editor feeling embarrassed over this since they were the reason behind c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595, it seems the usefulness of this template in possibly preventing a similar good faith mistake is more important. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. (By the way the ping did not work, because the ping and the signature have to occur in the same edit.) I've restored the tags and left a more detailed explanation on the user's talk page as to why they shouldn't be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...I re-signed when I pinged, so not sure why it didn't work. Anyway, thanks for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sudden onslaught of sandboxes in Tamil

As I go through the list of new userpages I ran across a lot of (easily 100+) closely spaced creations of sandboxes in Tamil [20]. A run of a random few through Google Translate shows that they are all about things related to Singapore. A few have AFC tags. I suspect this is an unregistered student project...but I'm posting this here since Wiki Ed only deals with English-language courses as far as I'm aware. Any Tamil-speaking admins able to figure something out? – Train2104 (t • c) 05:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

More likely, a wiki conference of some sort, rather than a specific class, given the small time period in which all of them were created. Maybe leave a note on Tamil WP? --Izno (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff lists Tamil as his cradlespeech, so I've asked him for help. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and ping Nyttend, based on just two pages I saw (I haven't looked far into the new page listing), it appears to be some sort of chronology of various elements related to the political history of Tamils in Singapore. There was something related to the main topic at AfD a while back, I think Lemongirl942 might be able to provide some context, from the looks of it, these appear to be non-notable topics and I doubt anything useful would result out of transwikiing this to ta.wiki. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review to close

This one appears to be ready to close [21].

Looks to be 6-3 for Endorse.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old is severely backlogged

Resolved

What the title said. The old revisions of files in this category are essentially copyright violations which do not fall under the fair use exemption, so this should be high priority. I wrote a bit about how to process these at User_talk:BU_Rob13/Archive_7#Non-free_files.2FAN. If you're willing to help and have further questions, let me know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'll hack away at this heap as I have time. According to your instructions, the priority is just deleting the old, large revisions and removing the template; is it a priority to do stuff like check the free-use rationale at the same time and fill in the 'image has rationale' field? Or is it better to just get through the CSD backlog? GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not as high-priority as revision-deleting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick question for admins who've never done much in this area - I had a look at File:Half Girlfriend Poster.jpg and thought, well compared to one of my uploads such as File:Firth of Fifth.ogg, that FUR isn't very good, and two of the rationales are missing. Should we delete anyway because incomplete is incomplete (it's not what I read from WP:CSD#F7, but what do regulars do?), fix the rationales which ought to be doable, or decline outright as at least having some sort of FUR compared to none at all? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I had similar questions - but given the scale of the backlog, I've been pretty shamelessly plucking the low-hanging fruit and leaving anything complicated to those more knowledgeable than myself. How hard would it be to write a bot to spot and process the obvious ones? GoldenRing (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's a pretty standard NFUR. There is no free alternative to an official movie poster, so that field is correctly "not applicable". There could be a better rationale in the respect for commercial opportunities bit, which would read something like "Reproducing a promotional movie poster to identify the article subject is believed to have a minimal effect on commercial opportunities, especially when done at a low resolution." This isn't high priority. The actual "problem" that we need to solve in this backlog isn't the NFURs themselves but the presence of old unused revisions. Old revisions of non-free images must be revision deleted because we can't claim "fair use" on an old version of an image which we no longer need to retain for any encyclopedic purpose. Personally, I don't worry about the NFURs when going through this backlog unless I happen to notice something particularly egregious. We have separate backlogs to verify NFURs, and editors do actively work through them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've installed the script and I'll pick away at these in my spare moments. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: Thanks for raising this. I'm working through the backlog as well. One thing worth mentioning as well to look for is editors repeatedly re-uploading high resolution versions of images after the bot resizes them. I've just run into an image where the uploader did it three times. This creates a lot of work for admins and we should be educating them on why not to do this. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also finding a number of logos that should be PD-logo, and some images that flat-out fail NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Be very careful calling things PD-logo. Things you would think would be simple may not be, especially in certain countries (e.g. Australia) where the threshold of originality is just barely above "it exists". We'd rather have some things be non-free which should be PD-logo than vice versa. Things that fail the NFCC should be nominated for FFD, typically. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Or alternatively call them {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. enwiki does follow only the US copyright law, and US copyright law applies its treshold of originality to foreign works as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unless it is a clear cut, 100% without a doubt, PD-textlogo it is better to leave it as fair use. Logos aren't generally used on more than one article anyways and I doubt third-party reusers are clamoring to use logos we have marked as fair use when they shouldn't be. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've left the dubious ones - but things like File:Current, KOSU, logo, January 2015.jpg and File:Crescent Capital group logo 2.png are straightforward. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nice work all. Squeaky clean. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc re MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext

Resolved

 – Edits to MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext reverted and IP blocked by other admins. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have started a Request for Comments at MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext#Rfc re style of message. Anyone is welcome to come and join this discussion. 120.17.172.248 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI this is a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Tarage (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SvG articles – mass deletion

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.

---

Last year there was a huge debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram. In summary, User:Sander.v.Ginkel (SvG) had created about 16,000 stub biographies of living athletes, usually based on one line in a list of competitors in some event. He was very sloppy, so many of the articles had errors. A few had really serious errors like unsourced assertions that the athlete had lied about their age or nationality and/or had used drugs. The decision was to give one week for editors interested in salvage to request userfication, then to delete the rest. That got softened after the discussion closed into a decision to move them all to draft space, then allow 90 days for review, correction and move back to mainspace, then delete remaining drafts. The cut-off date was 24 April 2017. The clean-up approach is documented at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines.

It was anticipated that some rogue editors might take advantage of the clean-up period to bulk-restore articles without checking them. For this reason an audit approach was defined at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. Basically if spot-checks show an editor has moved a lot of pages without checking them, they all get deleted. There has to be some point where we stop checking and rechecking these trivial stubs that only took a couple of minutes each to create in the first place.

The mass deletion started, and almost immediately user:Trackinfo protested (see User talk:Ymblanter#Mass Deletion). This is to ask for community feedback on whether to:

1. Revert to the original decision, give 7 days notice, then delete all draft and mainspace BLP articles started by User:Sander.v.Ginkel or
2. Continue with the revised approach at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines, mass deleting only the drafts and rogue editor moves or
3. Leave the rogue editors' unchecked moves in mainspace, and leave the drafts indefinitely in the hope they are cleaned up before being moved to mainspace

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2 This has dragged on long enough; the arguments made on Ymblanter's talk page are barely more than IDONTLIKEIT. As Chris troutman rightly pointed out, a one-or-two sentence stub is easy enough to reproduce using proper information. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per Primefac. Plus a huge "thank you" to Aymatth2 for their perseverance with this tedious clean-up. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Put it to rest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Enough is enough. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Just like Only in death says, put it to rest.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2, nuke 'em. Trackinfo has indicated that they're aware of the consensus and just doesn't care about it, so no need to give them any concessions. ansh666 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 per each of the above. Will result in least disruption here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Humanity is wonderfully diverse and there will always be a couple of people who oppose anything. Enough time has passed and there is no evidence of harm being done by the cleanup. Thanks to those doing the work! Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 – I worked on a few of these articles (not as many as I had hoped, but real life got in the way), and while I'm happy that some dedicated editors were able to save a decent portion of the cleanup list, it's time to move on. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 26 April 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.

Adminstats bug

FYI, the template {{adminstats}} seems to be broken. I've commented at Template talk:Adminstats#Bug - says I'm not an admin. Fences&Windows 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Cyberpower678#Adminstats_error --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Has happened before, see here. Lectonar (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Violation of community ban

Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Light show was community banned from all uploads here in November 2014. He has twice before violated the ban. He was indeffed at Commons in November 2013. The ban there was lifted with restrictions in October 2015. On December 30, 2016, he was community banned at Commons.

I've been moving a lot of files to Commons over the last few weeks. Not long ago, I was able to remove 2-3 like this one File:Louis B. Mayer and wife.jpg from the CCI page and was thinking about whether or not those files should be moved to Commons; went to the upload log and found this: File:Saul Zaentz1.jpg Despite many appeals, the last one in July 2016, the upload ban here has never been lifted. We hope (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been dealing with this a long time ......thank you Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. What would like to see happen?--Moxy (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Has the community ban been violated or are you seeking guidance on whether past uploads here from an editor banned on Commons can be transferred to Commons? If the latter, you must direct that question to the Commons community, not us. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The community ban here has been violated by this upload File:Saul Zaentz1.jpg. We hope (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for upload#Saul Zaentz ..but did he ask?--Moxy (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no record of his asking the community for a lifting/exception to the ban outside of his last appeal in July 2016 I'm aware of. We hope (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

He's linked to User:Moonriddengirl talk page as the reason he can upload the image. Perhaps they can explain more?--Moxy (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MRG hasn't been active as an editor for a while. This looks like the last post by him re: permissions-from last year. In the thread, she explains that he needs to come to AN to do anything about the upload ban. We hope (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem may be able to shed more light in the absence of MRG, as he's aware of the history here. We hope (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Best I know the ban is still in effect, per We hope. That said, I can track down the original [22] and can't really tell if that's a commercial work or not, but it does seem to be a otherwise valid NFC image. But I think that Light show should have saught approval or request someone else to upload it as this is a technical violation of the ban. Perhaps a gentle reminder that the ban still exists and the next time will be a block? --MASEM (t) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this, he initially did ask for an upload "Note: I can upload this with approval." Then he said he could do it himself. "I can upload it. Thanks. --" Not sure how MRG ties into this because she explained previously that he had to seek community approval before resuming any uploads. We hope (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My read is that Light show should not have uploaded that; they needed community approval to remove the ban, not for a case-by-case upload allownace. (They are certainly free to ask to ask another editor "can you upload this image for me", presuming that editor takes responsibility if there's a NFC problem). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you; FWIW, this is the third time he's violated the uploading ban. We hope (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF that they really believed they could do it in limited circumstances. They can't though, and I have issued an explicit reminder that they are still topic banned and that if there are further such misunderstandings in the future, blocks will be forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is quite an amazing discussion. It's been pointed out to me numerous times that it's OK to ask others to upload an image, which is what I did. I even made clear as part of the request that I was also seeking approval from MRG in case she would simply let me do it and save an editor the effort. A regular uploading editor obviously read the request and stated clearly, Approval granted.

As for why this is amazing, in case it's not self-evident, it's because all someone would have had to do is add a note about the issue on my talk page. At a minimum, We Hope, or anyone else here, should have first or also contacted the approving editor, User:Majora, about this apparent and/or ultra-petty violation, which it seems no one has attempted. If there is some violation worth considering, it would clearly be the continual hounding and targeting. To again see another AN about this easily fixed triviality is quite something. I would have been happy to delete the image and let another editor upload it.--Light show (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you have been told that, you didn't get someone else to upload it, you did it yourself. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that it's not the case that any individual editor can excuse you (even for a single edit) from a community ban. Sam Walton (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this reply from Light Show is really not helping their case. You didn't ask "can I have approval to violate a topic ban?" so it's completely spurious to say you had approval. Don't upload any more images unless and until the topic ban is lifted. Period. It's not complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to apologize here. I did not actually read the ban and I was under the impression that they were fine as long as they got approval. I did ask if they wanted me to upload it for them and they said they would do it. They did not put the right tags on the image but I went ahead and fixed that. I'm sorry if I caused issues. Probably should have read the actual ban discussion before agreeing to grant "approval" of some sort. --Majora (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that, given Majora's comment, this has been resolved. Light show should now know that their ban is still in effect, and that they can ask other editors to upload images, but cannot do so themselves, even if the other editor mistakenly gives "permission" for Light show to do so. Light show should also be aware now that they shouldn't ask for permission. If something like this happens again, I feel sure that an admin will issue the appropriate block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be a minor

I just came across this user during page patrols, now he's not revealing a ton of information, but I'm concerned with what he is revealing. Based on his page, he's likely a minor, and has revealed his name (first and last ) and a partial phone number, which means location. I'm pretty sure that's not too safe. I've removed the information that reveals his name and location and I've left him a note on his page about why this isn't safe. Perhaps an admin could chime in or remove the unsafe information.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I have revdeled the info, but do not see your messsage on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar It's there now. I contribute from work and got interrupted before I could piost the message. Thanks for the assist!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Work happens to the best of us; thank you for catching this. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OccultZone siteban rescinded

The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:

• OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
• OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
• OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:

• Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
• Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:

• Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
• Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
• Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone siteban rescinded

Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):

• The "Expectations of administrators" section
• The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section

A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.

The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

CAT:UNBLOCK

Hey, I was going to kill 5 minutes and attack something in CAT:UNBLOCK - something I admit I haven't done in a while - and noticed a pretty large backlog (40 users), many with 2-3 weeks since the last edit to the page by anyone. We should probably deal with these, even if it is to decline them. If everyone with experience accepting/declining unblock requests dealt with 2 of these, I imagine the backlog would disappear fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Emil Bachrach

Resolved

 – The issue has been dealt with amicably. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you guys help me to sort this out with Todd?. I guess wiki has changed a lot since the start.--Jondel (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite that there is a notification "In Progress" , he is now blatantly removing Jewish categories.--Jondel (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with just leaving the categories out until you provide a source for them? Once there's a source, you can re-add them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jondel, I haven't been around as long as you have, but verifiability has been one of Wikipedia's core principles at least since I started editing in 2007; that you're required to provide references for your information isn't exactly a new development that any admin could be forgiven for having overlooked. Frankly, I agree with many of Toddst1's concerns; you've failed to notify him of this thread, abused the rollback function in a content dispute, and added (and restored) unsourced and contested information about living people. As for the Bachrach categories, I'll AGF that you were still getting around to adding sources for the unsupported claims (descriptive categories need to be verifiable just the same as prose). There's always the option of working on new entries in the draft namespace or a user sandbox so you can fully develop the article in peace without having to worry about editors challenging your unfinished material. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I've recently added sources, such as a book and articles from Embassies. The person is notable.--Jondel (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'm apologizing to him and restoring to the version by Todd.--Jondel (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just stumbled upon this thread. Glad things got worked out. I wouldn't have brought this here as I've been trying to work things out on Jondel's talk page, but now that it's here, I'm starting the subsection below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

CIR as an admin

Resolved

 – Toddst1 has made a request (voluntarily de-sysop), Jondel has said they'll brush up on the admin policies, and Toddst1 may or may not be taking Jondel to ArbCom over that (which, as mentioned below, is really the only non-voluntary option). There's really nothing more for us to do here. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about Jondel having the admin bit with his demonstrated lack of knowledge of the basic workings of Wikipedia. @Jondel:, I think it would be best if you asked for your admin privileges to be removed. As you say, wiki has changed a lot since the start. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted I will be reviewing the workings.--Jondel (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at their recent administrator actions, Jondel has:

• Blocked 112.202.14.185 for 3 hours, 5 hours after they made 2 edits, at least one of which seemed to be an effort to undo vandalism.
• Blocked 124.168.174.252 for 72 hours for a single edit.
• Blocked 38.132.34.58 for 1 week, a day after they made 2 edits.

Going further down the log (into 2014, 2013) shows a mix of similarly (in my opinion) bad admin actions and more sensible actions. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam, those are good points. Some more:

• None of the these IPs were warned before these inappropriate blocks were applied.
• None of these blocks were followed up with any WP:EXPLAINBLOCK action.
• Regarding the block of 112.202.14.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in January 2017, here are a couple of important points:

• All edits from this editor appear to have been reverting vandalism [23] [24]
• Jondel fully-protected the page that the IP had reverted vandalism on for no apparent reason.

We have a pattern of abuse of administrative privileges in addition to the basic issues called out above. I'm not content to have this admin "reviewing the workings." It's time to give up the bit, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Just throwing this out there: if you're seeking an involuntary desysop unless they voluntarily get one, filing a request at WP:A/R/C is really the proper venue. Other than saying that I'm going to stay out of this in case a request does get filed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it be fair if we characterized this as misuse, rather than abuse? In any case, the only means to remove the privileges is WP:RFAR unless Jondel asks for them to be removed. –xeno^talk 01:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and Yes. I don't believe these series of issues are intentional, perhaps rather a bigger pattern where competency may have been lost. You are right - "misuse" is better than "abuse." Either way, I don't think the patterns show admin-level competency.

My broader point was that I hope Jondel voluntarily asks for the admin privilege to be removed. If not, I intend to open a request at WP:RFAR but less drama is better. When I suggested the voluntary option, his answer (above) was that he will study the basics. IMHO, that's not a good enough answer. I hope he reconsiders. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND certainly applies. Getting the current Committee to apply ADMINCOND is likely to be challenging, but if it ever applies, this is it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

MTC! v1.0.0

I just released a new version of my move to Commons tool, MTC!. I'm looking for a few willing volunteers to try it out and provide some feedback :) Thanks, FASTILY 03:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

archive.org is down

• https://archive.org/

• archive.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.archive.org

After seeing this, I went to check and although I can't find an RS to support it, I will say that the site is not returning DNS lookups. This affects a huge number of archived references and a vast number of articles. Hopefully the edit is incorrect and the site being down is temporary...but right now it doesn't look good. Can anyone else reach the site?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, ran a few "down or not" checks and it's down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See this tweet, apparently a power outage. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org is based in San Francisco, which had a major power outage from about 9am to 2pm PDT, due to a fire in a substation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it really the case that something as important as this can be brought to its knees with a local power outage? No mirroring?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the wide-world scheme of things, I doubt that archive.org counts as "as important as this" compared to, say, San Francisco's Financial District, which also went down - but I assume in the wake of the outage, the folks at the Internet Archive are probably talking about their options for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has some level of data backup in other countries and are proceeding with plans to make a mirror site in Canada. Jason Scott has spearheaded a distributed backup stored by volunteers that doesn't rely on any Internet Archive hardware. (Here's some more info on their data storage process, and did you know its headquarters is in a former church (more photos from Jason Scott)?) isaacl (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennepicfoundation: move from topic ban to full ban

There is consensus among the community of editors that Jennepicfoundation be banned indefinitely from editing any and all pages of the English Wikipedia. Following the indefinite block already enacted by Ks0stm, Jennepicfoundation will also loose the ability to edit her user talk page. I have notified her about the ban and the option of appealing it via WP:UTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a series of blocked sockpuppets and a discussion on ANI, an article ban was put in place for Jennepicfoundation (talk · contribs) related to her boss (the only subject she has edited) in December 2016. Since then, she has abided by the restricition, not editing the article itself but the repetitive requests on the talk page have diverged into WP:GAME where she was caught placing pieces in the press to then use them as sources.

Her latest request makes it clear that she is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, rather to use Wikipedia as another channel in he Epic Foundation's efforts to promote its leader. I believe it is time to stop wasting time dealing with her requests on the talk page and replace the topic ban with an WP:SBAN. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried really hard to work with her but I agree this has gotten to be a pain. She was page-banned in December (after copy-pasting a "foundation approved" biography into our article), but allowed to make comments and suggestions on the article talk page. Since then she has posted "now can we add this?" comments to the talk page on January 5 (pinging me again on January 10 when I hadn't responded), March 8, and April 19. In every case she proposes new sources in an effort to get us to restore information that had been in the company bio, but was declined by us Wikipedians as not independently sourced. In her latest request, she tries to get us to accept as sources things like Seekingalpha.com, DNAIndia, SXSW (apparently a conference whose program includes his canned biography), a Huffington Post blog (a profile whose neutrality can be divined from the opening sentence, "Alexandre Mars has a special radiance around him"), and the Jordan Times (a one-sentence quote from him). I have been the primary person working with her in the past, which is why she pings me, but I have to admit I have become slow to respond; my reaction has become "here we go again!" Her entire goal here appears to be, to make the Wikipedia article duplicate as closely as possible the "foundation approved" biography she copy-pasted into the article in December. I'm afraid Todd is right; she is not here to build an encyclopedia. She is only here to do her job, namely, to create a Wikipedia article that promotes her employer. He is notable and deserves an article, but it has to be an encyclopedia article, not a puff piece. And it's clear that "puff piece" is her only goal. I reluctantly endorse Todd's suggestion of a siteban, per WP:NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is of interest: Earlier today, someone suggested she work on other articles instead of being an SPA, and she asked whether doing that would further her "overall ambition to edit Alexandre Mars' page", and she complained about the "backlash" she has received in "trying to update his page." [25] She could hardly have been clearer about what her purpose here is. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what this editor is doing here. Support. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support I've just read through the editor's history - user talk page, the article tp, etc. I'm actually surprised how long NOTHERE has been tolerated, we should strive to shut this kind of editor down faster. Leading them on for months is counterproductive at every level; it wastes not only the editor's time, it also wastes the time and goodwill of those dealing with the endless requests for edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support very clear SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Editor has breached a whole lot of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT in order to continue a campaign of promotionalism. Not to mention the GAMEy and POINTy behaviour referenced above. It's a fair point, of course, that they have breached these codes of behaviour at least in part becasue we have alowed them tto. By that token, this is now the point at which we do what we we didn't do, in the spirit of good faith and reason, some months ago. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wouldn't just extending the topic ban to include talk pages achieve the same thing while appearing a bit less heavy handed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the responses below make sense, so I support a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support AGF is not a suicide pact. Enough time and energy has been expended trying to allow this user to subvert Wikipeida's purpose; a clearer example of WP:NOTHERE would be hard to come by. With regards to Boing's suggestion, such an extension would be tantamount to a site ban anyway, since she has no interest in any other aspect of Wikipedia. Might as well make it official... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Kind of self-imposed anyway. Lectonar (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This conduct is clearly not OK, especially as it means that unpaid volunteer editors are having to regularly spend time dealing with someone who is trying to bias the article as part of their paid employment. I agree with Roger's comment that it's surprising how long this has gone on for. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Enough is enough. MelanieN has had the patience of a saint here. Katie^talk 12:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This isn't heavy handed, this is an editor who is solely here to promote their employer, and has stated as much. We don't need this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - COI edit requests are already consistently backlogged with editors trying to abide by our rules. Having this one jamming the queue with obviously frivolous requests is clearly harmful to the project, and enough of our time has been wasted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - the purpose of any limited ban (including topic ban, interaction ban, etc.) is to find a way to benifit from a user's usefulness while reducing his/her disruptiveness. A user who declared that any usefulness is just a method to forwars his/her disruptiveness is clearly not a candidate for a limited ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• note. After Jennepicfoundation was indefinitely blocked per block log by User:Ks0stm, citing this discussion, I closed this. The OP requested that I revert it to allow the siteban to be decided upon, and I have done so. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  It was my original intent that this block was made in my personal capacity as an admin based on the overwhelming consensus here that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Though I didn't care enough to reopen the discussion myself, I am perfectly happy to have this discussion keep running until a final outcome regarding whether to supersede my block with a formal, community-issued site ban is decided. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Uncooperative paid promotional editors are the herpes of Wikipedia. Harsh, maybe, but there you go. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Quite clearly necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 22 April 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:Delfadoriscool blocked as possible compromised account

Delfadoriscool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Delfadoriscool had left in 2015, and someone has recently started editing with this account. There are a deleted draft about some sort of fictional/imaginary/not part of our world place (The map shows it to about where Poland and Lithuania would be.) and some strange and concerning edits on the user page. Had no idea if/where to mention this, so it's here. Last edit was 11/23/15. This was the first edit to the user pageon 2/21/17contribs & seleted contribs thanks Dlohcierekim 05:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, user seem to have had too few edits (a total of 5—first edit is this bit of vandalism & personal attack) to tell whether the account is compromised. El_C 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Was I hasty? Should I unblock Dlohcierekim 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at 20 or so rather odd edits to user page since February as well. ... Dlohcierekim

Hasty with the assessment the account was compromised, yes—but the account does have a troubled and otherwise odd history overall, there's no denying that. I see no harm in unblocking, but also I estimate no great loss to the project if they remain indef'd. El_C 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Computers at work are back up, so I may be away from W for a while. Dlohcierekim 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No rush. El_C 09:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The account's entire history is so brief that I can't see how we could determine if it is compromised or not, but all of the recent edits have been to add nonsense to their userpage, which I have just deleted per WP:U5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of a New Page - Achinthya Puranik (ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್)

Resolved

 – Thorough response, and not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I want to create a new page with the name Achinthya Puranik (ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್), who became famous through a TV reality show called Drama Juniors in ZEE Kannada TV. He has a huge fan following across Karnataka and other parts of the world, where Kannada program viewers reside. He is 5 years 10 months old, but already has acted in 3 movies and couple of TV serials. His official FaceBook page has more than 12000 followers and there are many fan club pages in his name. He is also going to endorse one of the leading brands in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avimajur (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Avimajur, for a start you should read Wikipedia:Your first article. Please note also that the general notability of subjects for a Wikipedia article is not established by the number of fans or movie appearances. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what other, secondary sources have reliably reported about a topic. If you can find in-depth reports of magazines, newspapers or reliable websites about this person (please don't use blogs or other user-generated sites), you can write a first version at Draft:Achinthya Puranik where you can experiment with the layout and content. You will have to present at least one reliable source for your article because we have a rule that all new biographies of living people must be reliably sourced. This page will not yet be a live article but it will be reviewed by experienced editors and can then be moved to the live article space if it meets the requirements. On a final note, we don't use the native name in brackets for a page title but refer only to the commonly used English name or transliteration. You may, however, mention the Kannada version of the name in the first sentence of your draft page: Achinthya Puranik (Kannada: ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್) is an Indian child actor from ... De728631 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411

Resolved

 – Not moved, reasons given. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 -->

Please move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident

Keeps with same nomenclature for all deletion discussions about same page.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No - since the title of the article at the time was United Express Flight 3411, the discussion page is titled correctly. ansh666 23:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There may be, occasionally, a justification to move open AfD discussions; there certainly is no need to move closed ones. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes there is – when the original AfD is mistilted, which prevents it from being listed in later AfD's under the same title (e.g. [26] ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "this AFD is clearly misnamed" and "this page has since been moved." As has been rightly pointed out by both sides, the former should be renamed and the latter should not. I will agree, though, that it can sometimes make subsequent nominations be off by an ordinal, but that's what the talk page records are for. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Barring actual problems with the AFD, don't move a discussion — move it if there were a mistake when it was created (IJBall gives a good example of such a thing), or move it if the title itself is somehow causing problems (I'm meaning something much more significant than "3rd nomination", something that's quite rare), but if the title were correct when it was created, don't move it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unban appeal information

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

---

Hello, I have been topic banned from editing about Chemical Weapons for 6 months and it is highly imperative that I am not. I am not sure why I have been banned and was given no reason. I guess first of all I would like to know why I am banned, then I can decide if and how to appeal. I think this should be the correct way around? Someone told me that I can actually get a longer ban if I appeal, so i don't actually want to appeal. Just want a bit more info. I asked the banning administrator for more details and waited a day or two and got no reply. I have been editing well since on unrelated topics and showing good behavior. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If I was the admin who had imposed that sanction and had seen your reply [27] I would have just indef blocked you right then and there. I would suggest that you just accept the topic ban, stop being so melodramatic about the urgent need for you, personally, to "fix" this topic area, and find something else to do. Beeblebrox (talk)

Agree with Beeblebrox. The reasons for the topic ban are on your talk page. Your post above offers no good reason for the topic ban to be lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the notion of it being "imperative" that you not be banned from the article. Just reading that note raises concerns in my mind about lifting the ban. Beeblebrox is spot on. Dlohcierekim 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice and understand your sentiments. It doesn't look good to lead with the urgent tone and I should have explained myself better. All I really want to do in that subject area is restore one page that seems to have been turned into a redirect without proper discussion or reason after my ban. This article shows the use of a certain substance by a group that shouldn't have it. Should the world ignore that this group has access to this substance and used it before, we could all end up in a lot of trouble very soon. I hope that explains my urgency reasonably, without breaking the terms of my ban. If anyone is able to spot this page and revert, I will be able to relax and accept this sanction. The reasons are not on my talk page by the way or at least I cannot see them or understand them. All I can see are unfounded allegations. I will have trouble correcting behavior if not told what it was and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you do appear to be reasonably aware of BLP and SYNTH, but somehow just cannot seem to help yourself violating both. But while you are allowed some leeway with the latter, the same cannot be said of the former. If you're, mercifully, to take anything from this ban, please let it be that. El_C 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the advice. I have done some biographies of dead persons in similar circumstances to the page that I think I might have broken those rules on. Hopefully these will demonstrate my future willingness to comply with both BLP and SYNTH as best I can. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaRaRasputin: I am struggling to think of what you could be referring to here, other than asking, in violation of your topic ban, for another editor to edit war on your behalf at February 2015 Darayya chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and gave them an involuntary break to brush up on how topic bans work. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Another admin has just extended it to an indef block in response to an insultingly stupid unblock request. I think we're probably done here for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 23 April 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.

CfR dscussions in need of closing

I'm in the process of trying to normalize the entire group of organization category trees; as a result, I keep creating new discussions, with overlap which can make things confusing. It would be nice if admins here would keep up with closing these - there are currently 5 which can be closed: Animal welfare, Greece, business, Iran, and Poland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User group expiration is now available

A new feature for user groups is an "expiration date", for questions or to discuss further please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#User group EXPIRATIONS are now live. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to This, that and the other for working on this! Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @This, that and the other and Xaosflux: this is awesome, WP:RFP/ACC will benefit greatly with this ability. :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope this new functionality will be of some use! — This, that and the other (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Third time unlucky RfC at Talk:Human#Proposed_merge_with_Homo_sapiens

Resolved

An RfC on merging Human with Homo sapiens was closed a mere ten days ago [28], with both a general consensus against a merge, and a certain amount of cloud shadow because the entire thing was perceived as an end-run around a similar decision reached in a deletion discussion five days before that. The same editor who started the previous two attempts has now fired up another RfC - an exact copy of its predecessor [29].

I do believe there is some kind of policy, understood if not written down, that is supposed to prevent this kind of try try again approach to matters that have been subject to a community decision. I would be obliged if an administrator could stick their head in and expand on that, for both the RfC author's and my edification (as I'd like to know what exactly the stance is on this). If I'm correct here, I'd also like to request a procedural close of this repeat incarnation of a rather decisively settled RfC.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've closed the RfC. There needs to be a major change in circumstances in the article to re-run such a discussion so quickly. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:LylaSand

I am not editing the Syrian War articles, but once we are here, does anybody know if User:LylaSand is here to build an encyclopaedia? 1 week old account, 95 edits, exclusively edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was surprised to see them arrive at Ghouta chemical attack, checked their history, and see that they are clearly an WP:SPA. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Based on my experience, she contributed constructively on many pages and was engaged in civil discussions. I do not see any problems. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Affirm what is written above. There are plenty of people who edit Syria-related articles and little else. If this is a basis for WP:NOTHERE I have a few POV-pushers I will refer. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from user Edday1051

• Edday1051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Edday1051 has requested consideration of the standard offer, apparently via UTRS however there's been some breakdown in process and their request was never posted here (partly my own fault). Details of the disruptive behaviour which led to his block can be read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive#31 August 2016; the account is also checkuser-blocked by Bbb23. Edday1051's unblock request is reproduced below:

I would like to request an unblock of my account per standard offer. I understand what led to my block, which includes use of multiple accounts and edit warring, and do not intend on engaging in this behavior going forward. Edday1051 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A subsequent SPI on 15 September 2016 suggested he had also been editing through IP 50.29.199.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked at the request of SPI clerk L235. A number of other reports from the same user around the same time and with similar evidence returned negative CU checks, which I think adds doubt to L235's determination (i.e. there's a lot of disruptive editors in NFL articles). Edday1051 himself has denied the connection, passionately enough to have had his talk page access revoked at the time. That being said, I have just given the IP a 4im warning for gravedancing and personal attacks from earlier this week.

I am posting on the user's behalf and am neutral unless I make subsequent comments. Please check User talk:Edday1051 for additional comments from the user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• My general thought for cases like this is that if the editor genuinely keeps way for six months, then the default position should be to unblock unless there is anything especially egregious. There is the suspected block evasion in September, but I don't see the evidence as really being strong enough and I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, we have someone who has been contributing constructively for a long time and who previously only had a few blocks back in 2011. I support unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support He appears to understand what he did was wrong and claims that he wont do it again. The only potential problem is if he was editing through the IP 50.29.199.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as the standard offer doesn't apply if they are using socks to evade. From examining the SPI review, there didn't appear to be any check user done to confirm if that was really his sock or not. While the edits were suspiciously similar, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has also claimed all along that IP was not him. -Obsidi (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers would not be able to comment on that, per the privacy policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exception to the privacy policy that I think would apply in this instance. As per [30]: If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed. and per WP:CheckUser If the user has said they're from a certain region and their IP address confirms that they are, you are permitted to declare that checkuser verifies they are. He has explicitly claimed he is not in the same state as the IP, and specifically asked for a check user to confirm that (on his talk page). Doing a quick geolocation on 50.29.199.144, it appears that IP is in New Jersey. It shouldn't be a violation of the privacy policy to confirm that his location is not in New Jersey (without revealing where). Also per WP:CheckUser: The disclosure of actual checkuser data (such as IP addresses) is subject to the privacy policy, which requires that identifying information not be disclosed except under the following circumstances: With the permission of the affected user... -Obsidi (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - although the appeal statement is very short, he's added more on his talk page. This user has a long, productive history prior to their block (their first, although it escalated quickly) and I don't see any harm being prevented by keeping them blocked at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have no objections to an unblock. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as non-admin and filer of the sock investigation resulting in current block (pls delete if inappropriate). Editor's longstanding but periodic DE led to discovery of the socks and remains the core issue. All three accounts received multiple uw templates from the community on the respective Talk pages. Editor has obvious difficulty working towards consensus in response to reverts of their BOLD edits. For example, the edit which caught my initial interest re DE/SOCK was a threat have a longstanding editor banned if they didn't accept his (DE) edits. XTools shows zero posts to Article Talk pages and 12 post to other editor's Talk vs 3000 article edits. If approved, please clearly articulate expectations re collaboration and reaching consensus with other editors. Lastly, the editor in multiple appeals repeatedly states "do not intend to" which is different that "will not" (re resumption of specific actions). Judge that as you see fit. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked zombie proxy that is not blocked

111.96.92.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is tagged as a Category:Zombie proxies blocked on Wikipedia but isn't blocked and being used to promote anti-Semitism. Should it be untagged or reblocked? DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What's a zombie proxy? nevermind, rhetorical question. The block expired a week or two ago. I've reblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent block rationale as well! Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pile-on praise for that rationale! Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED block of User:SimonTrew

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 blocked User:SimonTrew for ongoing personal attacks that he has been repeatedly warned about, in reaction to this ANI thread. The particular impetus for this IAR block is this set of comments. I am very clearly WP:INVOLVED with regard to this user however I believe the "any reasonable administrator" exemption applies in this instance. Posting here for accountability: if there is consensus that my action is unjustified please do not hesitate to overturn. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Totally justified, lenient even. 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
• Endorse block Very lenient considering past block history for same behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Hard to write a clearer statement that they intend to treat WikiP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The PA's are also blockable. MarnetteD|Talk 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Rather too short imho. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block As an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked for a longer time that's for sure. Block totally justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Seems very clear that a block was approrpriate given the extreme personal attack that occured, probably should have been longer. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. People sometimes need to vent a little when stressed by being taken to ANI and there should be some leniency in such situations, but this latest was a seriously over-the-top attack and needed a firm response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but 31 hours was far, far too lenient. I suggest that if SimonTrew even looks cross-eyed at another editor after his block runs out, the next block should jump the normal sequence and be for a substantial period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Having now read the unblock request, I am surprised this editor is even still here. I hope some kind of apology will be forthcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block and I agree with the above that 31 hours is rather lenient. Hut 8.5 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block and its precise length. It was warranted because of the continued disruption and rampant PAs over multiple pages during the ANI thread, but it is short enough to allow the user to request one last reprieve before he gets hit with a possible site ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

With 6 sysops replying, it's fair to say there's unanimous support for the block. Stickee (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And with nearly full consnesus (including no admin opposition) that the block was too lenient, I extended it to be longer than the previous block - since thhat was 2 weeks, I've extended this to 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 27 April 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.

Is this a copyvio or just a breach of a website's T&Cs?

Via an OTRS ticket I've been made aware that we have over 41,000(!) links, mostly used as references in visa requirement articles, linking to http://www.timaticweb.com. This site is a subscription site but the links inserted include a set of log in details, hence the links go through to the final page rather than a landing page. The owners of the website are naturally a bit distressed that we are hosting so many links to a trade site that users have to pay for. As they are also the owners of the public site http://www.iatatravelcentre.com there is not objection to this site being linked to instead.

By having in the link the necessary information to log into the site this would appear to be a breach of timaticweb T&C let alone security and not an action we should condone?

Suggestions for actions? I'm thinking

1. suggest the site owners disable the account that appears to being used in the links
2. we remove all the links and consider replacing with links to www.iatatravelcentre.com, however I think this needs a query completing for each combination of countries. (Bot task?)

Nthep (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words we are using URLs that provide a login access to content, rather than plain links which point to a landing/"subscription required" page? Well, I guess it'd depend on whether the content of the public site iatatravelcentre is of the same quality as the timaticweb one. Something to compare with: What would Wikimedia do if there was a website that lists accounts with login details, allowing violations of WP:SHARE? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is some previous discussion of these links at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#links to TimaticWeb. There are also tmeplates that use Timatic Template:Timatic and Template:Timatic Visa Policy which may need to be looked at. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I would say that without permission from both Timatic and the airline whose login we are using we really shouldn't have these links. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that the user details are coded into both these templates (it's appears to be a Gulf Air account). The difference between the two sites is that timatciweb gives travel trade practitioners a one page summary of visa requirements whereas iatatravelcentre gives a more personalised result based on the input of more information that just home country and destination. Nthep (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation, probably just a breach of the other website's terms and conditions. We're not hosting any copyrighted content, and we're linking to a website that is legitimately hosting content. If the account information is being used illegitimately, that's for them to handle (or not) how they wish. We have no legal obligation not to host such URLs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps no legal obligation not to make our users fraudulently access another website when they follow our links, but I would suggest a moral one, to our readers if no one else. I for one would like to be warned before clicking on such a link. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's on the operators of the website to not have a login system which can be accessed by passing credentials in the URL; I would argue this makes it publicly accessible. On the other hand, if they have clearly stated that this material is meant to be accessed only by subscription, then the link probably violates their copyright (i.e. the editor posting the link here has violated their copyright) and yes Wikipedia can be legally liable for hosting links to copyrighted content in such a situation (IANAL, but see contributory copyright infringement). It's probably in our best interest to remove the links and perhaps blacklist the site, at least temporarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no policy-based reason to change anything. Ignoring subscription access procedures is not a copyright issue (contributory infringement is impossible unless someone else is copying in an infringing manner; if we're linking to something put up by the owner, nobody's infringing copyright), and we're not bound by their T&A. However, I agree that this simply isn't the right thing to do; we shouldn't be helping someone get content that they should have to pay for. What to do? Do the links go to born-digital data, or are they merely digital versions of print originals? If the former, we'll have to replace something. If the latter, removing the links will be sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the obvious solution is to not allow users to login to your site via a URL, which seems like incredibly poor security, however this is a good faith request and I see no reason not to 'fix' or remove these URLs. Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the credentials used to 'share' access to timaticweb have been disabled by the site. As it looks like a lot of the 41k links are via the {{Timatic}} I suggest the template is temporarily locked to prevent another set of credentials being substituted (something I think has been done before looking at the template history). This now leaves us with a lot of non-working links, attempting to follow a link brings up a 503 error not a redirect to the landing page.

Now while I originally labelled this section as a possible copyvio, I accept that the content being linked to isn't copyrighted just a very convenient repository but I share the sentiments of others who feel it isn't right that we are hosting a method of sharing account information and possibly undermining a commercial operation whether or not we feel they need to address their site security. Nthep (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have placed both templates under full-pp for two weeks while we work out what to do if anything. I have a feeling that replacing the links with links to iatatravelcentre isn't going to achieve anything as it requires quite detailed information submitting into the query field to produce a result. Nthep (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We were discussing this on several occasions before but never came up with a definite answer. There are two issues here, copyright and the use as a reference. When it comes to copyright in all likelihood the information stored does not pass the threshold of creativity to be copyrighted, it's just facts that by definition can't be copyrighted. It's not even originally created by Timatic, only compiled as the data is provided by the national governments and in most countries government-produced material is not copyrighted. However I've always removed direct copy/pasting of content from Timatic just to avoid any possible copyvio claims. So for that matter there is very little grounds to claim any copyright violations as we don't store any of the material which could be copyrighted here, we only link to it. The more complicated issue is whether we can use it as a source. Timatic is openly accessible, links with credentials are to be found on airline websites or forums like FlyerTalk, there is absolutely no log-in required or any warning whatsoever, saying that it is a subscription service would make very little sense. Credentials are changed only if one of the airlines ceases using Timatic and switches to another service like Delta or KLM did meaning the KLM was switched to Gulf not because KLM blocked access but because it switched to klm.traveldoc.aero. But even if it was a subscription service it shouldn't prevent us from using it as a reference, just like any other paid source. This is how landing page access looks like - https://www.olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic but it takes you to the same page as the ones used in links. But if a bot can replace all of the links with a corresponding link on www.iatatravelcentre.com which is supposedly OK then it should be fine.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The only objection is that use of credentials in templates on Wikipedia breaches the terms and conditions of use of Timatic T&C clause 1.1. Whether these credentials are widely available elsewhere is not the point, this is about whether Wikipedia should be participating in such conduct. Now if all 41,000 links are via the two templates mentioned above then changing the link to point to the search page of iatatravelcentre.com or using olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which seems to me to be an easier interface i.e. not as much detailed travel information required probably isn't a huge job. Nthep (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

But does the "IATA Timatic Service(s)" refer to the database? Timatic is a big system used by the airlines, it's mostly automated these days. The terms of service refer to the Timaticweb2 which should be the program used by airlines to screen passengers against visa and health requirements. In the FAQ it says "TimaticWeb 2 is based on the Timatic database.". What we are linking to here is as far as I understand the Timatic database, I don't think we are using the Timaticweb2 subscription service. But if it can be all easily replaced to www.iatatravelcentre.com or olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic then of course we should do that.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just had a good look about the T&Cs of Timatic. It seems like that those who access Timatic as a member of the public are considered "users", per the definition:"'[u]ser' means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Also under section 4.2: "The Subscriber may provide Users with IATA Timatic Information using interfaces developed independently of this Subscription (when subscribing to IATA Timatic AutoCheck) or as may be provided by IATA. The Subscriber may provide public access to IATA Timatic Information on their website including mobile websites and mobile applications, provided the Subscriber ensures that any public user is notified of the statement in clause 7.3." So it seems that each individual request is made as a user and is covered under section 4.2 (hence the KLM or Golf Air authentication), and the section 1.1 only applies to subscribers which definitely does not apply to Wikipedia in this case. Put it this way: we are just accessing the information provided by the airlines as a member of the public. Let me know if I'm missing anything else here. C-GAUN (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, IMO there's nothing we did to breach the T&Cs on the use of Timatic services. We have not violated the terms of use in section 4. The fees are between IATA and the subscribers, and do not concern the users. The information we access is provided by the IATA and none have violated section 7. C-GAUN (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A bit more details on the compliance of terms. 4.3.1 is not violated because at none of the time the information has been extracted, resold or transfered; none of the information is stored on Wikipedia as a compliance per 4.3.3; there is no application that retrieves the previously accessed version of Timatic hence 4.3.4 is satisfied. Section 5, 6, 7 mainly concern the terms between subscribers and IATA and are not applicable in this case. Would love to hear your opinions but please read the T&C thoroughly for more constructive comments. C-GAUN (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@C-GUAN: thank you for your assessment however I contend that what is lacking is visibility of consent from the subscribers (i.e. the airlines) for members of the public to use their credentials to access the site - the wording is "

Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription" - my emphasis on facilitation. Where is the evidence of that facilitation in the templates here on Wikipedia? Did KLM or Gulf Air give permission for their credentials to be used or as alluded to by Twofortnights were just picked up off a fan forum and changed from KLM to Gulf Air by the same process when KLM stopped using Timeatic? IATA as the owners of Timeatic obviously think the T&Cs are being breached otherwise why would they have bothered to make contact. I suggest para 4.2 allows airlines to give unfettered access to the public to Timeatic through their own interface as part of that airline's subscription, for example, olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which is why I suggested that if the templates are modified to access the data via an airlines interface that is in compliance with the T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the main problem is that there is NO T&C governing how the users may access the information via the subscribers or Timatic as a whole. Obviously the Timatic T&C here is followed. If you can find other information on the KLM or Golf Air website stating that users are somewhat restricted from accessing the information then I don't see if there's a problem, as IATA can unilaterally change their TOS but chooses not to. Also 4.2 stated the subscriber may provide the access via their own interface OR the Timatic interface so long as 7.3 or 7.4 is satisfied, which is the case here. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So where is the authorisation of KLM, Gulf Air or any other airline to use their credentials to access the Timeatic website directly? A query via the airlines own website that returns a result from Timeatic I understand but not using a set of credentials without confirmation of a) where the credentials came from, and b) do the airline agree to their being used via Wikipedia? Regardless of how we feel about this we have the owners of the website saying that the access to Timeatic in the way it is currently being done is not in line with their T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are asking for something that never existed. The airline provides access to the information and the users access them directly via the Timatic site or the airline's website as long as conditions set out in section 7 are met. The airline may refuse to do so as well, but there are no rules governing which user can have access to Timatic and which may not. Back in 2013 Delta abruptly ended the ability for customers to access Timatic and removed the tool from their site, hence the links also became invalid because Delta no longer provides "B2C", but it was a unilateral decision and there were never any rules stating that the information must be accessed from Delta. If your so-called "credentials" were obtained from the site then there needs to be a username and password, but the URL clearly stated that the information is obtained as a user via B2C (which stands for business to customer) and hence are not different from the information accessed from the airline's website. AFAIK there are no rules governing how a user may access the information as long as the airline provides the access point to the system. Again, please read the T&C more carefully.

Also I wonder if there's any proof to support that your "request" came directly from Timatic or the airline, as the OTRS is in no way affiliated with IATA or Timatic. So if the airline or Timatic wants people to stop accessing the database then they need to do so directly, not via some third-party websites that has nothing to do with either IATA or the airline. C-GAUN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, if the airline wanted to cease user access to Timatic it could do so easily, there is precedent.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

C-GAUN I'll just answer the last point as far as I can. As part of the OTRS agent I have to maintain confidentiality but I am satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source. If any other OTRS agent wants to confirm that the ticket number is VRTS ticket # 2017041110015924. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to communicate further through the ticket? Is there any explanation as to why the airline wouldn't restrict access to third party users by themselves and what in particular is a problem with using the information they openly provide on their website as a reference? If the problem is direct access through the use of credentials (although here we go back to the first question), would it be fine to switch and use through https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no objection to the public interface at http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/travelinformation.php# being used to access the same information. The objection is to using the subscribers interface. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But as explained by C-GAUN, the B2C is not a subscriber interface but a user interface.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, I have no idea how you would be "satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source". If you have taken an actual look at the Gulf Air's own T&C here, you can clearly see that there are no TOS or T&C related to the use of an external source on their website. However, as I have pointed out below, Emirates's TOS clearly stated that the use of IATA materials falls out of their jurisdiction. So I suggest that you communicate with them to see what's wrong on their end instead. C-GAUN (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you start at the top of the thread you'll see the request to stop using timaticweb.com comes from IATA who own that domain. That's why we have had so much discussion about the T&Cs of timaticweb.com. Gulf Air only comes into this because the templates on Wikipedia use Gulf Air's user and B2C codes to produce results - having previously used KLM and Emirates at different times. That really smacks to me of less than honest use of various airlines' user and B2C details to access timaticweb.com. IATA would like us to stop, at least in the current fashion, because timaticweb.com is a subscription service and instead IATA offer <www.iatatravelcentre.com> as an alternative as it is a public facing website. What is the objection to routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA? Nthep (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, my problem is that the request itself was unreasonable as the users have broken none of the Timatic's TOS. If they really have a problem, then they should take it up to a subscriber instead of the users here. As for the "less honest" thing you claimed, it was totally unreasonable and would offend a great number of editors as accessing the information as a user is completely legal regardless of how it was accessed. You have repeatedly failed to state that how the editors, as generic users, violated their TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I did invite IATA to participate in this discussion but as the page currently under semi-pp, I'm awaiting further information via the OTRS ticket. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have an update from IATA: "The subscriber is only providing access to the public when the requests were being made from the subscriber's interface on their website using their interface. In this case, the Wikipedia users have reverse engineered the site to bypass the interface developed by the subscriber and access Timatic information independent of the subscribers' website. This is unauthorized access and this way of accessing Timatic is in violation of the End User Terms of Use and is not permitted."

I reproduce here the definition of user from schedule 1 of the Terms of Use "Users means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Nthep (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA, but does anyone have the technical knowledge how to do it? As for using different users before, it was already explained, changes were done when certain airlines ceased using Timatic (or perhaps switched off public user access and kept it to their subscription only).--Twofortnights (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @C-GAUN: here. After carefully looking at the terms, it seems that what we were linked to here initially are the terms of service for subscribers and not the users. The terms of service for users are here - https://www.timaticweb2.com/userterms. The subscriber terms of service clearly say that a Subscriber can make the IATA Timatic Information available to Users via a publically available website. As I've said before, KLM did not make it publicly unavailable but simply switched from Timatic to Traveldoc which is another service. This was the reason to change and as for whether the Gulf Air makes it publicly available or whether the credentials were obtained secretly from a forum, the Gulf Air makes Timatic publicly available on their website here - https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information. Industrial solutions that the subscription is for are for example Timatic AutoCheck and such, which are big automated systems for passenger control, not a simple data that we can look at in publicly available Timatic. Additionally we don't store any of the Timatic data here (even though we can argue on the threshold of creativity), we simply use it as a reference. I am not sure if subscription service can be used as a Wikipedia reference, for example a book also needs to be purchased and it can be used as a reference, but it doesn't apply here as the service is obviously publicly available (and as per Subscriber terms - to the extent a Subscriber wants it to be - so they can limit it if they wish to do so).--Twofortnights (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute the right of a subscribing airline to make the Timeatic information available through a public website but routeing a query via gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information legitimately is a different bird to coding a template that includes a direct url to timaticweb.com even if the end result is the same page. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether the airline wants to provide access to Timatic is at the sole discretion of the airline. If it decided to do so, however, then there is no restriction on how we can access the information (either via Golf Air's own portal or the Timatic portal) so long as section 7.3 and 7.4 are satisfied. Also, as Twofornights pointed out, the user TOS is not violated as well, as we are not providing Timatic information here. Only those who access the link to Timatic can be considered as a 'user" per the definition of Schedule 1 of the subscriber's TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything on Gulf Air regarding the use of the information, however founded the T&C on Emirates's rules regarding the Timatic portal, which reads:

This Website (emirates.com) may contain links and pointers to Internet sites maintained by third parties. We do not operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on such third-party sites. Third party links and pointers are included solely for your convenience, and do not constitute any endorsement by us. You assume sole responsibility for use of third party links and pointers.

This, in principle, applies to all third parties' websites. So you cannot ask an airline to be responsible for the access to a third party's website and the information contained therein. C-GAUN (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I copy the recent comments from IATA and my addition from above as the thread is a bit messy chronologically. The material from IATA is clear why IATA state their Timatic T&Cs are being breached:

I have an update from IATA: "The subscriber is only providing access to the public when the requests were being made from the subscriber's interface on their website using their interface. In this case, the Wikipedia users have reverse engineered the site to bypass the interface developed by the subscriber and access Timatic information independent of the subscribers' website. This is unauthorized access and this way of accessing Timatic is in violation of the End User Terms of Use and is not permitted."

I reproduce here the definition of user from schedule 1 of the Terms of Use "Users means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Nthep (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On the basis that IATA state their T&Cs are being breached by reverse engineered links on Wikipedia, I propose that the two existing templates {{Timatic}} and {{Timatic Visa Policy}} are modified either to work via a third party i.e. a Timatic subscribing airlines interface which is in line with the Timatic T&Cs allowing subscribers to give the public access via the airlines interface or to utilise IATA's own public facing interface <www.iatatravelcentre.com> It is clear there is no objection to linking to the data just that links must be via a subscribers interface or IATA's public interface. Nthep (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. However, for this purpose I don't recommend IATA Travel Centre because it requires too much user input, such as date of birth and even captcha, and it only provides information separately for each combination of nationality and destination, so it wouldn't work for {{Timatic Visa Policy}}. Instead, I recommend the interface of Flightworx, as it's the most simple that I've found but still provides full Timatic information, better than airlines. Specifically, nationality and destination for {{Timatic}}, and visa section for {{Timatic Visa Policy}}. This interface still requires user input, and I don't know if it's possible to make it automatic with the Wikipedia template. If not, I suppose that the template could just link to the page and the user could manually select the desired fields. Heitordp (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Heitordp: - I guess nothing ever was resolved. At the moment both flightworx.aero and Timatic are fully subscription with almost no free content being displayed, or offered. I'm of the opinion these links should be deleted entirely from Wikipedia they harm more than help. They tie up my archive bot checking for example. -- GreenC 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: It was resolved, after a long discussion in this talk page. The template {{Timatic}} no longer uses Flightworx or any Timatic interface, as I replaced them with a link to a government website of each destination, or citing the Travel Information Manual without a link. This template was later renamed {{Visa policy link}} to reflect the change. The other template, {{Timatic Visa Policy}}, currently links to the Timatic interface of Olympic Air, which still works. This template was left unchanged as there were no complaints about it and it is used much less that the other one. Heitordp (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Heitordp - ok. What would you suggest in the case of travel visa which has around 200 of the Timatic URLs in citations marked with {{dead link}} tags? -- GreenC 20:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Wow, that's a lot of dead links! The travel visa article doesn't use the Timatic template, it links to timaticweb.com directly. I suggest either replacing each reference with {{visapol|destination=XX}} (where XX is the respective country code) or simply removing all of them and adding only one reference on top of the table, which can be {{Timatic Visa Policy}} (linking to Olympic Air) or {{visapol|destination=XX}} (actually using XX as the country code, which cites the Travel Information Manual by default). Heitordp (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Finding about 200 articles contain direct link URLs most of the the variety Visa requirements for Chinese citizens (or whatever country). A ref at the top of the table is a good solution for travel visa. For Chinese citizens a mess of refs that should be combined into a single ref, or again at the top of the table. Huge job. -- GreenC 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Collateral damage check

Can anyone tell me how to check blocking 2601:4A:401:8FC8:/64 for collateral damage. Seems to be an SPA, but I'd like verification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no collateral there; feel to provide our friend, Mr. Hughes, a wikibreak as needed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RfC concerning proposed Community Based De-adminship

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.

---

Your input is requested in a RfC I just opened: WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Community_Based_De-adminship. Thank you. -Obsidi (talk) 23:26, 27 April 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.

Acceptable userbox

Just saw a userbox on the userpage of User:ReneAjax with the text:
This user would fucking love to trust Wikipedia as a reliable source but Turkish vandals prevent him. >:(
. I wasn't so sure this was appropriate since it's denigrating Turks as a whole, and I know we have vandals of different nationalities, it struck me as being slightly Polemic. I figured I'd run it by the admin corps and see if that was the general consensus !  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There are probably vandals of every industrialized nationality of significant population, including Turkey. By Trukish vansals, this user may mean nothing more than vandals (as we generally mean when we say this word here) from Turkey. It says nothing about Turks, or Turkish Wikipedians, in general. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he might be referring to the Turkish government's interference in his domestic internet ([31], [32], [33], etc.), rather than 'ordinary' Turkish people. And that's the sort of poltical point that loads of userboxes make already :) not a WP:POLEMIC in sight. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My first thought was that he was directing his comments at vandals on the Turkish Wikipedia, but as they have a grand total of 1 edit to that project it seems unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• As it is a custom userbox and not a transclusion, I went ahead and removed the word "Turkish". That really is not acceptable, as it attacks Turkish editors of Wikipedia. If they would like to reword it into something more nuanced, as suggested by the above comments, they are welcome to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems to completely ignore alternative suggestions. And in any case, you left the Turkish flag in there so the thing looks completely incongruous. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the flag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

AE input sought

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

---

There is a case at AE which could potentially result in a topic ban for a large group of editors (180 or so). In the interests of building consensus around such a move, input from uninvolved administrators is sought. GoldenRing (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

really just against one person.... Instructor of a big class that is ending soon. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on AE, I've been informed that the assignment was done yesterday. El_C 13:07, 26 April 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 ban for User:The abominable Wiki troll

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 abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was indefinitely blocked back in 2009 (see here for first ANI), and since then created *hundreds* of sockpuppets. Basically he has been non-stop socking, or with little break, so that the pages he targets often have to be put under extended-confirmed protection due to his extensive sockpuppetry (for example, Chris Benoit and Bill Goldberg). When this user doesn't get his way, he will often be disruptive in order to make a point as he did here. For more detail see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive. He has consistently demonstrated a complete lack of respect for policy, including Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Probably one of his worst offenses was harassing another editor he disliked to the point where they considered leaving Wikipedia. A lot of his disruption has been oversighted, and there's also extensive block evasion via IP's that I didn't bother recording in the SPI.

I honestly thought he had already been banned, but recently one of his socks removed the ban notice from his userpage complaining there was no community discussion. This person has made it abundantly clear they are not here to collaborate constructively to the encyclopedia. Therefore, I am proposing a formal ban by the editing community for the reasons already mentioned. To put it simply, this troll has exhausted the community's trust and patience well beyond its limit.

• Support as proposer. Sro23 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Time for this chronic problem user to find a new hobby, like maybe some MMO or MOBA or something. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support to prevent this "no discussion" wikilawyering from recurring. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but noting that I'm not a huge fan of community banning just for the sake of doing so. He's already blocked, which is functionally equivalent to a ban if no admin will lift the block. Obviously, no admin will lift this block any time soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't remember the last time I supported a ban of someone who had been blocked a long time before but kept operating socks. My only reason for supporting is the petty edit-warring on the master's userpage; if this guy's going to complain that we didn't do it before, we can do it now. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as it seems entirely justified due to the lack of respect for the community and policies. Is that snow I see? Murph9000 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - a user who engages in extensive SOCK violations in order to disrupt has no place here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - pro forma at this point but sometimes makes things easier (e.g., using rollback tool without hesitation). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support As one of their latest targets. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Surprising this hadn't been done a long time ago. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 06:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support sure. Formalize it. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support No doubt about it. I was also implicated in some pro wrestlers biographies (e. g. Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho). Nickag989^talk 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Bad dog! BAD dog! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Pile on Support good riddance to bad rubbish. Blackmane (talk) 07:09, 28 April 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:SPI Backlog

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

---

There is a backlog at WP:SPI of Open cases and of CU completed cases. One case appears to have been Open since 03-21-2017, that is, for a month. These cases appear to be cases that don't require Checkuser, so that any administrator or clerk can check the behavioral evidence and any administrator can block the socks (if I understand the rules). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 30 April 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.

Backlog at Requested 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.

---

FYI, there is a backlog at Category:Requested edits that dates back to June 2016. As I write this, there are 171 requested edits. Don't know if this is the place to post this, but seems like this could use some help. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was able to tackle about 3 of these. But it's going to take a lot more than me to get through this list... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You're telling me. I took on one of them, and it took a long time yesterday. And it's not really resolved yet because of pushback. A lot of these are COI requests, where the admin/editor has to do a lot of reading and perhaps research to make sure the changes are warranted. In a way, I can see how this backlogged. On the other hand, we have thousands of admins. — Maile (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, requested edits don't have to be fulfilled by an admin - any uninvolved editor can handle it. It's only the protected edits that we specifically need to deal with. In other words, this isn't really an admin issue. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing, not an admin issue other than 7 primarily mediawiki requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 30 April 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 Imma redbull04 moved their talk page

Moved from WT:AN

Imma redbull04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) move their talk page to 7XzEC4c9NWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Apparently an attempt to hide past history? Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138, it was a global rename request. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: After they moved it twice and a page move lock by me. I didn't know this was here - just had their talk page on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, missed the second move. I've shifted this to WP:AN as it probably should go there. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Charles Harris (revdel possibly 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.

---

Resolved

 – Mopped. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Would an admin mind taking a look at Charles Harris (it's a dab page) and see if the personal information added by an IP needs to WP:REVDEL? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP added phone numbers to about 10 pages, so they all need to be rev deleted and the IP blocked. @NeilN: Prevan (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Mopped away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. FWIW, I was only aware of the dab page, so figured it might just have been a good-faith misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 April 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.

Administrators too harsh and overpowered?

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. AND READ THE WHOLE THING. This issue has been bothering me for a year, ever since I joined Wikipedia. I've looked at several cases where Administrators have been really cruel, overpowered, and treated unfairly. Yeah, yeah. I know Wikipedia does not guarantee free speech. But I have to let you guys know this, because I think it will make Wikipedia a better place. Go ahead, block me if you want. But I'm still saying it. First, I'm going to point out some numbers, which I find RIDICULOUS.

• The number of blocked users on Wikipedia could form a country with a population greater than Panama.
• There are 44x more currently blocked users than the number of blocked users who have been unblocked.
• There are 3327x more blocked users on Wikipedia than the number of Administrators.
• The number of users User:Materialscientist has blocked is more than the population of Aruba.

I didn't have this kind of feeling for this site a month ago. Back then, I tried not to get involved into Administrator and user situations. All I did was edit and create new articles on sports related things. Then, I felt like I should do something to contribute to the Wikipedia community. So I decided to become a New Page Reviewer. For the past year on Wikipedia, I've been doing stuff to edit Wikipedia, and nothing bothered me.

But, this peace did not last forever. On March 23rd, I was caught in an ip block, and I appealed it on IRC. We came with a conclusion, and the whole thing was supposed to be over. But it turned out it wasn't. Two weeks later, I got a notice saying I was blocked for sock puppetry, which I didn't do. I found this really strange, because I thought the case was concluded. And it turns out I was blocked by User:DeltaQuad, who had nothing to do with my case. But I did appeal the block anyways on IRC. This one IRC discussion with administrators made me lose all my respect for Wikipedia and especially its administrators. I told the administrators, who I am not going to name, because you guys will block me for "personal attacks". I told them that I was innocent, and I was using a library IP. And suddenly, all of them starting listing hogwash proof that I was the vandal. Just because another admin blocked me. And none of them believed I was in a library, so they threatened to send an email to the place I was in, because they thought that by threatening me, I would have nothing to hide. But I was fine with them doing that, because I already knew that they would be wrong about not believing me.

But I'm not here to complain about my block. The thing that made me lose all my respect to administrators is the way they acted. 2 weeks before my blocked, everyone said I was good faith and everything was fine. Case closed already. But, then, out of the blue, some administrator who had nothing to do with my case decided to run a goddamn checkuser, and block me because that's what admins do. And then, after I got blocked, I went on the IRC and then suddenly everyone started acting like I was the sock, and I was lying to them about the library. The sudden change in the admins's behavior was very suspicious, and I was furious in them. Their behavior change was probably caused by the blocked that DeltaQuad made, and it influenced them. Administrators do not have their own opinions, and they usually go with other administrators in an argument. This makes them very biased, and they are usually in favor of other admins.

This behavior is unacceptable, and must be stopped immediately, or else others like me will suffer. Administrators need less power, to recognize their mistakes, and what they did ruined my entire reputation on Wikipedia. They have ruined the many other reputations of users who want to make the wiki a better place.

The admins involved in my case were:

• User:Huon
  
• User:Ks0stm
  
• User:Slakr
  
• User:DeltaQuad
  

Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the tireless work of User:Materialscientist is to be admired and praised. Without the contributions of this one editor the place would be awash with vandals and sockpuppets. I really don't know what your point is exactly. Aruba is a lovely place, but generally much more relaxed than this one. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with your post above ?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  21:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has banned (on systems quite unrelated to WP / WMF) entire countries that are significantly larger than Panama, for obscenely large scale and never-ending abuse, those numbers sound anything but ridiculous to me. They actually sound quite small, given the endless torrent of vandalism and malicious socking that WP has to deal with. Assuming, on good faith, that you were unfairly caught up in someone else's abuse, you have my sympathy for that bit and I'm glad you were able to get unblocked. Beyond that, however, I disagree with much of your complaint, as keeping on top of the real abuse is a significant, endless, and mostly thankless task. I thank the admins for their ongoing efforts to deal with abuse, and I believe that the success rate and accuracy is generally quite high. (Non-administrator comment) Murph9000 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding your specific case: It looks like so much of this is checkuser-based, and IRC-based, that people on AN aren't going to be able to review it. If you weren't socking, it sounds like you've been treated shabbily, but if you were socking, then it sounds like you've been treated leniently. The problem is no one here can really know if those accounts were you or not, so we can't tell which it is. I mean, my intuitive reaction is that maybe you've been unfairly blocked, but I have absolutely no way to look into it at all. In addition, since the IRC conversations weren't logged, there is no way for anyone here to review those conversations either. (Frankly, every time I hear about something happening on IRC, it sounds like a horrible place - the only place worse than AN/ANI. You should probably avoid it.) Anyway, you said you appealed this to the Arbitration Committee; did they respond? They can review checkuser info, and they're really the place to take this.

Regarding your introduction (about the number of blocked users, and - for some reason - Materialscientist): The vast majority of blocks have nothing to do with checkuser, and aren't at all questionable. As Martinevens says, MS is a workhorse who almost never gets it wrong. The fact that there are a lot of troublemakers out there who need to be blocked doesn't have much to do with any other part of your complaint. As you can see above, it's likely people will address that rather unrelated part of your post, and ignore the specifics. You might want to just cross it out and focus on the important part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Is there page where you can discuss issues about Wikipedia itself where this post will fit? But I will still keep this post on this page. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so your not complaining about the block, but your questioning why I "decided to run a goddamn checkuser". Your also still disavowing it. I'm all for being accountable, so i'll explain my actions. I actually didn't know about your IRC talk with admin until after I had made the block. I ran a check user on an IP address related to A community request at ACC #196456 where a checkuser block was in place on a IP address, and required our approval to create the account. From there, your name was on the IP address. I compared the technical data, and I found two different IPs that were vandalizing with your same technical data. From there I blocked you listing 3 accounts in the block log, and not listing a 4th i'm still concerned might be your sock, but has no edits. Moreso, you made an IP edit and this edit or this for non-admins on the same IP address, with the same technical data, with the logging into your account within 2 minutes, to make those edits. The unidentified IP edit was to post an unblock request related to this case, which I can't point to for privacy policy reasons. Futhermore, on a different IP, that you claimed is the library's, an unblock request was posted by a "staff librarian". This "librarian" stated the vandal came to her, told her he would not vandalize and that he would quit the library. Not even 10 minutes later, your account pops up on the same IP, same technical data working on your sandbox. I can also confirm that [34] and [35] were made on the same "library IP" on a different date with the exact same technical info. That was enough for me to issue the blocks, and for any other administrator who would have had access to the data to issue a block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @DeltaQuad: Wait... what is the ACC for? It says you have to request to create an account, which I did. And I don't get how the 3 edits you showed me had anything to do with the sockpuppet case. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Amanda. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: And can you tell me the 4th account? Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 22:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a high-ranking website that anyone can edit. Just knowing that shows there will be thousands of accounts and IPs that have to be blocked (thanks Materialscientist!). People do not have to prove their identity, and no account or email address is needed. That means judgment has to be used when blocks are issued and there may be mistakes. No one here can know if a mistake was made in this case, although Amanda has given a very compelling account above. The "too harsh and overpowered" suggestion is disconnected from reality. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• I took part in (much of) the discussions on the IRC unblock channel and can post the logs if that's considered helpful (the unblock channel explicitly allows publishing the logs). Ks0stm confirmed Amanda's CheckUser findings. The IP address Auth0RiTy said was the library's was not within the IP ranges used by the public library system of the state in question. Huon (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem here is partly that checkusers don't alwways have all the means of getting enough details about an IP address. Different people using the same public computer, on what the checkusers believe to be a private address, using the same web browser (probably the case on a public computer), will look like sockpuppetry to any checkuser; on the other hand, without them (I'm not one of them, by the way), this site will be overrun by sockpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• So, is this a general discussion about blocking, or are we being asked to review one specific case? I read the whole post as ordered and it seems to be a bit of both.

The number of blocked users is unsurprising, and pointing to it as a sign of overzealousness shows a shallow understanding of why most blocks are issued. The most common reasons by far are vandalism and username violations. There's no reason to unblock people who manifestly came here in bad faith to damage Wikipedia, and most username blocks are "soft" blocks that leave open the option just create a new account and return to editing.

And after that is socking and WP:LTA headcases. Do we always get that exactly right? No. We don't even have any way of evaluating whether we got it right or not in many cases, all we can do is go with what the available evidence tells us.

So I'm left asking again what the purpose of this thread is. Are we being asked to review blocking policy as a whole, or just this one incident? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying to say that my case was unfair, and the administrators who were involved in my case did not handle it as well as I expected. If you read my post, then you will know why I have lost all my respect for Wikipedia. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  Actually...I would follow GoldenRings very insightful advice on your talk-page. Posting on this page probably means that you seek "...discussion of administration methods...". Well, this has been discussed now ad nauseam, and still I only see people who have followed the rules and actually extended you plenty of courtesy. I'd advise you to drop the stick now. Lectonar (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I feel like this has to be discussed. And I still do not understand the evidence give by DeltaQuad to oppose my case. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me!} 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this dispute. Instead, you should email the Arbitration Committee (one of the topics appropriate to email ArbCom is "Requests about 'checkuser' or 'oversighter' blocks or bans" and "Requests to review actions by checkusers or oversighters") at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. -Obsidi (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lectonar:m But still, I think the behavior of these administrators should be discussed. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me!} 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did try to verify with the librarians at the library the user pointed me to that the FIOS ip was theirs (despite not being part of allocations tied to the ASN for New Jersey Public Libraries), but I received no response, which is surprising given how "active" they were in requesting an unblock, as mentioned above. I'm also not entirely sure how the raw number of blocked users even matters here. We're one of the top 10 sites on the internet, and we have a corresponding stream of abuse concordant with a site of such rank (if not a little less, because all but the most insane of people realize we're an open, good-faith non-profit that provides a valuable service to all of humanity). Hundreds or even thousands of accounts get blocked due to the actions of just one human (because hundreds or even thousands of accounts can be created by one human), so depending on how someone wants to warp the numbers—again, for what purpose, one can only speculate—we'll probably one day block a number of accounts equal the entirety of planet Earth, and yet, not-at-all-paradoxically, the vast majority of this little blue pebble's population (not to mention the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia) will still be able to edit unhindered by those blocks. --slakr^\ talk / 02:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidetrack: can we / should we have checkuser check more things?

Looking at the above discussion, particularly the question of checkuser accuracy , the Electronic Frontier Foundation website https://panopticlick.eff.org/ (Also see https://firstpartysimulator.org/about ) performs Browser fingerprinting that I believe is more sophisticated and detailed than our checkuser tools. Should we use this sort of additional information to give us more confidence in the results from checkuser? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The interested reader may also find https://clickclickclick.click/ to be entertaining... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all of the above. I was under the impression we were here to write an encyclopedia. Those that would disrupt this non-profit endeavor deserve nowhere to hide. As Rudy Giuliani pointed out about the squeegee men, it was only a couple of guys; never something endemic and unstoppable. A couple arrests made, message sent, and problem solved. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Checkuser os governed by the global privacy policy, so the Foundation would have to be involved in any discussion of expanding our use of such tools or adding more tools that can breach privacy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've long thought that the WMF's policy on limiting the use of Checkuser was detrimental to the project as a whole (as, for that matter, is allowing IP editing). My impression, however, is that trying to get them to loosen that up is an uphill and (probably) losing battle, as it appears to be based on philosophical precepts and is therefore not subject to alteration based on facts (or community opinion). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given how long it took the WMF to pick off the absolute lowest of the low hanging fruit (block cookies -- code mostly written, already OKed by Legal), I agree. I object to browser fingerprinting on principle. However, some of the information gathered by Panopticlick is automatically sent to the WMF by your web browser (e.g. the HTTP Accept headers) or already gathered by the WMF for other reasons; it is this information that should be available for anti-abuse efforts. I also wouldn't mind zombie cookies (without the use of obnoxious proprietary software or exploits) being handed out to long-term abusers. MER-C 13:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I am asking a technical question about what checkuser checks, not a policy question about who should be allowed to use checkuser or under what circumstances they should be allowed to do so. And yes, I do realize that if there is a consensus to have checkuser check for more things, we would then have to get WMF approval and then have our developers write the new features. My question is, should we? For example, as far as I know, our current checkuser tool does not tell you that one user is reading from a 1024x788 pixel screen while another is is reading from a 1920x1080 pixel screen. So, should the checkuser tool tell the person with checkuser permissions this extra information? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given that CheckUsers are already quite thoroughly restricted in what information they're allowed to share, I really don't see any reason why if there is technical information that can be gleaned from an abusive user's connection that CheckUsers should not have access to it. But I would also like to see stronger options for preventing these repeat abusers from editing. We can block 10,000 user accounts but the abuser behind them can just create more and be back to editing within a few days; not undetected, but detection takes volunteer time that would be better spent making an encyclopedia. Can the CheckUser function be partially automated, i.e. could a system process automatically compare new user accounts to previously blocked and technically similar accounts, based on IP address ranges or something? Or zombie cookies, as MER-C mentioned, that looks useful for this kind of thing. If SPI is always backlogged, it's because we have no tools at all to fully prevent a user from editing, and the number of them that keep coming back is always growing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers already have access to more than just IP. They're not going to disclose exactly what, though, because that gives sockmasters information on how to evade detection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: What you propose is something I've discussed with a pair of functionaries before in the context of a machine-learning algorithm to detect likely sockpuppets, and the general feeling was that there's no way it would get past the WMF, Ombudsmen commission, and community. It would essentially be the same as CheckUsering every editor who joined the site, and it's questionable whether that's even permissible under the current privacy policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I know, it's not likely to go anywhere. Just shouting into the wind here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for redirects

Resolved

 – Done. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask an admin to create Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie and Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomédecine & Pharmacothérapie as redirects to Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. (I can't create either because they're both on the title black list.) Everymorning (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Everymorning: Uh, not to second guess you, but aren't those kinda...long for redirects? What's the context? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Both appear to be commonly used titles for the journal (see here for an example). Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeez. Arright then, creating 'em now. EDIT: Done! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A sure sign of vandalism

Recently, there has been an editor vandalising articles, mostly by blanking or replacing content with nonsense text. A sure clue is the use of the words "principe" or prinsepe", either in the username or edit summary. Known vandals are

• Prinsipe Ander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Principe Karl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Superwikibooster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No doubt there are others. I suggest we adopt a "block on sight" policy for this type of vandalism, without going through the usual series of warnings. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? We give warnings to an editor who replaces a few pages with "poop"; why do otherwise with someone who does like this? You'll note that two of the three accounts were globally locked before you left this note, due to multi-project vandalism, while Superwikibooster is locally indef-blocked following a series of warnings. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that these are all the same person. Probably someone already blocked or even banned. Their editing clearly shows they are not here for the good of the project. Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're meaning exactly this wording and imposing a {{uw-sockblock}}? I thought you were using it as an example of why we need to treat this kind of vandalism more harshly in general. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a specific case. General low-level vandalism of this sort is usually dealt with pretty quickly anyway. I just want admins to be aware of this particular vandal and be a little bit quicker with the banhammer. Not sure about using a sockblock when sockmaster is unknown. {{uw-voablock}} is as good as any. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not go through SPI/Checkuser? ansh666 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to take it to SPI; however, since each account can be blocked ebven if it isn't a sockpuppet, I see no reason to go there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was addressing the last part (sockblock when sockmaster is unknown); this probably falls under the quick checkuser requests thing. ansh666 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Started checking these for sleepers/other socks, but there's a large number of accounts on these IPs so it's going to take awhile. There's also some global locks for cross-wiki abuse. If anyone has time, this is a good candidate for an SPI page as a useful record if/when there's future misconduct; if not I'll set it up myself (or look for an existing master) in a few hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

EJustice matter

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.

---

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

Please review the EJustice AE case, which was just closed in favor of this venue.

There were questions as to whether the action under the ARBAP2 DS were appropriate, with some saying yes and others no. There were also questions about whether a TBAN from ARBAP2 really addressed the issues, or whether we would get into endless boundary testing. Some argued for no sanctions.

At this point I am proposing a community imposed indefinite block, on the basis that

• a) EJustice used WP as a WP:SOAPBOX to campaign for environmental justice and against the plans and actions of the Trump administration, amplified through 180 meatpuppets via the Education Program;
• b) EJustice responded at the AE, and gave no indication that they understand the problem and instead continued to blame reaction of the community to problems with content produced by the class on systematic bias in the community and the bias of editors.

The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption. This would be appealable via normal channels in 6 months. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to proposal

• Support indef or site ban per my thoughts at AE, their defense of copyright violations and plagiarism (see their talk page and the AE thread), their response to the AE thread, and the DUCK factor involving meatpuppetry (not even considering the off-wiki allegations, which I agree should be taken worth a grain of salt.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support Train's proposal of an indefinite Tban of engaging students, and suggest it be appealable at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would note the close of AE was for AN that a "more tailored TBAN may be considered." NOT a Block. I think its a bit incorrect to say that this was "180 meatpuppets" as this was done through the Education programs in which it is considered appropriate for him to help 180 access WP (although he did it in an inappropriate way here). A topic ban from american politics, broadly construed, and especially from such environmental topics may be more appropriate. But I'll have to review this closer before I formally make my suggestion. -Obsidi (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Although I do see that some admins did suggest a block might be appropriate as well. -Obsidi (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef per persistent WP:SOAPBOX violations with no willingness to change. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block. The fact a professor would have their students try to use Wikipedia to promote the professor's personal political beliefs honestly angers me. Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a political platform, but a neutral, un-biased reference. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from Environmental pages, broadly construed, and an indef block immediately appealable without needing to appeal to AN (any admin should be able to remove). They need to understand WP:SOAPBOX, which they have clearly failed to do despite repeated attempts to inform them of such. I've seen no reason to believe they will not continue to advocate on other issues without a block. That said, I think any admin should be able to recognize if they are willing to actually acknowledge the problems in their conduct and give reason to believe it wont continue. All these problems currently have centered around environmental justice issues. This is a topic area they clearly are unable to edit neutrally. Even if the block is appealed the TBAN in this area should stay. -Obsidi (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose changing to oppose in favor of EdChem's proposal below. -Obsidi (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Obsidi's proposal, with the addition of an indefinite TBAN on engaging students in Wikipedia activities in any form, whether it be through Wiki Ed or not. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi! As I understand it, it is proposed that I be banned for engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. In reading that section, I presume I am being accused of violating the first provision of that, namely engaging in advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. What I did was teach a class on the topic of Environmental Justice with the instruction to students, in teams, to a) write a neutral wikipedia article (among their other assignments) on environmental justice, a well-established field of social science research as well as community organizing b) follow all guidelines provided by the excellent WikiEdu dashboard and curriculum, and c)expect to be graded to a quite substantial degree by the extent to which they used WikiEdu's trainings and guidelines in authoring their articles. I did not create any articles, nor did I engage in any significant edits.

I understand that the students' work raised many concerns about POV. WikiEdu staff and other WP editors and I will be doing a full debrief (likely on a public talk page) once we've all caught our breath after grading and the like. I clearly won't be giving another such assignment without ensuring that I understand how to conform more fully to POV and SOAPBOX guidelines on WP. Please dig into the (quite lengthy) EJustice AE case. EdChem proposed a great set of next steps there. Thanks! EJustice (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: I am getting very sick of you going on about how the assignment was to write a "neutral Wikipedia article". Just because your syllabus includes the word neutral doesn't make what you're trying to do either neutral or compliant with our policies. Here's a longer quote from that section of your syllabus: create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. It frankly beggars belief that you can't see the problem here, but let me spell it out for you: the assignment you have set is based on the assumption that there will be an assault on the environment and environmental justice under the Trump presidency and your students' success depends (or at least could be reasonably seen to depend, whether it's your intention or not) on them finding and documenting that assault, no matter what actual history develops. Whatever else it is, that ain't neutral. GoldenRing (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EJustice: In your statement here and at AE you have omitted

a) the stuff about Trump in your class description, and the diffs that I and others brought showing how important it was to you that the content added by your students advocate for the EJ movement and against Trump;

b) your consistent resistance to acknowledging the problems with student content while the class was ongoing and instead attributing criticism to systemic bias, racism, classism, sexism, etc;

c) your urging students to ignore community feedback on that same basis.

These omissions only dig your hole deeper. Your class damaged Wikipedia so much, on content that the world very much needs to be NPOV and trustworthy at this crucial time. Your class wasted tons of volunteer time, which is the lifeblood of this place. Your only road out of this hole is acknowledging what happened and how bad it was, which would provide some assurance that you would not repeat it. What you wrote here will probably lead more people to support an indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ejustice I think the issue here is there is a tension between economic interests and increased environmental regulation. There are often arguments on both sides, some who support increased regulations and some who argue that those regulations destroy jobs and increase costs for businesses. A neutral article would describe both of these positions - it should not be an article about a perceived "assault" on the environment. That view is well-documented but so is the opposing view that it is an "assault" on industry. There are some groups, like industry lobbying groups, who have engaged in significant advocacy on the other side of the issue. So there is advocacy on both sides that is discussed by scholarship. I hope that helps. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System thanks for this important point. The students are exposed to both/many sides of the scholarship and research in the field via this course. I'm sorry they didn't have the chance to expose that in their articles. There was a lot of tough editing going on with few substantive pointers as to how to improve articles and some of them, really smart, got very confused. EJustice (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• After some thought and reading all of the comments above I am switching from my earlier support at AE for a TBAN and now Support a community based indefinite block with the understanding that this extends to all classes/courses which EJustice may be running. This is a fairly naked case of WP:RGW agenda oriented editing made more egregious by the use of students, over whom he presumably has some degree of power, as meat-puppets in the promotion of their POV political agenda. I view this as a serious attack on the integrity of the project and one that requires a very firm response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose My understanding is the coursework is over. Thus, this is not preventative at this time. I read Ed Chem's post at the AE, and I don't see the actual benefit of acting swiftly on this now, prior to the discussion that EdChem plans to hold both with EJustice and with WikiED. I think we will do more harm by acting swiftly now -- what we need is to really dig into what went wrong with a WikiED program -- I stress that because it's very relevant that part of the community through WikiEd invited this. Now that the flurry of editing has stopped, the best way to do this is without being punitive, now. On the "meatpuppets" thing, well it's been decades since I have sat in a 180 student college course, as a student, but I am still certain I never felt mind-controlled by the instructor - and on the other-side, anyone who has dealt with American students is unlikely to think they are easily controllable, especially not by their instructor. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice has indicated his intention to have another class on wikipedia in the future, and still wants to "make a difference". StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on, now. Every edit we make, we hope makes a difference. Besides, Ejustice will, like everyone on Wikipedia, learn and hopefully become different for the better in the learning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Alanscottwalker if you read the AE carefully, you will see diffs where EJustice made it clear that grades depended on getting certain content to stick and diffs of very hard-to-read statements by students who were caught between what they understood that EJustice was requiring and what the policies and guidelines allow. This is not mind-control; it is much more mundane stuff of people trying to get a good grade as part of their degree program so they can get on with their lives and careers. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice will not be having another class this semester, which means we have time to talk with WikiEd and with EJustice, to see if WikiEd can improve such engagements - like never doing it with 180 again (or if you do, have a much different model, and a much more knowledgeable about Wikipedia instructor -and other safeguards) One thing that needs to be looked at is was this designed to fail, given the lack of Wikipedia experience. As for getting grades, that is the rather part-and-parcel of WikiEd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker this is the last response I will give you here. No, the education program explicitly warns instructors not to grade students on edits that "stick". This class very much did, which only exacerbated the problems. I get it that you want to be more gentle here but you are not providing valid reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Warns? Why does it not forbid? To root this out, it has to go to the engagement that Wikied invited, it should be the one to raise syllabus problems, before the on-wiki course is started. Obviously, nothing is "solved" if Wiki-ed does the same thing again with someone else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I'm not particularly bothered about his ability to edit Wikipedia, but what disturbed me was the fact that he thought (and apparently still does think) that persuading students to break Wikipedia policies to gain marks on their assignments was somehow OK. Unfair on the students, completely against Wikipedia policy, let's sort this problem out once and for all now. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per the illuminating AE. Ejustice's own comments both there and here seem less than... well, complete, as shown particularly by Jytdog's replies above.[36][37] I agree strongly with Black Kite about the unfairness to the students. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support indefinite block. I'd rather prevent any future mess, and this is the safe way of doing it. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The really shitty thing about this is - and this is coming from someone who teaches teenagers - is that some of those students could have written really good articles on those subjects, but were forced to shove their teachers POV back into the articles. I'm no friend of Trump, but someone who forces their own POV down their student's throats is frankly not a good educator. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because it doesn't address the problem. A block doesn't stop them setting assignments, either good or bad, only from discussing them on-wiki. If this is the only proposal that can succeed then please don't count me against it, but I think we're avoiding the problem here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I would consider encouraging other editors to make edits you cannot to be evasion of a block or proxy editing, and would likely lead to the other editor getting blocked as well (assuming we know about it). -Obsidi (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If they are going to respond to an indef in bad faith via MEAT, there is nothing from stopping them from responding in bad faith with regard to anything we do. This is what we do in this situation and if people SOCK or MEAT we deal with that. The Joy of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block or siteban. I think a topic ban is simply delaying the inevitable. There is overwhelming evidence from so many of his own statements that EJustice has every intention of continuing to assign students to edit improperly in order to WP:RGW. In fact, an examination of the AE just before its close shows that EJustice even canvassed his students to come here and defend him. This is not going to transform into a net positive, no matter how much guidance is offered. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block of EJustice (not the students) (which would for all intents and purposes be a community site ban). I would normally sympathize with those who want to have further discussions, but pursuant to Wiki Ed's statement when the AE request came up (Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Statement_by_Wiki_Ed_regarding_AE), discussion has already been attempted, following which EJustice actually agreed to make the necessary changes, but then that just never happened and nothing did change. I don't think the block/ban needs to be one that we'd never consider lifting, but we will need to be absolutely assured, before considering doing so, that this will not happen again, and that EJustice understands, and crucially, will in fact do what is needed to ensure it doesn't go this way again. This whole issue has been a massive time sink and waste of community time and resources, amplified by the fact that in this case, the problem editor has substantial influence over 180 other editors. Quite realistically, if this wasn't an education linked program, I think this outcome would have occurred some time ago. I would be willing to consider a limited exception to the ban, that EJustice may email an administrator familiar with the situation if they need a copy of deleted content emailed to complete course grading. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block or community ban after reading the evidence presented at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Siteban, which is functionally no different from "indef block resulting from community consensus". When you're intentionally and repeatedly using the site, not to write encyclopedia articles, but for political advocacy, and when you've declared your willingness to do it again, you have no business being here. Compounding the problem is the fact that you forced other individuals to do it, which among other things makes it harder for us to track you and makes it hard for those other individuals who therefore have to see their work deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support. I was wanting to just let this be a learning experience, but the fact that EJustice seems to want to do it again and can't see the problems with what he's doing is extremely concerning. Frankly, I'm surprised that an institution as reputable as Berkeley is sponsoring a course as badly designed as this. Blocking is needed to prevent further damage necessitating precious volunteer hours on cleanup. That being said, I believe that admins should look sympathetically on an appeal to such a block if it addresses the problems with this course and proposes a way forward so that next semester's activity is more constructive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support indefinite block, unfortunately. Everything I've seen, including EJustice's comments, suggests they still have no real understanding of the problems and are far too involved in their own subject to really judge their own neutrality - the constant insistence that instructions along the lines of "Neutrally try to push this one-sided POV into Wikipedia" is actually neutral beggars belief. No educational assignment that is aimed at pushing a specific concept into all manner of articles and which judges the results on how successfully that concept is pushed can be compatible with Wikipedia's goals. This style of educational assignment needs to be done somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  I just want to add that I really do feel for the students here, caught up in a very difficult situation, and I do hope it doesn't affect them too badly or sour their feelings towards Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'm switching to Oppose for now to give EdChem's proposed efforts described below a chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The professor came here as an *expert* in the field of Environmental justice--a field of his expertise (e.g. [38]). Experts are quite useful in providing WP:RS that many of us unfamiliar with the subject might not be aware of. Many editors had visceral negative reactions to the subject matter--assuming incorrectly that any treatment of environmental justice is by definition POV[39][40]--without looking carefully at the WP:RS (e.g. [41], [42], [43]). We saw a rampage of proposed and actual deletions of virtually every article the students worked. Even worse I have seen repeated accusations of WP:NOTHERE [44][45][46] to the professor and/or to students assigned to add content from a content expert, being overseen by Wiki Ed and claims that the work of students from one of the top Universities in the country (and the world) (U.C. Berkeley) are apparently not welcome here, because apparently university students from Berkeley don't get it [47][48]. In the hail of criticism, I saw little effort to help these new students. The students requests for help I saw were ignored, with the preference to delete and/or userfy their work.
  What happened to WP:AGF? I am embarrassed and ashamed of how poorly we have treated these students and the instructor. Although, I did see problems with WP:OR, poor choices of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV, these are all newbie mistakes. I and few others worked to improve the articles and help fix the problems. I did not see that effort from his strongest accusers, whose knee jerk reaction is to delete and condemn and chase off. Rather than send all the new editors packing, we should be helping them. Experienced editors have no monopoly on content. Ed Chem proposed a solution; so did Ryan (Wiki Ed). We should be working with students and experts not chasing them off. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the students themselves are perfectly aware of what the problem here is, to the point of apologising to us under IP accounts about the inconvenience this has caused. The students are not the problem and do not share any blame, and I would also oppose any attempt to punish them for being victims of circumstance. AGF went out the window when EJustice ignored the advice given to him in good faith by Wiki Ed and a number of editors here, and decided to plow on with his "neutral" attempt introduce biased information to the point of opposing a particular named politician. That I privately happen to agree with EJustice's perspective on the political issue is not relevant here. Experts are only good if they're willing to play by the same rules that everyone else has to. Unless we get something to indicate that this won't be repeated, a block is regrettably necessary to ensure there is no repeat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

• pinging editors of WP:AN/I thread on EJustice, who have not yet commented here and may not be aware of this filing: Tarage, Anmccaff, Kleuske, Dervorguilla, I_am_One_of_Many, Seraphim_System, DGG, MelanieN, Neutrality, Mr_rnddude, Graeme Bartlett, Ryan (Wiki Ed) --David Tornheim (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Prokaryotes --David Tornheim (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• David what you wrote above, ignores what the Education Program itself said about its experience working with EJustice. Please read it. Here is the link for your convenience. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutrality and balance are the outcomes of a collaborative process, they are not the responsibility of any one editor. We sometimes forget that individual editors are allowed to have POV - and these policies are misinterpreted frequently and often, because that is easier then engaging in consensus discussion about sources and balancing. I have seen it happen over and over again, especially on contentious topics. There was very little substantive debate about sources during the course of these discussions. I have seen no evidence of disruptive POV-pushing by this class in the form of removing balancing content. I think Ejustice could have handled it better, but if these articles were G11's they would have been deleted as G11's as Seraphimblade said here I think there were problems that could be resolved by measures other then harsh sanctions - like keeping the class size manageable if the topic of the course is controversial. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support EJustice has been made aware of problems by a number of experienced editors, has been given ample opportunity to correct any newbie mistakes but has consistently chosen to ignore any advice and, more importantly, to blame other editors for the problems that arose using blanket accusations. As an educator, EJustice has an obligation to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines of the platform he chose as an educational tool, to abide by them and to teach his pupils to respect them, but has proven unwilling or unable to do so, instead providing (strong) incentives to his students to ignore core policies. This is unacceptable, since it's a threat to the fundamentals of the project. Hence a ban is an appropriate remedy until such time EJustice has shown they're willing to accept and abide by these policies. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as punative The course is over, thus any block or ban would be punative not prevenative, this is in opposition of our block policy. Yes EJustice clearly violated POV after being advised not to and yes he exhibited signs of not listeneing, but to ban or block him now would be punative.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not punitive. There is every indication that EJustice would do more courses in WP, and pretty much everything they have done in WP to date has been wrong. As noted in my OP the purpose is stop future disruption. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It most certainly is punitive. Per pretty much any available block request ever submitted on wikipedia a block is never enacted after the party has ceased his or her disruptive actions add to that, this block would effect not only him, but his students ? Yes, it's punitive. Per WP:PUNITIVE
When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia.

Would blocking the professor improve Wikipedia, you bet!
Would blocking his students improve Wikipedia, no!
There you have it, you cannot answer this question with an unequivocal "yes", therefore, it's punitive. Block the professor from starting any more projects on WikiEd, no projects, no problem, as without that project, the students have no stated reason to engage in a class project over here.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  19:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I will reply here; Kosh the argument you are making here assumes that EJustice would not edit WP in the future and there is no reason to believe that. He is a Wikipedia editor with intact editing privileges and it would only be normal that he would continue to edit here (that is one of the goals of the Education Program - to recruit more editors). Granted his experience has been crappy but like many advocates he seems to view that as being due to problems with WP. As others have noted it would be unsurprising if he decided WP has great wrongs that need fixing via his own editing, through future classes, or via other organizations with which he is involved (as I understand it he is affiliate at Berkeley and spends most of his time doing other stuff). There is no reason not to expect future direct editing or organized editing that would continue the same problematic behavior, especially as he has given no indication that he understands what has gone so wrong this past semester. Please don't describe this as punitive. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Sorry Kosh, without some concrete evidence that they are not going to continue setting such courses in the future, I cant see anything other than an indef block here until they indicate they understand AND are going to follow our policies AND demonstrate actually doing so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support largely per my statement at the AE thread. Please note that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED in this matter. It also may be advisable to craft an editing restriction along the lines of "Students of EJustice are prohibited from editing content related to Environmental justice, broadly construed, for the duration of their course" to clarify the meatpuppetry issue while not unfairly punishing students who could potentially contribute positively outside of the confines of this course. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - if academic dishonesty isn't involved, then WP:COMPETENCE certainly is. EJustice has thoroughly refused to acknowledge the POV that is blatantly obvious to the vast majority of the editors here who have reviewed his actions. As an indeffed editor, his "meatpuppets"' edits would also be disallowed, unwitting and innocent as they may be as individual editors. This is a flawed solution, but the best one presented. I appreciate Kosh's perspective, but I don't think that the disruption is over at all, EJustice's stated intent is to continue as they have been. I appreciate EdChem's proposal and am generally fine with trying it, but I don't think it will work given the degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per 78.26 above. They don't seem to understand the fundamental problems, there's no guarantee he'll just continue after a year's break and I am morally opposed to his placement of his students between a rock and a hard place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The user is obviously at fault, but this is a new user, without much experience on the site and without clear understanding of WP policies. I checked their comments and edits (including those provided on WP:AE) and do not think they warrant site ban. A topic ban from US politics - yes, maybe. They must be given second chance in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with a condition—the responsible figure here is the instructor, EJustice. The proposed site ban for Ejustice is justified, most importantly because Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. The evidence, from the instructor's own posts, show a weak grasp, as far as Wikipedia goes, of WP:Competence, WP:Meatpuppetry, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and the first two of the Five Pillars. Egregious and ongoing problems, despite the time invested by volunteer editors at Wikipedia. In addition there is the appearance of misuse of power in unequal relationships, possibly problematic in a wider arena than Wikipedia.

1. There should be no adverse consequences for any students.
2. The site ban for the instructor should be appealable in less than the normal time, an appeal that includes undertaking to create and have accepted into Mainspace two articles, in areas subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions, of more than stub grade before running another class that involves editing Wikipedia.

Finally, it would be a nice gesture by Wikipedians· to· offer· themselves· as· "Wikipedia· buddies"—less· than· "mentors"—for· students· caught· up· in this rip tide. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. --Tarage (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban for EJustice for, in effect, misusing students as meat puppets to edit Wikipedia in a manner contrary to fundamental policies as variously explained above. Also to prevent subsequent unfortunate classes of students to be so misused.  Sandstein  19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a siteban, for two reasons: a) it wouldn't really address the problem (see below), and b) it would allow him to claim martyrdom - to say he was banished from Wikipedia because we are all just biased against his field of study. This editor displays one of the most profound cases of WP:IDHT I have ever seen. This is due to his passionate beliefs about his subject matter, and his conviction that anyone who objects to his pushing those beliefs is doing so out of bias and thus can be ignored. (The fact that Wikipedia has had an article about Environmental justice since 2005 would seem to disprove bias, but that's his story and he's sticking to it.) For this reason I very much doubt if he could ever become a constructive and neutral WP editor. On the other hand, this isn't really about his personal editing, of which he did a minimum - AFAIK none to actual articles. This is about his sending students here to edit at his direction. Several experienced Wikipedians, including some academics, have volunteered to work with him over the summer to see if they can get him to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and abide by them. I commend them for their willingness to try this, but I seriously doubt it will be effective. At most, I suspect that EdChem and the other well-meaning editors will just teach him to pretend neutrality and keep his urging of advocacy out of sight - to do it in lectures and emails rather than where we can see it. I think what we need is not a personal siteban of him, but a ban on his use of Wikipedia in any future classes. I'm not sure how to enforce that, but IMO that is what is really needed here. I see that is more or less what Goldenring proposed below, and I see it got a lot of opposes, but I urge people to take another look at that concept. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is also what Kosh recommended above: "Block the professor from starting any more projects on WikiEd, no projects, no problem, as without that project, the students have no stated reason to engage in a class project over here." --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

All he would do is start a project unofficially. --Tarage (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

He could do that no matter what is decided here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a most interesting statement. I hear you on the martyr thing but on the other hand, that is kind of not our problem. In my view we just need to be consistent and clear, and we indef folks who behave this way, regardless of where they come from. I can point to six or seven AE cases, quickly, of people who (on an individual basis) followed the same trajectory -- arrived here with a clear agenda, got rejected, called everyone else a moral reprobate, and got indeffed. I bet you can too. We treat them all the same, big and small. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block for EJustice, subject to appeal via WP:standard offer after a minimum of 6 months. EJustice has single-handedly managed to lose the support of 90% of Wikipedians who interacted with him and extended a helping hand. We are way beyond a continuation of AGF leniency at this stage. This case is also casting a shadow on WikiEd, which in itself justifies the ban, in order to avoid the risk of repeating a similar situation (either by EJustice himself or by another professor who may be encouraged to behave similarly if Wikipedia does not use this opportunity to defend its core principles). No sanction should be levied on any students, who have been victims of this unfortunate abuse of the WikiEd process. A statement should be developed to summarize the community's reaction and rationale, to be communicated to every student who was involved, with a goal of helping them continue their activities on Wikipedia with a correct understanding of the project's principles. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block. As per the proposal: The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption. I've had a very cautiousapproach to education programmes done in the name of Wikipedia ever since the IEP disaster, which among other things was one of the catalysts that caused WikiEd to be created. It's a shame for the students, but as everyone is aware, academia is full of professors pursuing their own agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block for, inter alia, apparent lack of COMPETENCE. I'm quoting the essay for educational purposes.

Editing beyond one's means. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works.

Factual. The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts ... and their cultural context is lacking.

Illustration: Per Black's Law Dictionary, "social justice" (which includes environmental justice) is sought only "on behalf of individuals and communities who are disenfranchised, underrepresented, or otherwise excluded from meaningful participation in legal, economic, cultural, and social structures". The students may well have understood that they would not be rewarded for adding text about (for instance) the widely reported fact that rising sea levels are going to erode away many wealthy individuals' beachfront homes including Trump's. The professor may or may not be capable of understanding how the distinction between articles about "environmental policy" and those about "environmental justice" causes a significant (and documented) systemic bias in his students' work. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I said on the original AN/I case that I didn't think this was a good idea. Indeed, I still think this is not a good idea. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, that is true, but, I have to say that no editor should be in a position where their editing is under the influence of somebody else. These students, who have zero blame for this, are under the guidance of their teacher. This invariably means that their contributions will be significantly controlled by their teacher. In this instance that control corporealized as the teacher's biases and opinions presented themselves in the students work. The students of course had their own biases before they started the project. To be frank, this means I oppose class projects. I therefore especially oppose advocacy projects. This is, in my firm opinion, a class project directed specifically to push a position that contravenes NPOV policy. It is not possible to neutrally document the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. There is a clearly stated non-neutral presumption that is implicated into the assignment; that Trump will command assaults against the environment. This assignment specifically and purposefully neglects to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I'm not keen on the Dakota Access Pipeline, which I personally view as an assault on both the environment (when not if the pipe bursts) and the native Sioux living at Standing Rock. Off-topic, but, this case made me think of that. This block is necessary. The argument that it is punitive is incorrect. There has already been the stated intention to commit to another Wiki assignment in the future. For that to happen, in my opinion, there should be an expectation that EJ will be able to demonstrate an understanding of what went wrong and why, without appeal to "isms" of any kind. From there the matter should rest with the community. This venue (WP:AN) should be the venue [read:court] of appeal. I specify this because an indef can be lifted by any admin, I don't trust any single admin to lift the block without consensus built at AN to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While some statements from pages not related to Wikipedia articles were at issue (have since be updated or removed, judging from the first two quotes from here), albeit only sleightly with too much emphasis. The case goes on with dozens of quotes, often it appears related to involvement by Jytdog, or citing for example teacher input. What exactly the issue is which each quote is unclear, possibly also to Jytdog. However, the problem seems to me that the teacher uses Wikipedia talk pages for communicating to his class. Thus, i would say that this needs to be communicated, other than that all those school kids are potential future Wikipedians. prokaryotes (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: We're not restricting the students in any way, we're only banning the instructor. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stikkyy: Warn the instructor for now, he is no longer active anyway(?), at least for now, it seems. If you ban him it will reflect on the kids (Our teacher is banned...).prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on some anonymous comments at AE from students talking about how they were canvassed, I don't think they care that much. Laurdecl ^talk 00:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support either indef block or site ban. Based on Ejustice's comments during this incident and plans for future courses etc., it's clear they are WP:NOTHERE and such measures are needed to prevent further planned disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Where exactly do they plan further disruption? prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That has already been discussed above and at AE. Based on your past actions towards me that resulted in your GMO topic ban, I have no desire to interact with you further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per RickinBaltimore above, if s/he's right, and that's without even checking to find out what political views are involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block - I have been busy in my life and unable to keep up with the walls of text, but it seems clear to me that this is not a normal case. As I commented briefly at the AE filing, EdChem is making a lot of sense to me. This rush to indef block or site ban gives the appearance of a punitive action, not preventative, since the students are no longer editing and the professor is here talking. A closing admin will have to weigh that into the argument, and I think it is the major factor to consider. Also, there are two other proposals below, the bottom of which is buried in text without a proper subheading. That's confusing. Jusdafax 22:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban per this diff. I was originally on the fence after becoming involved through an AfD, but after seeing canvassing by a course professor via email... Laurdecl ^talk 08:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This should not be a reason to support a site ban. While that email can be geolocated to Berkeley, these services state geolocation is not always accurate. Even if it was, it could be a fake, we have no proof that the teacher actually wrote that email. And then the question if you allow leaked email data to be used here. @Laurdecl: --prokaryotes (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that someone (who?) faked an email to get a professor blocked from Wikipedia. I mean, the Earth could be flat, have you ever been into space? Laurdecl ^talk 00:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence is posted on-wiki is unreliable. We don't know the email was actually sent. It could easily be a student who was failing the class making stuff up, and since we don't have access to the email, we can't verify it. What we can say is that the instructor's students acted in a way on Wikipedia that was consistent with meatpuppetry. That can easily be seen by behavioral evidence, and is one of the many reasons I support a site ban/indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block This appears to be the safest option. The alternatives proposed below are far too narrow. Indefinite doesn't have to be indefinite, of course, but any evidence their behavior and NPOV understanding has improved can be demonstrated through a back-and-forth on their talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef When EJustice shows he understands why his behavior was wrong he can appeal the block. Capeo (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef I appreciate other editors' willingness to work with this editor, but I see no other option at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative

This seems to be one of the cases where something needs to be done and everyone agrees on that, but no-one can agree what. I assume that @Jytdog: above meant to purpose a community ban rather than block, but I tend to agree with Alanscottwalker above that this would not be preventive. So I propose:

• EJustice is indefinitely banned from setting class assignments on Wikipedia, to be enforced by blocks, both of EJustice and their students. I realise this is hard cheese on the students, but it may be the only way to enforce the ban, if the organisation were to move off-wiki. This restriction can be appealed at any time, either at the administrator's noticeboard or to the arbitration committee. EJustice is advised that, for any appeal to be successful, it should be supported by a member of the WikiiEdu team on the basis of substantial discussion regarding how future assignments will be set.
• EJustice is warned that further POV-pushing in the area of post-1932 American Politics will result in a topic ban from that area under DS as an arbitration enforcement action.

The purpose of allowing an appeal to the arbs is to make appeal easier once the issues are resolved.

• Support as proposer. GoldenRing (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why does not simply blocking EJustice achieve this goal? They're not here for any other reason, and especially not to improve Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: if we managed to resolve the problem then there's a lot of good that could come out of it; we could have someone who brings 180 productive editors along each semester. So I think there's value in a proportionate response that doesn't burn our bridges. Also, EdChem's comments at the AE case are worth a read; I'm not familiar enough with the situation to really see what the reputational fall-out might be, but I trust him that the potential exists. I won't oppose a ban/indef if that's the only proposal that could pass, but I think we can do better. GoldenRing (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve the problem, though. I'm far, far, more concerned about the welfare of the students - I couldn't care less about EJustice. Yes, if he is going to create an assignment that doesn't involve berating his students to break Wikipedia policy, then great, but I don't see from any of his responses that he's considering doing that. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of an indefinite community ban from doing so. GoldenRing (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point though - a community ban from doing that, and an indefinite block, are exactly the same thing because that's the only reason they're here. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not. An indefinite block does nothing much to prevent the same problem from happening next semester. EJustice doesn't need to edit at all to cause this problem, just hand his students a bit of paper that effectively says, "Your assignment is to push POV X into Wikipedia articles. Your grade will depend on how much of the material is retained at the end of the semester." GoldenRing (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I'm not quite sure what you're saying the difference is. We can't physically ban him from setting the assignment; neither the indef block or the community ban will achieve that. Obviously if his students start POV pushing again we could sanction them, but we couldn't stop the assignment from being set whatever we do. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The difference is the enforcement provision. But this is obviously not going to fly, so let's leave it. GoldenRing (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I quite like the students that actually engaged with us. They were doing their best to get a good grade, but despite that actually responded to our feedback on the Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration article. I don't support this as an alternative proposal, but as I stated above, I support an indefinite community imposed topic ban from EJustice himself engaging students on this topic in addition to the block that would be appealable to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting we should go and find all his students from this semester an d block them all, but that if EJustice starts another class next semester we should block an of his students we can find. The problem with not having that provision (and indeed the problem with just indeffing EJustice) is that there's nothing to stop them setting exactly the same assignment next semester; they don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to do that, only read it, and we can't block them from reading. GoldenRing (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't go far enough. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any proposal that blocks or bans the students for any significant amount of time. We have no evidence to believe that they would behave in the way they would without the course pressure behind them - and I'm not referring to the POV pushing, I'm referring to the ignoring of community advice. I supported a topic ban of the instructor above, but have no problem supporting an indef block of the instructor if that is what it came to. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: the original proposal is far superior. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this has nothing to do with students per se and everything to do with EJustice's direction of students and how EJustice dealt with the community. With regard to future classes, under an indefinite block it would not be valid for EJustice to have another class work in WP (through TAs for example) per MEAT. Done is done. I would be delighted if they could successfully appeal a block but due to how obstinate/obfuscating they have been that nothing was wrong and the widespread disruption they caused, that appeal should be made here. Finally with regard to the proposals about Wiki Ed's involvement, this is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the most important way concerns what the Education Program can and cannot do. They actually have little control; they just facilitate and are understaffed even for that. Please do read the statement by Wiki Ed already provided on this matter by Ryan, and you will see that they tried very hard to bring EJustice inline and kept thinking EJustice "got it", but then EJustice would turn around and do the opposite. Which is something to keep in mind with regard to unblock requests (should we impose one). So the proposal doesn't work and is not appropriate in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

• @Jytdog: The students are being used as leverage against the instructor here. I don't like it, but I don't see what other leverage we have. I want to avoid the situation where we indef the instructor and so he takes the organisation entirely off-wiki - that's worse than what we have now. And doesn't the history between EJustice and WikiEd make them the best people to assess whether there's actually been a change of attitude? Someone somewhere proposed a block that could be appealed to any admin - clearly wrong as this guy is obviously adept at saying the right words without actually changing his attitude. I'm not trying to make WikiEd responsible for the appeal, just setting the expectation that EJustice will have to convince them that the change is real before an appeal to AN is likely to succeed. GoldenRing (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I want them to take the organization off-wiki. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes what I wrote didn't respond well to what you proposed - I am sorry. Yes you did have Wiki Ed only "supporting" at AN or Arbcom. Sorry. I get it that you are trying to do something more "tailored" but i can't see how that would be more effective (it assumes a bad faith response to the indef... so why would they respond to this restriction with good faith?) nor how it is more appropriate. I am sorry again for not being more on point in my response. In my view EJustice has established a pattern of violating our policies and guidelines and amplified that through their students, harming everyone in the process, and an indef (extended via MEAT to any future class) is appropriate. I do see consensus building for indef above btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per StAnselm and Jytdog. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a blanket remedy against the students. They're between a rock and a hard place. Their instructor was essentially demanding they do things they're not supposed to, or else (presumably) have their class grades suffer for it. The instructor, in this case, is the clear problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The indef block (or community ban) is the appropriate sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EJustice has engaged in a deliberate campaign of POV editing and everything I have read thus far shows that they still don't get it. An indefinite block is the only reasonable response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support a ban on his using Wikipedia in any future classes. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and I certainly don't want to contemplate blocking students, who are not at fault here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose . A block is the only realistic solution and anything else is barely enforcable, and I don't think the ss should be made to atone for their professor's agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion has become needlessly complex... but for the reasons stated elsewhere here, I think an indef block is the best option to prevent future disruption. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit more from Ejustice

Please take a look at the 14-week, detailed assignment timeline students completed. This is what their grades are based on for this part of their work, including their completion of extensive training materials and exercises, and multiple mentions of the need to be neutral. In a separate assignment, they are required to write op-eds -- opinion pieces -- and submit them to newspapers. The class is about environmental justice, hence much of what they wrote on WP and in other venues/assignments was to be about environmental justice.

Editors have problems with this part of the syllabus which I've only today learned from WikiEdu is subject to Wikipedia's rules (note that even the web address does not indicate that). On WP, no question that this text violates BLP and CRYSTALBALL. But it's not clear to instructors that this page, provided for the convenience of instructors, is subject to the content strictures of Wikipedia. WikiEdu has indicated that they will make that clear and review the parts of syllabi to be posted for such issues moving forward. And these pages are activated by WikiEdu after the content is loaded by instructors. They have not, in the past, reviewed the syllabus pages for content and WP compliance. I understand from WikiEdu that that will change.

In this class, I ask students to write opinion pieces, and neutral pieces, quantitative analysis, and personal narrative. (Those assignments are not on Wikipedia.) While clearly the work of many of the student entries on Wikipedia do not meet the standard of neutrality, there was never any intent to violate that key principle. Pedagogically, quite the opposite. The intent was to train students in how to explore issues from multiple perspectives and positions. The course never directed students to engage in advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment -- the core elements of WP:SOAPBOX that I believe is the basis of the proposed ban.

The students' work is complete for the semester, and I have yet to create a page. Judge the few edits to pages I've conducted myself by this list of edits to the article I was most active on. My talk page comments on articles do encourage students to add environmental justice content (akin to asking chemistry students to add chemistry content), but at least as frequently push them to find better sources. And I never engaged other editors on such talk pages negatively, nor did the vast majority of students in the class.

Having worked in this field for over 30 years, I advised WikiEdu about the potential for controversy and throughout the semester my instinct was to slow publication from the sandbox into mainspace. WikiEdu didn't initially feel the need to modify the course's timeline for publication. Subsequently we agreed on a process to move controversial material back to sandboxes so that students could continue to edit without disrupting editorial attention. Here's a list of articles that we mutually agreed could continue to be edited in mainspace:

• Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Arctic resources race (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Skull Valley Indian Reservation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Stream Protection Rule (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Clean Water Rule (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Hobet Coal Mine (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Clean Power Plan (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Indian reservation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Food security (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• US-Mexico Agua Prieta pipeline (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (This one is borderline - it might be better to move it to a sandbox for now)
• Executive Order 13771 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Climate change policy of the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Environmental issues along the Mexico–United States border (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Calnev Pipeline (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Air pollution in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Open Space Accessibility in California (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Electronic waste in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Green job (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Conservation in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Traditional ecological knowledge (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

A slightly smaller number of articles remain in sandboxes, were deleted, or were nominated for deletion. The latter were reviewed individually by WikiEdu as to whether to Sandbox them or await the outcome of the deletion

The course is over. Banning a professor in a field for having engaged with Wikipedia to teach in that field strikes me as counter-productive to the learning that I am excited to engage in through a public debrief process as proposed over the summer and that served, I believe, as a strong basis for the prior complaint being closed. Looking forward to that and to learning more. Thanks! EJustice (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, to take one example: Arctic resources race. This is where you had made your comment "Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article." You had suggested that the article focus more on the impact of global warming on arctic communities. Don't you see that this is putting an EJ "spin" on the article? That the article isn't about global warming, and should only mention it as one of the causes of the race? That your advice was actually encouraging the student to violate WP:COATRACK? In fact, that's exactly what happened. The next edits by the student added irrelevant claims like "The melting permafrost is damaging local infrastructure, destroying roads, buildings, houses, sewage systems, etc." That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the resources race. So I don't think you can hide behind not editing articles much. Your talk page comments (and I can only assume, the things you said in lectures as well) were directly causing POV violations. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just looking at this link, I see the requirement to "...create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency". You say "neutral", but your terminology of "assaults on the environment" is the exact opposite of neutral. You are asking your students to create a neutral push of one specific point of view! And you are specifically asking them to push Environmental Justice into all manner of articles in a way that clearly violates Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and balance. You appear to be so involved in the concept of Environmental Justice that I really don't think you are competent to judge your own neutrality - just scattering the word "neutral" among your instructions is nowhere near sufficient. I don't think you should be using Wikipedia at all for any of your students' coursework. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any diffs to show attempts to balance the articles that were rejected by the students for POV reasons? What is a "POV violations"?? per WP:POV putsch - is the EJ view of the impact of environmental damage well documented by a vast number of secondary sources? Yes, vast. Please show the evidence of the balancing discussions - had we had those discussions the class would have likely been in a very strong position, but we didn't. For that we would have to compare the sources that are available and make an attempt to balance them to represent the scholarship - Show me one example where a counter-source was presented, and an attempt was made to balance the article based on a discussion about WP:RS. I have never seen any evidence presented that any such discussions took place, or that the class conducted inappropriately tried to push a POV in the context of such discussions. Yes, mistakes were made, but we should keep in mind these were new editors who were unfamiliar with policies. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it is not the students who are at fault here. AFAIK, no-one is accusing students of rejecting advice. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the 180 students have done nothing wrong and are following the Wiki-rules and advice, then what is the problem? If the vast majority of these students are following our rules, it suggests that the professor, Wiki Ed and/or editors have properly engaged and educated the students and brought 180 new highly qualified editors who we desperately need, and that the professor's work is a net positive to Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand: students were still making POV and coatrack edits. but should not be blamed because they were encouraged to do this by their teacher. Most were willing to learn from other WP editors. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I second the demand for diffs of disruption and refusal of newbies to follow rules. This appears increasingly like a case of WP:BITE. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with EJustice's narrative here, is that what they actually did in Wikipedia in their course description, in their comments on students' work, and in interactions with other editors, contradicts what they wrote above. This is all laid out in the AE case which I will not belabor here. What I also documented there, was EJustice's focus on egging on the "juice" in the student edits, and saying nothing about the POV pushing and SYN that was present in the student work that they commented on - which were the things that were ringing alarm bells all over the community. And then of course accusing members of the volunteer community who were concerned about that, of systematic and other kinds of bias. And the narrative provided by the Education Program also contradicts what EJustice writes - the Education Program says it tried like crazy from the first they learned about this class to get EJustice to back off the advocacy, and had extensive discussion with him especially after things started to blow up - they kept hearing the right things and then EJustice would go right back to the bad behaviors we are discussing.

EJustice is clearly used to doing the advocate thing in the real world. It is not going to fly here in WP where the diffs of what they did and did not do, are really clear. All the spin in the world will not change the diffs. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I see your point, and I address above that "assault" on the environment was not the correct way to phrase the assignment, because the tension between the economic consequences and the environmental consequences is discussed in scholarly literature. Academic classes and disciplines are compartmentalized, but our articles are usually interdisciplinary. I think we should focus on how to integrate academic contributions into the encyclopedia, instead of jumping to sanctions - while making it clear that "anti-Trump content" should not be a grading guideline in the future, and certainly not for a Wikipedia project - I don't think we would sanction an economics professor for "putting an economics spin on the article" because he instructed students to emphasize core economics principles in their contributions. Are we really going to sanction a professor for teaching a course on environmental justice? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That said I have noted there were considerable problems with WP:SYNTH - I think this could have been avoided by asking the students to limit their sourcing to secondary source EJ materials - I have found several on Project Muse and through Google Books. The problem arose time and again from students applying primary sources as evidence for EJ claims - this is fine in a classroom, but not on Wikipedia. I support open discussions between WikiEdu, the professor and our editors to make sure it does not happen again, and I would certainly support sanctions if this was ever repeated. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we are not considering sanctioning a professor for teaching a course on any topic. That is just chaff and confusion. Please don't write things like that here. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe StAnselm misspoke when he said "Don't you see that this is putting an EJ "spin" on the article?" Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As you and I have discussed more than once, EJ = a social justice movement and an interdisciplinary academic field. StAnselm clearly meant the former. Please stop obfuscating the problems here. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Environmental justice is an idea, a movement, a science, and a method." StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Seraphim System's analysis. No. This action is not an attempt to sanction a professor for teaching a class on Environmental justice. But the effect of this action is to punish (WP:BITE) a professor (who is new to WIkipedia) and an expert in the subject matter for bringing 180 new student editors to Wikipedia and encouraging those students to bring scholarly WP:SECONDARY high quality WP:RS on the topic to the articles. The entire action seems very un-Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you review the evidence here, because it's quite contrary to the conclusions that you drew. Yes, EJustice brought 180 student editors to Wikipedia, but then encouraged them to edit in a non-Wikipedian fashion, and continued to do so even after multiple editors advised him that what he was causing them to do was against policy, guidelines and community norms. He exhibited model civil point of view pushing behavior, as well as repeated WP:IDHT -- and continues to do so (see his comments above). His encouragement to his students was not in actuality to write neutrally, in encyclopedic fashion, but academically, presenting a specific point of view, which he mandated. He encouraged unnecessary forks presenting that POV, and resisted efforts to reign in his student's non-neutral efforts. He did not, in fact, teach his students how to edit Wikipedia, but gave them a lesson in the exact opposite, how to undermine Wikipedia by using it as a vehicle for a specific agenda. For all these reasons, and because academic instructors have no immunity from normal standards of sanctioning (despite EJustice's playing of the "Don't ban a Professor" card), an indef block is well overdue -- only his status has prevented it until now, in my opinion. As a number of other commenters have pointed out, any other editor would have been sanctioned already, and there wouldn't be this level of geschreing over whether it was justified or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have looked at the evidence, including an analysis of EJustice's entire editing history. He made a total of 7 edits to main space and of the 7, only the one on April 13, 2017 was a problem (likely a newbie mistake). Jytdog's carefully cherry-picked and curated statements do make it look like the professor was seeking to advance a POV, especially if one is not familiar with the academic field of Environmental justice as an area of academic study with high quality WP:RS rather than the more commonly known form that is a kind of activism. I am not surprised Jytdog's narrative and careful selection of quotes gave such negative reactions. If that's all I had seen, I would have voted as so many others did. I wish he had put as much effort into helping the students as he did in trying to get their professor banned.

Careful examination of the edits and the articles shows something else. The professor is teaching a class on that academic subject and is grading his students for their use of WP:RS from that academic field. When the professor said, make sure to include WP:RS regarding EJ, what I hear is this:

You are in class dedicated to the study of Environmental Justice. Your assignment was to include high quality WP:RS on the subject, from WP:RS which I have pointed you to and have shown you how to find. I do not see enough of that WP:RS in your work. Please keep in mind that this class is on Environmental justice, and I will be grading you on the extent to which you engage in the course subject material. It's fine that you have documented other areas of coal minding and created a scaffold of material about coal mining in which the specific area of environmental justice can be included. But, I do need to see that you have included enough material relevant to this subject matter in your edits.

We must WP:AGF. Also, there are claim all over of "massive disruption" by the students. Where is the evidence of this disruption by the students? Jytdog's narrative falls apart when you look more carefully at the actual work of the students and the hostility the students received by editors eager to delete their work and making little to no effort to help them, simply making highly accusatory statements such as WP:NOTHERE, etc. There was little to no drama by the students despite how badly they were treated. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We must AGF until the AGF runs out, and it ran out quite quickly for EJustice, considering his non-responsive responses to editors attempting to clue him in. I'm sorry to say that your analysis of the evidence shows that you really don't understand the problem here: for instance, EJustice's 7 edits are totally irrelevant, what is relevant is the editing done by the students following his direct instruction. He gave lip service to NPOV, and to his credit did emphasize RS, but he told them specifically to edit in a non-Wikipedian POV fashion. Whether what he did was good or bad for his course is not of concern to us -- we don't exist in order to be a teaching aid -- what is relevant is his ignoring the basic policies of Wikipedia which were brought to his attention early on. Your comments make it clear that you don't perceive this as a problem, or just don't see the problem with POV-pushing, I don't know which. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#David_Tornheim.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_Allegations_.2B_Collaborative_Workspace --David Tornheim (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from EdChem

I made comments at the AE thread which drew both praise and criticism, and I didn't manage to respond. I'd like to make a few points:

• I don't defend that much of the work ended up as POV advocacy, nor would I suggest that the EJustice has come across on wiki as seeking neutral content. If were editing articles in the way that many of his students have, we would have had a topic ban for advocacy long ago. However, he isn't editing article space and the editing for the course he is administering is over, so I don't see the preventative nature of a ban or a block. Most especially, I oppose moves which interferes with the grading of the students involved (except that necessitated by policy) as our taking actions that lead to them being harmed is just not fair.
• I am not suggesting that EJustice's behaviour has been unwise / poor at times, and the canvassing of students to the AE, if true, was exceptionally inappropriate and unwise. EJustice, some of your actions look awful from a Wikipedian perspective, so please consider anything more you say carefully, because (frankly) some of your comments aren't helping. As several others have commented, for example, the advocacy and POV in your description of Trump's assault on the environment is not mitigated by appearing on a Wiki Ed page or by the word "neutral" being earlier in the sentence. The description speaks for itself, and trying to moderate it is not going to persuade most people, but is going to add to the view that you don't comprehend the issues.
• What I proposed, with an on-wiki discussion with EJustice, will consume some of my time, but need not consume the time of other editors. Others will be able to comment on the talk page, should they wish, or just ignore it until there comes time to look. The Wiki Ed project editors will need to review this mess whether EJustice is banned or not, so some discussions are need irrespective. If I am willing to devote some time to trying to help EJustice, it doesn't harm the community. If it is productive, then we are in an improved position; if it is not, then we'll all know that I was wasting my time and we'll have one more reason to be comfortable that a further course could not be successful. Further, this latter case could result in EJustice deciding that WP is not suited to his coursework.
• As far as I can see, the preventative aspects of a block or ban are preventing a future course, which is a valid concern. So, I ask, what if EJustice is willing to undertake to:
  • make no edits except those for:
    • those related to finalising the assessment of this group of students (asking for a temporary sandbox version of a deleted article, for example (consistent with other wiki policies) – this would not include AfD discussions of the articles
    • those related to discussing this course and what has happened; and,
  • not to set up a WP assignment for any future course without the support of editors at AN and from the Wiki Ed project

Would this be seen to obviate the need for a block? In the alternative, would any block still allow unimpeded discussion in EJustice's user / user talk pages of what has occurred / what went wrong / how things could have been done better?

It is clear to me that there is a building consensus for some strong action, but I am unconvinced that it avoids a future course, under TA supervision, being run and advancing to the point of a serious mess before the situation is fully recognised – especially as the discussion above suggests little support for a mass blocking of student editors, which is the most practical "solution" to such courses... but then, let's hope we never face that circumstance. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fleshing out your comments. Very helpful! An indef would clearly preclude running a future course per PROXY and MEAT and to resolve any ambiguity I reckon a close could simply specify that.

I am a little hopeful that a detailed review of what the students actually did might be helpful with regard to EJustice understanding why the community has reacted so strongly and why his reactions have been so consistently wrong. It is hard to understand how they cannot see it now, but I have a bit of hope that it is only because they haven't slowed down enough to actually engage with what students were writing in light of the policies and guidelines. I am grateful you are willing to spend that time. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I support EdChem's proposal, completely. I would emphasize, however, that the link EdChem reference is a wikiedu.org publication, which is then mirrored onto Wikipedia at the course page by WikipediaEDU. WikiEDU published that in January. It is April. Not holding Wiki EDU responsible for its publication, by taking it all out on the instructor WikiEDU published is wrong and is not going to make any sense to anyone beyond Wikipedia. The other link to the WikiEDU discussion references a discussion with the instructor and WikiEDU of April 15, mere days ago, and it is an agreement about putting some articles in sandboxes and some articles it was agreed could be edited in article space. And since then, the Education course is ended. There is no more course to stop now, and the discussion about seeing if anything can be fixed with WikiEDU has been put-off until summer. So, the prudent course is to let EdChem have his discussion in the meantime. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the discussion happens on EJustice's talk page, it is not incompatible with an indefinite block. Nobody has proposed revoking access to their own talk page. My slim hope is that the discussion would open their eyes and enable a compelling appeal. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The course is over, so there is now no need for a block, and such a block is punitive. Especially so, given the undertakings required by EdChem for his discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you continue to ignore the block rationale, and as already noted EJustice would have access to their own talk page for the discussion. And with regard to reading students' work in order to grade it, the indef does not prevent reading anything. Am not responding further. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

No. I am approving EdChem's way forward over the punitive block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support leaving open the possibility for a future course with support from editors at AN and Wiki ed depending on the outcome of EdChem's discussion and instructor cooperation moving forward Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef blocking still the safer option. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Alanscottwalker: just to clarify, those aren't my conditions, they are suggestions of a voluntary undertaking which EJustice might make to obviate the need for a ban / block. EJustice, your cpmments on this point would be welcome. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, not your conditions, then, but good conditions, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Alanscottwalker I very much welcome the chance to have the discussion on my user page and to fully debrief what went wrong with respect to this assignment (I've already set it up). Meanwhile, students' work on pages as part of the course is finished and I will not be commenting/editing on any of their pages at least until WikiEdu and I have synced up about how and when that would be appropriate (probably June at the soonest). I teach this course at most every two years and would hope, if I choose to have another WP assignment next time, to do so with WikiEdu's generally excellent support. We will also be debriefing the course on campus more generally, and I do think a ban would be chilling to some instructors' willingness to work in WP. I envision what EdChem is proposing as a sort of "socratic dialogue" where rules of the road are laid out/translated by EdChem and WikiEdu in a way that further facilitates experts to help their students contribute following all of WP's principles while deepening the content available here.

Open as well to other suggestions... Thanks! EJustice (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What is under review here and now is your conduct, not the students'. You had the support of the Education Program already, and based on what they said, you consistently said one thing to them, and then went and did another. You are trying to be a smooth, conciliatory talker here but when the course was ongoing you were combative and dismissive. The concern here is about what you actually have done, while you had support, and how you interacted with students and the community, and what you are therefore likely to do again in this course or any other, and as an editor. (you did actually edit content a bit btw (diffs). Jytdog (talk)

@EJustice: "We will also be debriefing the course on campus more generally, and I do think a ban would be chilling to some instructors' willingness to work in WP." Do you mean this as a threat? In particular, would you use your senior academic position to influence a junior instructor to boycott an organization with whom you have a dispute? --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I can't speak for EJustice, but remember that instructors working through Wiki Ed are identified by name and institution, so bans and blocks can reflect on the instructors professionally. That academic colleagues working within a single university would have a debrief discussion on a new teaching approach (using WP, for example), especially where there was a problem, strikes me as unsurprising / unremarkable. Similarly, suggesting that problems could discourage others from trying a WP project need not be a threat. Especially when those problems are much more public than is typical for an educational activity, feeling discouraged would be understandable. We are in a situation where what has and will happen is public, and EJustice and his students will share their experiences, so there will be reputational consequences for EJustice and Wikipedia. Let's hope this can be a minor blip for us all. EdChem (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: At a preeminent school like Berkeley, most instructors are capable of (1) understanding the structural "problem" (tragedy of the commons) that EJustice accidentally created and (2) coming up with innovative ways to solve it. Also, EJustice is above all a scholar. He should be advising and encouraging other instructors to try replicating his findings -- whatever they may turn out to be.

Of all areas of study, Environmental Justice is the least suited for the faint of heart. Some of the professor's most motivated students may one day find themselves confronting bulldozers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: I don't know the exact technical limits of a block, can a blocked user edit anywhere within their user space? EJustice has already started User:EJustice/WP Policy and Environmental Justice Class, for example. Also, while I know no suggestion of a talk page usage being disabled has been raised, I was suggesting that a close recognise retaining user space access specifically, so that such access can't be unilaterally cut off. Also, I note your comment that an indef would preclude a future class, and that is true in a policy sense, but I am not sure it is practically true. I seek an outcome whereby EJustice can function within policy or decides that he can't and so chooses not to work on WP. Believing he can use WP for classes and just stay in the background would be very much a lose-lose outcome, I think you would agree. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  A blocked editor can edit only their talk page, and no other pages in their user space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep so the discussion could happen on his talk page; doesn't need to happen on a subpage of userspace. With regard to future classes, the community is heading toward an indef and the close should be very clear that sending future classes here would not be OK as long as the indef is in place so there can be no misunderstanding about the community's intentions. If EJustice would choose to respond by ignoring that restriction, well that would just put him in the company of other long term disruptive editors who decide the community is wrong or corrupt and do what they want anyway.

I am very unhappy that we are in this place. Everybody is unhappy; this is everybody's nightmare with regard to the Education Program (including the Education Program itself) and I am sure that EJustice doesn't feel good about this either. The only hope I have for a "win-win" outcome here is very slim - namely that EJustice has not actually read his student's work in light of the policies and guidelines and that what he actually wrote about the community's reactions was just .... some kind of kneejerk reactivity or something. But even that doesn't get us past his own documented efforts in his talk comments and in the course description to to urge students to use WP for advocacy.

And based on what he has written in Wikipedia to date, I do not see it as likely that he has it in him to see and acknowledge that what he did and wrote was wrong. But hope is essential, and you are willing to try. If you and the Education Program succeed in the course of the review of the semester, he can appeal on the basis of his new understanding, and everybody wins. But right now there is no basis I can see to trust that this disaster will not be repeated. An indef is both justified and essential; this strong "no" should be the unambiguous starting point for the review of the semester and consideration of future activities. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I would love to see the students "use WP for advocacy", as long as the resulting article "represents proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources on the topic". And since the majority of reputable published sources currently appear to oppose Trump's environmental policy, the resulting NPOV article would not be politically neutral. To my regret, the instructor has failed to teach his students how to write good WP articles or good propaganda. Gaia is not pleased... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's good of EdChem to make an offer to put in what could be a significant amount of effort. I do fear that EJustice won't really take it in, the same way they really don't appear to have understood all the other explanations - although a single focused effort might yield better results than multi-directional criticism. So if EdChem is willing to try it, then I'm willing to support it. If it doesn't work out, an indef block would still be an option, and with this semester's course over I don't see any problem with allowing the needed time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EJustice has had many of us working with him and his students to try to do a good job on Wikipedia. His actions have eroded the faith of even those who initially defended his class, myself included. The only possible reaction to such an errosion of the community's trust is indef/site ban. This would be preventative to stop any of this disruption from happening again until the community was convinced any future class wouldn't be pressured into introducing a POV into Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose If you would like to take your time and effort to engage in a conversation with the user, I'm fine with that. If that discussion bears fruit, we can always come here and have an unblock discussion. In addition to the risks posed by future courses, I think we need to consider whether or not the user will continue editing on his own in the same manner as he has been pushing his students. This is especially important if he now sees Wikipedia as a "problem to be solved", and the systemic bias replies to criticism make me think he does. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The suggestions as outlined by EdChem. An indef block is the solution here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, especially with the following additional condition: EJustice will be watched and indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved admin on request from EdChem if any problems reappear. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support with admiration for those willing to try this, along with a great deal of skepticism about whether this will really affect EJustice's approach to the subject. I fear that he will simply become better at concealing the advocacy he is urging on his students. I would suggest that this amount to a ban on future participation, which can be lifted by the WikiEdu folks only if they are really sure the lesson has been learned and the problems won't recur. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Melanie, I recognise that there is a real possibility that my efforts may fail. I do want to respond to your comment from above: "At most, I suspect that EdChem and the other well-meaning editors will just teach him to pretend neutrality and keep his urging of advocacy out of site - to do it in lectures and emails rather than where we can see it." I don't know / can't now what EJustice will learn, but my intent on the teaching front is very much for him to develop an understanding of, an acceptance of, and appreciation for WP policy; how to subvert policy to further an agenda is not my desired goal. Further, if he did run another course where pursuing an agenda and POV editing and advocacy were occurring, I would be in the front row of the crowd calling for sanctions. EdChem (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose non-blocking proposal. I think the original proposal is quite compatible with EdChem's conversation/mentoring, since (a) "indefinite" is not the same as "infinite", and (b) EJustice would still be able to edit his talk page. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest problem with this proposal is that it would saddle the larger community with what will certainly be a massive ongoing timesink, something that only a ban or block can really prevent. When class assignments go off the rails, it is more disruptive than when one random user does, simply because of the numbers of student editors involved. This proposal would make excellent sense if we were just at the beginning of interacting with, and giving advice to, EJustice, per WP:BITE. But editors who are instructors or students in a class assignment are given the same privileges as all other editors: neither more nor less. They are not entitled to a greater amount of AGF than any other editor would get. And let's remember, an indefinite block is not an infinite block. There is no reason why the community, with sufficient cause, could not lift the restrictions in the future. Therefore, continuing discussion with good-faith and patient editors, at EJustice's user talk page, should indeed continue. But we need to quarantine it to there until we see, convincingly, the kind of correction that has so far been blown off repeatedly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the instructor's apparent lack of didactic COMPETENCE. We have to assume that he was acting in good faith when he told his students that he would (1) reward them as a group for creating a neutral POV article, yet (2) reward each student as an individual only for adding certain kinds of non-neutral POV content. We accordingly have to adjudge that he wasn't capable of foreseeing (or of subsequently recognizing) that his admonition would necessarily result in a classic tragedy of the commons, where "individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users". --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Siteban (with exceptions noted above) A block would preclude what EdChem is proposing, but a site ban could have an exception for what EdChem is proposing such that any edit outside those exceptions (without being appealed first) would lead to an immediate block. This would provide EdChem with all the conditions he has requested while providing the commmunity the certainty that the behavior won't be repeated until properly appealed. -Obsidi (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Obsidi. If a block is placed, a discussion is still possible though it does add a technical challenge and that's without considering how EJustice responds to and feels about such an action. The other difficulty is that EJustice has not (that I am aware) responded as to whether who would abide by a ban with the conditions / restrictions which I set out... because if he won't then I can't see how any thoughts of an indef block being avoided become moot, in my view. EJustice, a direct statement responding to the suggestion I made above would be helpful. Would you abide by a ban along the lines of what I have proposed? To be clear, a ban would not prevent you from making edits anywhere, but they would be prohibited, and any violation would lead to a block which would stop you making edits. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Sorry, I thought my prior statement constituted agreement "Meanwhile, students' work on pages as part of the course is finished and I will not be commenting/editing on any of their pages at least until WikiEdu and I have synced up about how and when that would be appropriate (probably June at the soonest). I teach this course at most every two years and would hope, if I choose to have another WP assignment next time, to do so with WikiEdu's generally excellent support. "

Let me respond to each of your points more specifically...

"A. make no edits except those for:

1. those related to finalising the assessment of this group of students (asking for a temporary sandbox version of a deleted article, for example (consistent with other wiki policies) – this would not include AfD discussions of the articles

2. those related to discussing this course and what has happened; and,

B. not to set up a WP assignment for any future course without the support of editors at AN and from the Wiki Ed project"

For A 1 and 2. I actually have no intention of editing the articles at all, unless its part of WikiEdu's cleanup efforts this summer. They typically go through coursework and help edit the good stuff that didn't make mainspace quality standards by the end of the semester into mainspace after being improved. My intention was to help them with that. I think I've only contributed to one of the articles to date. If the community would rather I not help WikiEdu improve them, I'm fine with that.

Are you also proposing that I not be able to edit any other WP content? I think that depends on for how long. By content, I mean articles. I have little interest and perhaps little qualification, besides in the kind of bounded process you propose, in discussing WP policies and/or debating other editors. More on time limits below.

For B. I really wouldn't know how to ask for AN editors' permission two years from now, which is the earliest I'd be teaching this course again. Happy to commit to not setting up a course without WikiEdu's concurrence.

On time limits: If all of these restrictions (not being able to edit WP content or offer a course with WP assignments) are indefinite, my sense is that it is clearer for the community to express that will itself than for me to agree to it prior to developing a better understanding of the violations of norms of which I'm accused.

Your proposal's great strength I think, is to create a bounded dialogue where the quite diverse issues at play here are unpacked in a safe space. I'd be happy to accept any ban that runs until that process is complete and there is consensus (particularly among you and WikiEdu) about the specific violations that I engaged in. I'd also happily accept any ban that that process clearly delineated as necessary moving forward. But being banned indefinitely, for example, for the content of my syllabus, which was not clearly subject to WP policies at the time I loaded it, is something I (and probably other academics) need to understand better.

Is this a clear enough response to your suggestion? Thanks again for proposing a good way forward.

Finally, the SOAPBOX case for a ban has diffs where I encourage students to ensure their content touches on the course topic (environmental justice). I don't think I commented on more than 5-7 articles out of over 40 total. My TAs did more, as did students who were required to peer review their colleagues. Here are 2 examples(a. and b.) of my comments on a page suggested for deletion that avoided that fate. I think they represent more accurately the substantive role I played for students. I would appreciate your thoughts on the problems (SOAPBOX, POV, or other) with my participation in the conversation there. As indicated above, this is the page I was most actively involved in as it posed interesting questions about whether it fit better under another article or as a standalone. Jytdog was also quite actively involved in the discussion to delete for reasons similar to those at play here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJustice (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice, the reasoning for my proposal is that whether you are formally sanctioned with a ban or block will be decided by consensus, and implemented by an administrator uninvolved in the discussion. I am not an administrator and am only one voice in this discussion, equal with every other. I know from experience that a voluntary undertaking can influence consensus to accept that undertaking rather than imposing a sanction. If there is a block imposed, we can still discuss via your talk page, but it would be easier if you were not blocked as we can't use the sub-page you have suggested while you are blocked. Looking at the discussion here, it is hard not to see a consensus, so a block or ban may well be inevitable at this point. If that happens, please understand that WP uses "indefinite block" for "until it is agreed it is no longer necessary", not for "for ever"... though in some cases, blocks are effectively going to be infinite (imagine someone whose every edit was deliberate vandalism, or someone posting pro-paedophile advocacy with images of child victims being abused). We can talk about appeals and unblocking when the time comes. I recognise why you feel there are aspects of this situation that are unfair (the syllabus, for example, or posts of yours interpreted in the least favourable light) but whatever your intent, the overall result from a WP-perspective has been a significant disruption of WP article space and there are plenty of editors who are very angry. Some want to punish you, which is not allowed under WP policy, but blocks and bans to prevent disruption are justified, and a near-identical repeat of this project would be disruptive, I'm sure you'd agree. I suggest we let whatever will happen here happen, and turn to other topics in your user space. EdChem (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Thanks for helping me better understand what's going on. Have learned a lot/am learning, and another course will definitely await the kind of deeper conversation you've proposed along with more consultation with WikiEdu. EJustice (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• The levels of difficult things and wikilawyering in EJustice's post are too many to unpack here. Just two things:

First, the diffs he brought here show, just really clearly, how he was driving students to write essay content building arguments to support an advocacy position in Wikipedia. Even here and now. He really doesn't get what we do here.

Second, the past disruption was the class and so a lot of the discussion here has focused on what happened with that, and managing risks of future instances of that. Looking to the future, future courses at Berkeley are a concern. But as I understand it he has some kind of affiliate status Berkeley and spends most of his time doing many other things. There are any number of ways that disruption could continue, via EJustice acting individually or in some other of his RW roles. So please be mindful of that with regard to thinking through risks of future disruption especially with regard to tailoring restrictions on editing privileges.

I am going to go back to cleaning up after the last organized advocacy push in WP, namely the libertarian stuff pushed in by VIpul et al, which this class pulled me away from. I will not probably not comment here further and have probably been too active in this thread in any case - my apologies for that. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence of disruption by the students? You have only provided carefully curated cherry-picked quotes of the professor to advance your narrative that the professor was on a WP:NOTHERE WP:SOAPBOX, etc. mission to encourage a grand level of disruption and violation of wiki-rules, without showing actual disruption and harm. Many of the articles listed above by the professor still exist and are positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The professor worked with Wiki Ed to sandbox the essays that were problematic.
  Did the students edit war? Where is the engagement with the students on the article talk pages?
  Did you make any effort to engage and help the students? I sure didn't see it. What I did see was a consistent effort to try to discourage their efforts to add quality content by deleting their work, unfriendly and unwelcoming exchanges with the professor and with Wiki Ed, and now a massive effort to get the professor banned and prevent future students in this academic field from coming here. All, I can say is: Wow. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support for reasons in the comment immediately above that there was no proof of actual harm by the students. The professor has been kind enough to work collaboratively to address issues with newbie mistakes. I did not see this level of collaboration offered by his accusers.
  The professor has owned up to the problem of the WP:NPOV words in his course syllabus regarding current president's environmental plans, which incidentally is called "catastrophic for the environment, say climate experts" (Independent) a "wrecking ball on the environment" (LA Times), etc. from the first two hits of a Google search of "trump+environment". The fact that an expert in the field asked students to document that which one can see is already in the WP:RS does not seem all that odd. His mistake was to use such strong words to describe it, even though the WP:RS uses similar levels of hyperbole. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply very briefly. Half the articles the class created were deleted because they were essays advocating for the EJ movement/against Trump. The other half took an enormous amount of work by the community to make decent, and still need a lot of work. All through this, EJustice drove the students on, and reacted to the community with disdain. The students generally behaved well but there was some votestacking and edit warring; generally they were just put in a bad place and some of their pain has been quite evident. All of this has already been demonstrated. I do understand that you can't see the problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If what I understand here is true, then this proposal is the path of wisdom, instead of a rush to block. For clarity, I suggest this section be renamed 'Counter Proposal by EdChem.' I see a number of respected editors in support of this counter proposal. I must note that, given the community patience for the original proposer despite various blocks and topic bans handed out in the last two years, they seem remarkably unable to tolerate perceived transgressions in others. David Tornheim's comments just above are worthy of reflection. Jusdafax 23:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: I have no objection to you refactoring the top of this sub-thread to include a condensed proposal summary and altering the title, so long as it is clear that the addition occurred subsequently. I think there is benefit to a perspective other than mine summarising where this sub-thread has gone, including EJustice's responses. EdChem (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to bring topic bans, etc. into the mix, then it's also relevant to mention David Tornheim was also topic-banned for disruptive behavior and advocacy in environmental topics (i.e., GMOs and pesticides), and you were also warned for similar battleground behavior there too.[49]. Though I should say going off the rails of the topic at hand to snipe at an editor one has been in past disputes with isn't really relevant here. The focus here is on the problems we've seen with Ejustice's advocacy and how to handle that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"David Tornheim's comments just above are worthy of reflection." On the contrary, David Tornheim's comments above show that he has entirely missed the forest for the trees, and really doesn't grok the nature of the problem at all. He has consistently misinterpreted not only what happened, but the purpose of the suggested sanction: why else would he be suggesting that we bow down and kiss EJustice's ring, prophesying doom for Wikipedia if we indef block the professor, thereby cutting off the future flow of students to our shores. Other instructors seem to be able to cope with Wikipedia's policies, even if they start off on the wrong foot and have to be put wise, why should we give EJustice special dispensation from WP:NPOV? At any moment I expect to hear that we're stifling academic intellectual freedom, when, actually, we thrive on the intellectual freedom of the academy when its results are published in reliable sources and gain currency in the field. What we don't allow is intellectual freedom here, because we're an encyclopedia of verifiable knowledge, and not a weblog of opinions. In short,David Tornheim has just about everything backwards, and that's not going to change by reflecting on his comments, just cause unnecessary confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that dig at Jytdog was as unhelpful as it was, unfortunately, predictable. Going back to the GMO ArbCom case, there has been an ongoing pattern of editors taking sides, with Jusdafax, David Tornheim, and prokaryotes very much on one side. In any case, I am not aware of Jytdog teaching a course in which he instructs large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish No irony intended here: I think that what you say about my intentions hits the nail on the head.

If you believe that my intention was to "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV" there should be a ban imposed on me, clearly. I'm learning more, so, in Wikipedia-ese, there's either fairly incontrovertible evidence to that effect in your mind or you are presuming that I had bad intention, which is a violation of a WP principle on your part. This, I think, is the heart of the matter with respect to a WP:SOAPBOX ban or block.

My syllabus for a course approved to be taught at a major university WAS in small measure posted on a site subject to WP rules (unbeknownst to me). I could post all the guidance I gave students about neutrality, about no edit-warring, about plagiarism, beyond even the material they were required to study and were examined and graded on that I have already directed this debate to within the WikiEdu sphere. Is the price of having students edit on Wikipedia a requirement that entire syllabi be reviewed and approved by WP editors, beyond even WikiEdu?

I welcome the chance to engage in a discussion about such questions in a way that does not threaten academic freedom. But I hope you see why engaging deeply in this debate, subjecting the whole of my (and eventually all faculty's?) curriculum to review by this body, under threat of a ban would be, at a minimum, chilling to the participation of many, many present and future Wikipedians.

I am not responding point by point specifically for this reason. I have agreed to limit my activity to discussing issues of principle, learning about them, modifying my teaching accordingly. But defending my intentions on a point-by-point basis, particularly when students and I were threatened very early on with grave sanctions for having such discussions? (and please don't ask me to prove the latter...lots of examples cited and extant right in this discussion stream, and I am relying more on where the considered judgement of experienced Wikipedians takes us than in my newbie ability to make long lists of powerful diffs) I know what my intentions for this assignment were, and they were to teach students to document a controversial topic in a neutral way, and to increase knowledge about said topic in the world. If you believe my intentions were otherwise, that I have been lying, that my syllabus was a lie...then a ban or block is appropriate. EJustice (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It was clear to all of us that you didn't understand NPOV. It was your intention that students come to WP and advocate for the EJ movement and against what Trump has been doing. And yes that is a clear violation of NPOV, whether you knew it or not. What made that doubly awful, was your refusal to even try listen to and learn from the Education Program and the editing community while the mess was unfolding, but instead accusing the entire community and individual editors of bias.

Everybody here was new at some point, but one of the hallmarks of advocates in WP, and the reason why we indef them to prevent further disruption, is that they refuse to learn and change - the disruption will just go on and on unless we stop it. Unteachable newbies who come here to advocate get indeffed. Unteachable newbies who lead 180-person armies into WP to advocate get indeffed too. A teachable person would by now already be saying "I get it. I have reviewed what the students wrote -- what I asked them and urged them to do -- and I get it. Clear advocacy. I am sorry." That is an entirely possible and plausible thing to have done by now and to be able to say by now. But instead, even here you continue to wrap yourself in insulating blankets (before it was the righteousness of your cause and the education program.. now it is newbie-ness), attack others, and refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. This too is what advocates always do. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My main point, of course, was that it was inappropriate of that other editor to take a dig at a fellow editor like that. But I do indeed hear you, I promise, that you did not literally "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV". I get it that you did not come to Wikipedia with the intention of making trouble – rather, you came here with the intention of teaching a course. So you did "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia", and you guided the students in a manner that happens to be very contrary to the way we do things at Wikipedia. The question we are dealing with now is what you might do with a future class editing assignment. By the way, despite my screen name, I am actually someone who was for many years a tenured professor at a large US research university, so I really do understand the issues related to academic freedom as well as the logistics of teaching a large class. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support What truly harms the project is how we irrationally deal with cases like this. Here we have a professor and a 180 students who acted with good intent but may have violated some policies as most users do until they have spent years here trying to understand them. The claims of disruption appear to have been greatly exaggerated and instead of taking the time effort to work with them, the professor and students are brought to forum after forum to block or ban them. We need to work with students and their teachers and not block or ban because they have failed to follow our arcane policies to the letter. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Any editor who has been here for "years" and doesn't understand and strictly follow a fundamental policy such as WP:NPOV shouldn't be editing here. Period. Any editor who is told about NPOV by multiple editors and continues to instruct his (bsaically) involuntary meatpuppets to violate it is deliberately slapping us in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ejustice has not been here for "years", not even half a year. The account was created 16 January 2017. I think you may have misread what I wrote? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: Or he may not. What I infer from Beyond My Ken's comment is that most users who have spent more than a year here do understand NPOV policy, and are willing to strictly follow it (if asked); those few editors who don't, or won't, should not be editing here. Likewise, most editors who get repeatedly told about NPOV stop violating it; those few who don't should not be editing here. And so on. Also, he may have taken exception (as do I) to your straw-man argument about "blocking students". --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

But EJustice is not one of those editors who have spent more than a year here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am One of Many is correct, I did misread his comment, so my first statement makes no sense in relation to what he actually said, therefore I have struck it. My apologies for my misunderstanding. However my second statement remains valid: "Any editor who is told about NPOV by multiple editors and continues to instruct his (basically) involuntary meatpuppets to violate it is deliberately slapping us in the face." That was the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate the proposal here to give them another chance with the hope any disruption can be stemmed, but I can't shake the feeling that an indef block/site ban is the safest option. Any discussion that leads to them becoming a productive editor who understands how to write with a neutral POV can be done on their talk page if need be. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Any needed discussion can take place at EJustice's talk page. That's where they can demonstrate that they've understood how misguided their actions throughout this have been. If they can do that they should then craft an appeal that convinces the community of it. Capeo (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

@EdChem: could you please flesh out a bit more about how things should proceed under your proposal in the event that EJustice either does not end up accepting community expectations or gives ambiguous replies to questions about that? In particular, I would like to be clear on the extent to which you, personally, would or would not assume a mentorship role, and would or would not be willing if appropriate to make a negative recommendation to the community. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Allow me to start by acknowledging your points from AE, that EJustice received plenty of helpful advice and that neither academics nor instructors enjoy a privileged position nor additional rights, and I do have to agree with you entirely on the first point. I see the second as more complicated in practice than in theory, as blocking an instructor mid-course leads to consequent disruption for all the students. Had we known as the course started how EJustice would respond, I would have supported attempting to stop the course from running and preventing a mass of disruption. At this point, however, the mess has been created, vast time and effort has gone into article space clean up, and we need to decide how to proceed. I understand and agree with the consensus above that allowing EJustice to run another course at this point would be absurd, and placing a ban to prevent this is justified. I don't see the benefit of a block, however, in that his edits to article space were few, and if he is willing to help with the post mortem, that is helpful to us and to Wiki Ed.

So, I see as a reasonable compromise:

• the community enacts an indefinite ban on any future course run by EJustice, revocable by an appeal to AN. I would anticipate any appeal would need support from Wiki Ed representatives and evidence of policy understanding from EJustice, and he would be extremely unwise to launch an appeal prematurely
• the community enact an indefinite ban on EJustice editing article space, article talk pages, and any pages (like AfDs) related to his students' work – this could include a post-1932 American politics ban under DS, but I don't see how that is necessary
• EJustice volunteers to make edits only in his user space, or in relation to the Wiki Ed and any other community discussions of his course, what happened, what clean up was required and why, how to avoid similar problems, etc. He would also be allowed to initiate an appeal at AN when he sees fit.
• Any violation of the two community bans would be met with blocks at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator, and a block could also be added quickly through AN if his discussion of the course becomes advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than discussion in seeking an understanding of wiki-policy and why articles were deleted, etc.

This is not as restrictive as a site ban and block restricting him to just his user talk page, but it is sufficient, in my opinion, to prevent disruption while leaving open the possibility of a future course.

As to what I seel to do, my intention is to explore some of the individual issues that arose with the intention to bring in relevant policy. I want to discuss the idea of an X and Y topic and how it can be made into an article, starting from the requirement that the intersection is notable and covered in reliable secondary sources, covering whether a stand-alone article is needed and the issues of OR, SYNTH, ADVOCACY, etc. I also have some ideas about materials that are unsuited to WP.

On mentoring, I don't see that as an issue that arises unless the bans are lifted. It might be suitable to lift the article space ban for him to develop a couple of articles as a demonstration to the community of the application of his new understanding of policy, or this could be done in user space prior to an unban request. Having seen various mentorship situations on WP, I know they can appear fine initially but deteriorate if the desire to ignore or side-step policy emerges, which is a reason that mentors are typically admins who can issue a quick block if necessary. EJustice has responded to me very positively so far, but I am aware that there have been IDHT and advocacy issues and my views on the policy issues are very much in line with those raised at the AE and in discussions prior to that. I will try to help him to understand the WP perspective but any unban will require adherence to core policy, and that is non-negotiable.

TL;DR: EdChem, could you please flesh out a bit more about how things should proceed under your proposal in the event that EJustice either does not end up accepting community expectations or gives ambiguous replies to questions about that?

If EJustice does not end up accepting community expectations, I assume that will mean his goals are incompatible with WP articles, and I would hope he would decide not to pursue further courses on WP and would make a statement to that effect. If he did decide to pursue WP courses despite rejecting community expectations, I would expect the ban to rapidly become a community site ban and indefinite block. Further, in that circumstances, it would likely be necessary to authorise blocking students and TAs associated with him as quickly as possible, both to prevent disruption to WP and to encourage him to move any project off WP so that it can be completed and he can carry out whatever assessment is involved. I would be very disappointed if it came to this, though, it would be a huge issue for WP and a big problem for EJustice, likely involving contact from the Wiki Ed project direct to the university.

In particular, I would like to be clear on the extent to which you, personally, would or would not assume a mentorship role, and would or would not be willing if appropriate to make a negative recommendation to the community.

Mentorship is premature, IMO, and arises only after a successful appeal. Any appeal will be for EJustice to make, and the resulting decision will be made by the community. I am a Wikipedian and both believe in and adhere to WP policy. As such, if / when EJustice makes an appeal, I would respond honestly to requests for my opinion. I want the discussion with EJustice to be held entirely on-wiki so that others will be able to form their own judgements. I want to use a user space page so that EJustice need not be distracted by differing perspectives, but still allowing talk page commentary from anyone pointing out issues I have missed, errors that I have made, etc. I would hope not to have to say that an appeal is premature or that I do not believe his beliefs / understanding / goals / whatever have changed (or changed sufficiently), but if that was my opinion, I would share it. On a purely pragmatic level, supporting EJustice's return without believing he would not be disruptive would be foolish on my part, damaging my own reputation and credibility and casting a shadow over my judgement. I am willing to put effort into trying to help EJustice, but I am not willing to throw away WP policy to do it. EdChem (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the teacher used the headlines and facts about policy changes which have been widely criticized, just google "assault on the environment" for instance. Then he asked specifically about instructions on how to write about environmental justice, and was harshly denied. prokaryotes (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Unclear what that diff spanning 13 edits is meant to show. But EJustice asked remarkably few questions and at no point did EJustice ask the editing community how to edit about difficult topics.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, love what you wrote and your intention but none of that conflicts with an indef. A successful effort would provide the foundation for a successful appeal, which would be good for everyone. But nothing they have said or done to date promises success; quite the opposite, as you have noted. It would be best for the community to not go through this whole "should we indef them now?" discussion again; this is the seventh community discussion about this class already. An appeal discussion would be a new one, with a new basis. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an appeal discusion would be a new one, but that is not one that can be avoided. Even with an indef block, he can (and hopefully will successfully) appeal that as well. An effective siteban (but for the exceptions noted above), would prevent disruption, without any additional cost to the community beyond the consideration of an appeal (which would likely also occur with an indef block eventually as well). Maybe he will never learn and we will never lift the ban, if so that would be sad, but doesn't add any risk of further disruption beyond what an indef block would do. The only additional potential cost would be the cost to an admin who had to block him for violating the ban, but I don't expect that will be very hard to do or cost any more time than a single admin a few minutes (it would be very clear and easy to identify and block if he steps outside the siteban). -Obsidi (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm glad you appreciate my intention and that our pro-WP goals are in accord. An indef does not "conflict" with my intentions in making them impossible, but I see an indef as adding extra complexity to my efforts (that I would prefer not to have to cope with), and I believe the block would be a less appropriate community response in any case. In the event of an indef block:

1. EJustice and I would be stuck on a single page for a complex and likely lengthy discussion
2. separating commentary onto talk pages ceases to be possible, and refactoring of an editor's talk page by others is more accepted than it is for other pages in user space, making a discussion restricted to user talk:EJustice much more open to interference. In the event of a ban, it is my intention to work on a user space page where EJustice restricts who may edit while allowing commentary on the associated user talk page.
3. there is the risk of being accused of violating policy on the use of user talk pages, certainly when we discuss possible redrafting of article content (not for implementation by EJustice, though I might put proposals on article talk pages) or if he is drafting a new article
4. imposing a block has the potential to effect EJustice more than a ban to which he is willing to abide, which would not be helpful IMO
5. imposing a block is more likely to have reputational consequences for WP
6. a block precludes EJustice from contributing to a discussion at Wiki Ed pages over summer as their post-mortem discussion occurs
7. a block precludes EJustice from seeking advice / interacting with other editors on their talk page – yes, he could use a ping but those do not always work – and asking specific questions may be helpful at times... I could ask them for him, true, but I want to engage with him in part in a collegial academic-to-academic way and him needing to ask me to post to another talk page for him is not really in keeping with the sense of an interaction between peers that I hope to foster
8. I do not see what a block prevents that my proposal does not, in terms of the potential to damage article content, which gives a block the aura of punishment
9. with a ban in place but not a block, EJustice has the opportunity to demonstrate his willingness to abide by community consensus by not violating it, which would be a positive point for him at any appeal.

In terms of the potential for a further "should we indef them now" discussion, if EJustice violated the ban the indef could be imposed by any uninvolved administrator without a need for a discussion... if the result of my efforts was that EJustice decided to withdraw from WP, an indef could be imposed without opposition... if he sought to run a further course without Wiki Ed and community agreement and without regard to policy, the discussion would be brief and near-unanimous. It is my hope that there is no need for a "should we indef" discussion, only for an appeal which can follow a ban or a block, but if one were needed, given the consensus emerging here, I would not anticipate it being drawn out.

Also, I have to disagree that EJustice has done "nothing ... to date [that] promises success" as he has indicated a willingness to learn and an openness to a discussion with me. He has stated in a recent post (albeit with comments that would have been better left alone) that he sees the reason for a block if there is a belief that his intention was to disrupt. He has not been editing in article space in pursuit of an advocacy agenda and the students will likely most have disappeared, so we are talking about watching one person. Before you say it, I agree that these are small steps compared with his statements during the student editing period, but they are something that I see as headed in the right direction. I have not started on the direct discussion with him as I am awaiting the outcome of this discussion because the restriction to one page only will force a re-think on my part on how to work the discussion. Also, I want to talk with him first on his timing / availability so we can fit with both our schedules. So, it is partly my fault that there is nothing I can point to having achieved in direct conversation on the point you raise.

I admit that the outcome of all this may be that I fail, EJustice is indef'd, and I end up being seen as having taken our AGF guideline beyond the boundary of good sense, but that is a risk I am willing to run. As an editor of nearly 10 years standing, with a clean block log, over 50% of edits to article space, and plenty of major content additions, I believe my record demonstrates my commitment to the principles of Wikipedia. I am willing to monitor EJustice's edits if a ban is imposed, to warn him if I think he is testing limits, and to point out violations of the ban. I'm not an admin and so have no block button, but if he were to violate a ban, I can't see there being a shortage of uninvolved admins ready and willing to block. The mess created here has lessons for Wiki Ed, WP, and student editing, and I'm willing to put in time to try to help us learn as a community what we can from what has happened. As the instructor involved, I believe EJustice can help us in that process, even if by way of a negative example. I am asking that my task not be unnecessarily complicated by an indef block, and instead that a ban that prevents further disruption be used as a more nuanced and targeted response, and I think I have sound reasons for this request.

Thanks for reading this latest wall of text, and I do regret that this discussion has been so extended... I just believe that as a community we can do better than imposing a site ban and indef block. EdChem (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Read a few times. Thanks for the thoughtful remarks. So whatever the community decides here. I am fine with whatever block or ban a) prevents EJustice from directly editing and from running any other group-editing of WP (through Berkeley or any of his other affiliations) without an appeal in which he demonstrates really clearly that he understands the policies and guidelines and the importance of actually engaging with the editing community authentically, and takes responsibility without any of the deflection that we have seen to date; and b) allows a review with you and the Education Program to review the semester (which, although folks in good faith are intending to do it, may not start at all and may not be completed, for any number of reasons). I have only a little hope that those efforts will bear fruit.. The fact that even after all this drama he has not gone and read the students' editing critically and seen what has appalled so many experienced editors, nor seen his role in driving that, is a mindset that ... I understand very well. We have seen the advocate mindset here many many times. But perhaps a facilitated examination will open his eyes. Perhaps. In any case I will trust those wiser in blocking/banning to craft whatever is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the specific topics where EJustice has fundamental misunderstandings that you are going to have to clean up, in order to succeed:

• Wikipedia articles are in the genre of "encyclopedia" and in that genre in our weird WP way. Articles summarize accepted knowledge that we find in RS. They aren't essays where you pose a thesis and prove it or where you "make your big points!", they aren't even review articles where you synthesize the primary literature, and they aren't news. They just summarize accepted knowledge. EJustice, like many academics, does not understand this. This is a very hard thing for people in the knowledge business to wrap their heads around. Very hard.
• Wikipedia is not a site for advocacy of any kind. (we have beat this one to death already but it is still unclear to me, even based on EJustice's last remark here, that they get this)
• A lot of student WP editing is awful. Yes even from "upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities". Copyvio, stuff not supported by citations given, stuff with no citations, bad sources (the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists... not a good source), SYN by juxtaposition, even just bad writing... all of that is common as dirt. Not to mention the pro EJ movement/anti-Trump advocacy. There has been not even an eyelash-bat toward seeing this. Not while it was happening, and not now.
• When there are problems, we talk about them and try to work them out. Not responding authentically to criticism, but instead with "yessing" (apparently what happened to the Education Program people when they tried to manage the problems), or responding with disdain (attacks or telling students to ignore editor feedback) as he did to the community - and continues to do even in their posts at AE and here, is not OK. The community matters. Dealing with EJustice's own behavior is going to be probably the hardest part of this.

Any one of those by itself would be very hard to work through. You have all 4 of them to work through and they reinforce each other. These are things that in my view EJustice needs to understand before any imposed block or ban would be lifted. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely on the first three points. On the fourth, only EJustice and the Wiki Ed people can really comment on the interactions, we (as the community) have comments from both but were not a part of those discussions. EJustice's responses to the community indicated a lack of comprehension, defensiveness, and a determination to continue forward, and those are problems... but I'm sure he felt harried and avoiding an assessment activity collapsing was likely his uppermost concern. He can show respect for the community will by abiding by a ban, and whether his attitude changes sufficiently to convince the community that he will work in a consensus model and within policy boundaries is ultimately not my responsibility. He will learn and adapt and persuade the community... or he won't. My plan is to start with some of the easier issues and move to the more complex. The copyvio / plagiarism issues, for example, were not well handled on either side, and I think when EJustice understands what solutions were available he'll see the situation was not as difficult as it appeared. EdChem (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you very much for such a thoughtful and thorough response to my question. And let me say very clearly that I have never in any way doubted your "commitment to the principles of Wikipedia". And I agree with you that we should want the discussions to be transparent and onsite. Mostly, I'm trying to assess what would be the best way to get to where you and I both want to get, on a direct path with as few diversions as possible. And I guess my own tl;dr is that I have not changed my overall opinion.

I get it that EJustice would be doing little different in his editing under either a block/ban or under the ban that you propose. So I ask myself which scenario would minimize harm, either to the editor or to the community. I'm seeing more falling back into the community's lap under your plan, and the community has already dealt with enough. Taking some of your numbered points: (1–3) I don't think it matters if the conversations just occur on his user talk, and I'm not worried that anyone will be overly picky about the nature of the discussions there. (If they were to be inappropriate, which I think is highly unlikely, they would be no more appropriate on some kind of dedicated page.) (5) No, I don't think we are looking at reputational damage to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's greater interests reside in having clear and consistent guidelines for student assignments, rather than whatever the instructor decides. I never ask for special treatment as an editor, based on my own academic credentials, and I don't give such special treatment to anyone else. (7) Interested editors who want to give helpful advice will know how to find his user talk page. And it's not impossible to get in touch with some other editors, if really appropriate. But not involving editors who wish not to be involved is a feature, not a bug.

Bottom line, I think a site ban, effected by a block that restricts him to his user talk, would be the most efficient way to get to the same outcome, and I still do not see sufficient advantages to the more nuanced kind of ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: As the one who is having the discussion with EJustice, I think I'm in a much better position to judge whether only having access to his user talk page is a pain in the posterior. It is, for me, an unnecessary and unhelpful additional barrier. However, it does not make a discussion impossible, and I do recognise that reasonable Wikipedians can disagree or assign different weightings to different considerations.

Regarding WP reputation, I think a "Wikipedia bans Berkley Professor" headline is something we could do without.

As for needing further community discussions, do you think that EJustice should be included in discussions on Wiki Ed pages looking at what went wrong here? If so, any block will have to be undone and replaced with a ban following a community discussion subsequent to this... under my proposal, taking part in those discussions is already covered.

Finally, if my proposal prevents everything that needs preventing, then how is going to a block justified under the blocking policy?

Thanks, EdChem (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, I think we are going to end up agreeing to disagree. But, very truly, thank you for all of the thought and work you have been putting into this. I'd say that your proposal would have prevented everything that needs preventing if you had been more agreeable to taking on the role of mentorship and the accompanying responsibility to deal harshly with an unsuccessful result, which is why I asked you specifically about those things. No, I do not think that he really has much to offer WikiEd, but they can ask him if they want to. And, as much as I understand what you are saying about that headline, I am more concerned about a headline something like "Wikipedia is baffled about what to do when a professor assigns his class to write opinion pieces about Donald Trump". I think it goes against Wikipedia's most basic values to say "we better not ban someone with an academic appointment, because that's someone important, but we can still ban someone who is a nobody, because that's someone who is unimportant". The news story that I would really like to see out there is: "College instructors: please understand that Wikipedia editors are not your teaching assistants, and if you send students to edit here, you need to prepare the students to abide by our editing expectations." --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: agreeing that we disagree is a reasonable outcome between editors of good-will, and certainly I accept we see differently EJustice's potential to help the Wiki Ed process – but I could be wrong, of course.  :) I don't share your headline concern as I think a ban addresses it. Also, to be clear, my reason for not blocking EJustice is much more that I think there is a chance for a better outcome, and not because Professors shouldn't be blocked. I agree that there should not be unblockable-by-reason-of-status editors. If his response to me had been that he knows what he is doing and doesn't need help, I'd say a block is a preventative necessity. Maybe I am just too optimistic, but I am not yet at the point of seeing no possibility of a better outcome than a block.

As for the mentoring question, under my ban option, edits out of bounds would attract a rapid block no matter what I did, and I would certainly emphasise that to EJustice. If he made an appeal and I thought he wouldn't follow policy, I'd oppose and point to the evidence supporting my view, which would lead (I would anticipate) to a block. I didn't decline the responsibility (well, I didn't mean to decline the responsibility), I just thought it was unnecessary to have a formal mentor prior to an unbanning and return to article space.

I hope that EJustice will understand how an editor would approach topics like the ones he wanted in a policy compliant way, which would leave him much better able to prepare students for WP editing expectations... so maybe we can end up with your preferred news story as an outcome, at least. EdChem (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, I think all of that is quite reasonable, thanks. And I think that just about everyone here feels, as I do, that you have done admirable work on this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Whey you say, "the community has already dealt with enough," what do you mean? I didn't see much effort by the community trying to help the students. Did you? Did you help the students? It seems that most of the "effort" was to try to get the articles the students had worked on deleted as soon as they were published, which would destroy all record of the students' work. That did happen with some of the articles. It's true the discussion at the noticeboards has been lengthy, but isn't that because editors made no effort to help the students with their work? Have you even looked at the work of the students? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

David, I do not answer questions that are based upon innuendo about me. I've spent more time and effort working with student editors, working with WikiEd people, and writing most of WP:ASSIGN, than you appear to realize. Editors may, if they wish, volunteer to be teaching assistants for student assignments, but that is voluntary. And your statement below, that the sanctions discussed here are punitive, is incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:EdChem, thanks for putting your hand up here. I guess the thing that I'm concerned about is that EJustice has gotten a truckload of good advice already and disregarded it, so I'm not sure what adding to that will do. But if you're willing to put in the effort, I think it's worth a try at least. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

David Tornheim’s Analysis of Allegations + Collaborative Workspace

As I have explained above, I do not feel the professor needs to be punished, and that instead a discussion (such as that proposed by EdChem) should ensue about how to help instructors and students new to Wikipedia add material in controversial topics without so much unnecessary drama. Such discussion would examine how to engage, converse and work collaboratively and in a civil manner with a new instructor and students when they make newbie mistakes and follow our policy to be WP:BOLD, so that instructor and students alike will have a positive experience editing and can be retained as productive Wikipedians who create content that follows our policy and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim, thanks for making an effort here, but I have to disagree with some of what you are saying. First, I think that some of the work had way too much WP:BOLD editing and nowhere near enough policy and guidelines. Some of the pages created were not just advocacy but fundamentally unencyclopaedic in the sense of no reliable sourcing to even establish notability. Second, your page is structured to address what you show as allegations by Jytdog. There were many critics so singling out Jytdog is establishing an adversarial process, which I believe is exactly what is not needed here, and I don't see that approach leading to a positive experience. Third, there is strong consensus of multiple policy issues, whatever the merits of any specific example, and it is that that needs addressing, not the specific examples. Fourth, I agree completely that punishment is not needed here, but I can't disagree with those above noting a future course would be disruptive under current circumstances, and there is a legitimate basis for preventative action. I don't think it is right to leave EJustice in any doubt about the community's view on the overall situation, that there was massive disruption, that student editors added much non-policy compliant content, and that advocacy rather than neutrality was the result, no matter the intent. Fifth, I believe that a one-on-one discussion with EJustice is preferable to getting input from many editors at once. Your point about how to support students is important, but to me it is a subsequent issue which follows on from the instructor understanding policy and how to approach potentially controversial content is an encyclopaedic way. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Response to Allegations

In the spirit of starting that conversation, I have created a separate page to respond to all of the allegations made by Jytdog at WP:AE. This is necessary because Jytdog shows the professor’s comments in the worst light through cherry-picking. I am posting my comments there rather extend this overly long discussion.

This is a permalink to the page to be incorporated herein to the record on this case with time stamp of 10:55, 2 May 2017: [50]

The current version of the page is here: User:David_Tornheim/EJustice_Class_Collaborative_Discussion

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only is this page of yours wildly unnecessary it also assumes that the people here and at AE don't have enough clue to look at the context of the diffs provided. You don't like Jytdog. We get it. You're mistakenly assuming someone presenting evidence of disruption has to have had directly involved in every diff or even witnessed them at the time. It's not unusual to see an editor being disruptive then go back through their contributions to see if there's a pattern then present those diffs as well. It's not on any single editor who sees large scale disruption to take it upon themselves to solve the issue. The correct action is to bring it to the community as was done. You're singling out of Jytdog on that page is, in the least, petty and bordering on an attack page. Capeo (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

At the least, the page shows a level of preoccupation clearly continuing battleground behavior from the GMO topics that they were topic banned from. While it would be silly to derail the EJustice matter even further by entertaining it now, this does give some good evidence towards imposing interaction bans for David if this continues to be a problem in the future. I know there were concerns about people pursuing other editors outside their topic ban during ArbCom, etc., but the original hope was topic bans would also knock back the battleground behavior a bit in lieu of further escalating sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration

The page I created is designed as a workspace in the spirit of EdChem’s proposal to collaboratively work with the professor to address community concerns. I have created spaces for editors to comment regarding each of the allegations and whether they think the articles and edits are a problem, and if so, how to fix those problems.

I will create new sections and welcome others to do so as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

The proposer made two points, a) that all the students are meatpuppets (either meaning sockpuppets, or astroturfing, see also WP:SOCK) and that there is a campaign for environmental justice against the current US administration, and b) that the user does not understand the problem.

Editor EJustice's comments show willingness to work things out in a constructive way, ie. here (and noted the next course (if) will be in two years), here, or asking the proposer how to write about environmental justice on Wikipedia. There seems to be an argument about - if a block is punitive (WP:PUNISH), or not, and about particular statements such as, assault on the environment, which seems to be a term you come across when studying environmental justice, or reading reliable sources (1, 2, 3, that statement is in all reliable sources to describe changes to environmental laws, budgets, and protests).

The editor is member since 2017, and the current course page revision reads much different, and has no talk page entries. Thus, shows the willingness to consider and act upon input made by the community, besides nobody even used the talk page. Above comments by EJustice, and edits made to improve criticized content, were not considered by many of those editors who voted for the initial proposal. The assignment was public and collaborated with WikiEdu. And there is no clear consensus. Thus, i propose to close this topic without actions.

• Support as proposed. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prokaryotes, I can't see how a "no action" close is going to happen. There are different opinions on whether to impose a community ban and indef block, a more limited ban such as that I proposed and no block, or a ban on a future course and an indef block recognising a discussion on the user talk page will follow and possibly a subsequent appeal. Editors supporting no action are scarce. I am not an admin and can't close this discussion given my participation, but I see a strong consensus for some action. Whichever admin does the close and finds where consensus lies on the action to be taken has a challenging task with lots of comments, etc., and I do not envy her or him the task... but I will be stunned if the conclusion is "no action." EdChem (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, i try to follow up on your notion about advocacy, starting from the AE thread linked above, and end up here (POV Forks discussion). Basically at every turn EJustice tried to cooperate, i cannot judge for the course participants, but did not see any blatant disrupting behavior. At that POV Fork discussion, EJustice noted "..a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct." But no editor there responded with input on how to actually improve stuff. EJustice is an expert on the topic of environmental justice, editors engaging probably not. Then there are many content arguments which belong in article space. To me it seems there are new editors, which need some learning in basic Wikipedia guidelines, like how to avoid copy vio, how to quote, et cetera. What's missing, a process of quality control for such courses, not punitive actions. prokaryotes (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem One third oppose the proposal, and there was no discussion yet for no action. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, the advocacy edits were made by students and many are in now-deleted articles, which was also the quality control for those articles. As for one-third opposing, there are plenty that are opposing my suggestion in favour of harsher action, so I suggest that one-third favouring no action is not an accurate inference to draw. And, on punitive actions, I think most editors reading the whole thread would not accuse me of advocating a punitive response. After all, a ban to prevent a future course is preventative, and I'm the one who is offering to help EJustice to understand. I think I am much more at risk of being accused of taking the disruption insufficiently seriously that I am of being accused of seeking to punish EJustice. EdChem (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem I refer entirely to the initial proposal above. I welcome your efforts to discuss the issue with EJustice. Punitive as in banning or blocking the scholar, for actions by what appears to be a minority of the entire class of 180? Hence, if you punish a teacher for the actions of a few, then this is overreacting, because clearly the majority of edits are not masking of agenda, or classic socketing as has been suggested. Which bags the question how you deal with such issues in the future. Suggestion, work out those articles in user or coarse space first, then after review publish. And because we cannot judge the deleted articles any longer - the suggested extent of disruption, the entire case is kind of moot. prokaryotes (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support with the closer stating that EJustice and EdChem have agreed to discuss and address concerns raised by a number of editors. EJustice's and EdChem's willingness and commitment to have a discussion after so much negativity is to be commended.
  I agree with the proposer's arguments above that there was no evidence of disruption, that there was very little discussion on talk pages of articles, that the "assault on the Environment" is indeed typical of the kind of description found in WP:RS. Many of these aspects I have shown in my Analysis of Allegations, especially how little effort those wanting to have the professor banned made to engage at the talk page to address problems, and the effort to delete student work rather than userfy it to help explain non-compliance with policy or guidelines. I don't dispute there were newbie editing problems.
  The solution is to engage the editors and instructors to understand and correct the issues, so they become productive editors, not block or ban the instructor in this punitive action. [I will likely revise this statement.] --David Tornheim (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a simple nose count shows aprox. 2:1 support for an indef block/site ban (29 in favour, 11 opposing) with ample justification in diffs and explanation for why this should be the case (i. The alternate proposal is split 50/50 so there is no consensus for that, but to say there is no consensus for taking action is wrong. Sure, consensus is not a vote, but the arguments presented by those of us supporting a block are pretty clear and in line with policy. So I support closing, but I think there is ample support for sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you are involved with the edits at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, and cited copyright violations, are you aware that copyright violations occurred elsewhere, and did the warned editor repeated a copyright violation after the warning? prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I was the person who checked all the pages for copyright violations. You can see the extensive discussion I had with EJustice on their talk page. As I have mentioned above and with the diffs provided by Jytdog at AE, EJustice advocated for restoration of content that was copyrighted even after it was explained to him multiple times by different editors that it couldn't be done. By the time I removed it all, the class was largely done. There were copypaste violations from multiple sources in multiple articles, and the defense was that it couldn't have been plagiarism because the students know not to do that. The CIR problem on copyright is one of the reasons I supported a block, but far from the only one. I tried working with the students and liked them. Their professor, however, was clearly here with an agenda and during the project showed the inability to work with the community. A block/site ban is needed to protect against further disruption until we can be assured it will not happen again. There is nothing in this conversation that has made me think we have that assurance yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for the explanation. One more thing, the votes who cite the alleged leaked email should be discarded, no way to check authenticity.prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a no-action closure. There is ample support for sanctions to be levied, and also plenty of support for negotiations to continue. These aren't mutually exclusive things. Any sanction can be lifted if the community believes the discussions were fruitful. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I voted for a reason. Don't just ignore consensus. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on your above argument about NPOV, i yet have to see how the editor does not adjusts to Wikipedia's guidelines, addressed issues have been resolved, either through removal of content or the editor changed content. Assume good faith. prokaryotes (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose There's consensus for a sanction, with most participating in the discussion supporting an indef ban (disclosure: includes me). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

::...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments]. I think i am done here. prokaryotes (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of what consensus is. I think there's a far stronger argument that the risk of disruption is too high to risk additional second chances. The editor can demonstrate a better understanding of NPOV on their talk page. About two-thirds of those participating agree with this position. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No consensus? That doesn't jive with the reality seen a few sections above. Capeo (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• one wonders who will step up and close this, and at what point. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as presented here, and, generally speaking, a competent uninvolved closer does not need to be instructed as to what the close should be. But I do think that this discussion has pretty much run its course, and ought to be closed soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is obvious that some sort of sanction has to be levied against Ejustice. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe this accurately reflects the consensus. While we do not yet have broad agreement as to the exact remedy, there is broad consensus in favor of a fairly significant block or ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:52, 4 May 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.

DracoEssentialis's user rights

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.

---

Greetings. I've seen that this user User:DracoEssentialis has many user rights, but it blocked with an expiration time of indefinite. So I just wanted to let you sysops know in case they should be removed. --SimmeD (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we normally don't remove user rights from indef-blocked users, simply because they won't be able to use those rights unless the block is removed, in which case it should be fine for them to use those rights. Doesn't apply to admins, of course (we have the ability to unblock ourselves), because we'd be desysopped if we were indef-blocked for bad behavior. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because I was an sysop remove all rights when a suckpoppet got blocked, so I was thinking the same rules was applied here. --SimmeD (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a different question, since there the user quite likely got the rights through a violation of SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rights are dependent on the behavior behind the reason for the block. If the behavior would indicate a problem with the rights if they are unblocked then they probably would be removed. ~ GB fan 12:06, 2 May 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.

Shneur Odze one long BLP violation

It's quite possible that nobody cares, but the recently created Shneur Odze article spends much of its word count talking about recent scandals and the subject's perceived faults, sourced to a variety of poor quality sources including Breitbart, the Sunday Express and the Daily Mail among others. It could be a speedy deletion candidate. (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shneur_Odze Govindaharihari (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone has been dishonestly removing valid references to atheists as such

Among the pages I watch, I noticed that both John Desmond Bernal and Michael Foot had been removed from the category 'atheist'. Bernal because it was supposedly trivial and Foot because it had no main-text reference.

I restored Bernal, pointing out that his history could have made him a Deist but he was not. On Foot, it was indeed unsourced, so I added quick details with two highly reliable references.

I then thought to check, and found it was the same person, "Jobas", who had done this on a massive scale. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jobas&offset=20170323172504&target=Jobas.)

This has to be dishonest. The two reasons given contradict each other. And how could a committed Christian really think it was trivial? I suspect this person wants to eliminate 'off-message facts'.

How someone can think it a good idea to be 'dishonest to God' puzzles me, but is not my problem.

I hope you now take action, reversing every change that has not been fixed already.

I am busy with other matters, I do not want to spend more time on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Both the removals you cite look legitimate to me. See this explanation of how biographical categorization works; we categorise by what the person is known for, not every characteristic. Thus, if someone's written a book about their atheist views, recorded a Christian rock album, been persecuted for their Buddhist faith etc, they get the appropriate (ir)religious category, but they shouldn't be used for people who just happen to subscribe to a particular belief. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a talk with Jobas (talk · contribs) about this yesterday following a WP:AIV report. I reverted several examples where they removed atheist categories, incorrectly citing WP:NOTDEF as their reason. They were blindly removing the categories without checking the text of the article for assertions of atheism. They have been cautioned against making edits like these blindly in the future. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the subject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic, for example in Michael Foot article, it's only instances "atheist" once inside the article. I don't deny that he is atheist, but it isn't a key defining trait that Michael Foot was prominently noted for i guess, here is anther examples of edit Iridescent (talk · contribs) John Logie Baird, Geoffrey Pyke, Simon Pegg, Andy Partridge, Gary Kemp etc, Is it legitimate?. Thanks for your concern and have a nice day.-Jobas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also per WP:NONDEF: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. In all but one (of 40+) of the cases I reverted, this criteria was met, and the category should have remained in place. Jobas, if you're going to cite a policy as the basis for making potentially contentious edits en masse, then please familiarize yourself with the entire policy in order to avoid causing kerfuffles like this. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you guys are going to scold someone for removing atheist categories, than GregorB has been removing numerous Catholic categories from articles even when it was clearly cited, (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here and so forth). To be fair GregorB has a lot more experience than me in this field so after a brief discussion I decided to give up on the topic as it seemed the editor knew more about the guidlines than I did, however if the general concencus here is that just a brief mention and source make it notable to add a religious (or non-religious) category than in the aforementioned instances the category should be added back too. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I want to add that I am all for the inclusion of article in religious (or irreligious categories) as long as the subject identifies with them and there is a citation to back it up. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My removal of said categories is based on WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Note BLPCAT says "self-identified" and "relevant" and "living person". Note also that BLPCAT is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

My opinion on this issue: if the religious belief category in a BLP is unreferenced, then it may (in fact should) be removed on sight per WP:BLP. If it's referenced, WP:BLPCAT applies. Religious affiliation or atheism/agnosticism, it's the same.

There's nothing really wrong with the "subject identifies + reference" standard for categories - I suppose the consensus was that it would lead to trivial categorization of thousands upon thousands of biographies. However, since adding categories to bios of non-living persons is fair game according to this standard, I must say that doesn't make too much sense to me. This might be a question for WT:BLP or a similar forum. GregorB (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that WP:EGRS is stricter than the rest of the WP:BLPCAT guidelines, as EGRS categories are required to be defining rather than merely verified and self-identified. I'm not sure this point is consistently reflected in all the relevant guideline pages. The summary at BLPCAT says such categories must be "...relevant to their public life or notability..." (my emphasis). "Relevant" seems to be a weaker standard than "defining". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the text in EGRS tries to reflect BLPCAT and is just poor wording. BLPCAT as a policy trumps EGRS as a guideline and the latter should be interpreted the way BLPCAT intends it to be handled. I don't have to have written dozens of books on atheism for my lack of belief to be included in a category if said lack of faith has received significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Athiesm isnt a religion *gets coat*. But BLPCAT only takes effect once reliable sourcing is available for the category. Its 'weaker' once its reliably sourced because BLP is (primarily) about 'is it allowed to be on the article page' not 'should it be there'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): There are actually two issues raised in the original post. I looked at the example articles given, as well as several more articles where Jobas has edited the categories, and Jobas appears to be correctly adhering to the letter of WP:CATGRS when deleting those categories: i.e.; the subject's lack of belief in gods is not why they are notable (and in many cases, isn't even mentioned in the body of the article), so is properly deleted. So far, so good. The second issue raised is whether Jobas is editing "honestly", and following the spirit of WP:CATGRS by applying it only to improve articles (and the encyclopedia), or is WP:CATGRS being invoked to selectively choose and delete certain categories to advance an agenda, in violation of one of Wikipedia's main policies against such motivated editing. Has Jobas been deleting 'atheist' categories as non-defining, while allowing other equally non-defining religious categories to remain in the same articles? Administrators do need to determine if this means his/her goal is not so much article improvement, but rather POV advancement. For example, does the editor still follow WP:CATGRS when adding religious categories, especially ones with whom the editor identifies? If not, it indicates a problem which needs to be addressed. I've only given it a cursory look, but I've seen enough to raise some concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Adding to the afore-mentioned concerns, after recent interactions with User:Jobas, I'm growing more convinced that the mass editing of religion-related categories is not being done in the spirit of WP:CATGRS. Instead of treating religious beliefs on Wikipedia with sensitivity, care, and "only as appropriate" per policy, the editor appears instead to be applying the policy selectively, adding people with positive notability to favored categories, while removing them from disliked categories, and leaving people with negative notability (criminals, despots, controversial, convicts, societal outcasts, etc.) in the disliked categories, while removing positively notable people. It would be appreciated if someone could verify that I'm not just imagining this selectivity. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have observed both Jobas and Xenophrenic edit on a number of articles and what I have seen is Xenophrenic selectively quoteing from sources in order to propagate his own opinions. Currently, he's engaged with User:Ramos1990 and myself on the persecution of Buddhists article because he is edit warring to add a WP:POINTY sentence stating "arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false." This is editorializing and opinionating, not encyclopedic. If good atheists are to be profiled bad ones should be too, just like any figures of any other religious (or nonreligious ideological) point of view. NPOV requires the good and the bad be listed when it comes to atheists. desmay (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at Talk:Persecution of Buddhists and found Xenophrenic explaining that the Zuckerman source is being misused to associate atheism with evil, whereas apparently the reference has "Conclusion" as a heading and text that eliminates the relevance of theism or atheism regarding totalitarian dictators. Wikipedia should not be used to misleadingly cherry pick sources to associate atheism (or anything else) with evil. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion

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 had created article Phoebe Lin · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] and just few minutes it goes live it was deleted by an admin Anthony Appleyard. I was not even given time to actually add sources to the page which was unfair. I request a undeletion of the page so that it can be added sources and be in wikipedias mainspace --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Tiven2240: I have undeleted Phoebe Lin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Tiven2240: in future: 1) please don't create unsourced BLPs 2) please discuss with the deleting admin before coming to the admin noticeboard. Both of those are basic and you should know better. GiantSnowman 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240:If it is awkward to create the references in exactly the same edit as the text, then start the article in draft space or in a user sub-page and work on it until it is ready, then move to mainspace. An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created. A decade ago, standards were looser, but there is no need today to allow unreferenced articles in mainspace.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for undeletion and please don't be so quick enough to delete speedy deletion nominated articles atleast give let the Creator get time to overcome it's shortcomings. @GiantSnowman: thanks for your advice I'll surely follow the same. The thing made me here as another administrator pinged the deleting admin on the WP:UND#Phoebe Lin but there was no response. @Sphilbrick: I have now added sources to the article at every place needed. You may check out the current version of the article --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240:Unfortunately, it sounds like you missed the point, as you have remonstrated against Anthony Appleyard for deleting too quickly. It was not deleted too quickly.In retrospect, my statement that it was not deleted too quickly was a conflation of my view of best practices, with official policy. I regret the error. Please make sure to follow best practices if you undertake to create another article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thank you for your comments. I hope the issue is resolved and thus shall be closed --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hold on Is everyone here serious? Why are we slamming Tiven2240 (talk · contribs) for an unreferenced BLP when WP:BLPPROD has a 7-day grace period? This article didn't qualify for CSD A7 in the first place. The article contained an assertion of importance. @Anthony Appleyard and Skamecrazy123: could you both explain why this article was tagged and then deleted as A7 when it is not a candidate?--v/r - TP 14:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Hold, per TParis. @Sphilbrick: Re: "An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created." Is that actually the case, now? I'm trying to find supporting policy and discussions, but I'm drawing a blank. Attack pages certainly have long been eligible for (and richly deserving of) immediate deletion, but when did we start immediately deleting unsourced but otherwise innocuous bios? (I don't mind if that is the current standard and process, but I'd like to know what ground I'm standing on.) When an editor does create such a page in mainspace, wouldn't it be better to move it (or offer to move it) to Draft: if it can't be immediately repaired, instead of kicking them in the shins? Deleting a good-faith, non-attack article within three minutes of its creation seems rather harsh, and unlikely to encourage editors to build content.
  @Skamecrazy123:As an aside, that article certainly wasn't an A7 at the time it was created, as it did contain an assertion of notability (listing three films in which the actress appeared). Skamecrazy123 should review the usage of the A7 template and criteria before applying it to additional articles, especially when doing so on an article only one minute old. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not the case. The article was tagged incorrectly and deleted incorrectly. BLPPROD tagging would have been the correct (if hasty) process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to turn it on its head and say that we have a number of requirements for articles in mainspace and I don't recall seeing specify grace periods but let's just treat my statement is my personal opinion. Given that an article in mainspace, as soon as it is patrolled (which is an exceedingly low level of review) Is indexed and appears in Google searches often within minutes, it ought to be our best practices that we take steps to make sure that such articles aren't spoofs, hoaxes, alternative facts, fake news or other problems that I'll jump up and bite us. There's only so much we can do, and obviously, some things will slip through, but given the extreme ease of creating articles in draft space, and moving them to mainspace when they are ready, I think we should take a more aggressive stance against inexperienced editors who start out in mainspace. There's almost no upside and there is potential downside to allowing this.

Regarding the specific example, I concur that a better approach would have been to move it to draft space, but I argue that an even better approach is that these things should be started in draft space.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD: "If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted."--v/r - TP 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should not have been speedied and BLPPROD was the way to go. Now regular PROD or AFD. GiantSnowman 14:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD might be an acceptable option but I'll argue it is not the best practices option. As someone who is active in OTRS, so I see Wikipedia through the eyes of readers, a BLP prod template (actually almost any template) is seen as a badge of shame. We may argue, as I have argued that it shouldn't be viewed that negatively but that doesn't change a widespread perception that it is a badge of shame. Many people write in about articles in draft space, but their queries are invariably related to Google searches — I don't ever recall a single person identifying it as a badge of shame. For that reason, as well as the obvious, I think draft versions of articles should be created in draft space not mainspace.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your feelings, and your representation of the feelings of article subjects, are valid. But they aren't codified in policy. This wasn't a CSD A7 candidate. CSD was misused. BLPProd or AFD were the only recourse for deletion. But a Draft space move would've been an awesome idea too. Any of these ideas but CSD would've worked here. I don't think your feelings are contradictory to the statement that CSD is inappropriate.--v/r - TP 15:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD is the policy based option. A7 speedy was not. If you want to get rid of BLPPROD and replace it with "move to draft space" I think I'd support that but that needs to have community consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Would temporary marking of embryonic BLPs with a "noindex" tag be a sensible approach to take in these cases? I think it might, as long as someone remembered to take of the tag once the article is further developed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, unpatrolled articles are noindexed for 30 days. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that, although I see now that it's mentioned here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I think the core issue still exists. Someone slaps a BLPPROD tag on an article and marks it as patrolled (as they're supposed to do). NOINDEX disappears and an unsourced BLP appears in search engines' listings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP Prod is no indexed too.--v/r - TP 15:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Tiven2240 is still a relatively new editor and GiantSnowman and Sphilbrick should not have used such aggressive language towards him. He was raising a perfectly valid concern. This snarkiness and plain nastiness is exactly why Wikipedia loses constructive editors. CSD is being routinely abused and over-used by admins. WP:A7 is for articles that "do not indicate why its subject is important or significant...The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". A7 was meant for cases like John Smith the local plumber not actresses who have been nominated for awards at international film festivals. To paraphrase GiantSnowman this is basic and you should know better. Sphilbrick has literally taken to making up policy and misleading a new editor by stating "An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created". AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Aggressive language??? I provided some useful advice, for which I was thanked. I agree my personal opinion, which I think should be policy, is a personal opinion, but empirical evidence suggests that many patrollers act like it is policy. I fully agree we need to do a better job of communicating with editors. Telling them that anyone can create an article is bad advice, and in my opinion (not policy) this is one of the reasons many editors give up on Wikipedia. We are giving them bad advice. The opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Your first article says "Jump in! Be Bold." Possibly the worst advice ever delivered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The language used was not aggressive. If one is told what one can do better, that in itself does not aggression make. It is a good practice to inform people how to stave off deletion for their article creations. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I think by this point, we all get it. The A7 issue has been sorted, Sphilbrick and I discussed the issue to death, and OP is satisfied. I think we're done here. @Drmies: Perhaps an uninvolved editor like yourself could close this thread for good measure?--v/r - TP 15:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis:--do you want words of wisdom to go along with that close? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll trust your judgement.--v/r - TP 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To summarize, then...

• Ideally, new articles – especially BLPs – should be created in the Draft: namespace and should stay there until they're properly sourced and ready to go 'live'. But if they're not...
• New articles that haven't been marked patrolled are NOINDEXed automatically and will not appear in (for example) Google search results. Don't panic!
• Articles with a {{blp-prod}} template are also NOINDEXed, and will not appear in Google search results. Don't panic!
• Since articles that haven't been patrolled, or which have been patrolled but carry a {{blp-prod}} template, aren't indexed by search engines, we aren't protecting anyone by deleting these pages within minutes of creation. Unless such articles clearly meet one of CSD criteria, neither Wikipedia policy nor community expectations support such rapid and out-of-process deletions.
• You can consider moving the article into the Draft: namespace. If you go this route, be sure to notify the article's creator of what you've done in a polite and courteous way.
• Remember that we want to help good-faith contributors to do a better job, not frighten them off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This should be an essay.--v/r - TP 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that new unpatrolled articles are only invisible to search engines for the first 30 days, and they they become visible. Our current new page review backlog is over 20K articles and is roughly 6 months long, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Backlog 20,425.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • This article shows up on the first page of a Google search on the topic. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • That because someone FUBAR'd the process resulting in a patrolled article without a BLP PROD tag. Process is important.--v/r - TP 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin's failure to respond

• @Anthony Appleyard: has failed to respond to the inquiry about their deletion of an article that didn't qualify per CSD as required by WP:ADMINACCT and they've have 8 edits since I pinged them.--v/r - TP 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would not the undeletion (as noted by Anthony at 10:19, 1 May 2017 above) be a sufficient response? I would definitely understand that if Anthony refused to undelete and did not elaborate, that's a problem, but as an implicitly read in the reply to the OP above, seems that Anthony recognized it as a mistake? --MASEM (t) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. But, if this happens again, how does authority distinguish between (1) deliberate refusal and (2) him being perforce away from his internet link for a few days? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something? The admin restored the article 8 minutes after the request. That's incredibly responsive, and removed any issue about urgency. We are now debating best practices but that can be done leisurely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You are missing something. We're not discussing best practices. We're discussing tool misuse in violation of policy.--v/r - TP 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Get a grip, TP. A hard-working admin made a simple mistake with an admin action and rectified it within minutes of being notified. And now we're getting some sort of "burn him" witch-hunt? Seriously, just listen to yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, perhaps we could resurrect WP:NEWT and really piss everyone off again. That'd be a great idea. Yeah OK, no it wouldn't. Having said that, this wasn't an A7, but no harm done. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: He hasn't at all acknowledged, even once, that the A7 deletion was improper. All I want to know is that it won't happen again. No stakes or flames necessary.--v/r - TP 23:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• With the amount of work Anthony does in this area, it's probably going to happen again at some point in the future. But I bet he'll be taking an extra couple seconds beyond whatever he spends now to think before pushing the delete button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with the idea that AA's quick undeletion was sufficient response to this incident, and nothing further needs to be said by him about it. This is not the Jondel case, there is no reason to think that Anthony isn't now suitably educated on this subject, so WP:AGF is the proper operative mode. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• TParis is right most of the time, but not on this occasion. An article restoration was requested, and done, in a quick and efficient way. We don't need an overt statement of apology or correction; absent reasonable evidence of an ongoing problem, the restoration on request is sufficient to wrap this up and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Anthony is one of our hardest-working admins, and even the very best will make a CSD mistake now and then - I certainly have, and I doubt there's an admin working CSD who hasn't. Quickly rectifying a mistake and then getting back to building our encyclopedia is the correct way to address it, not whipping up a shitstorm over it because an admin has dared not to be perfect. This sort of overreaction is exactly the kind of thing that drives our hard-working contributors to stress and leads to quits, and any editors or admins who have themselves ever quit through stress and/or frustration should understand that. As for "He hasn't at all acknowledged, even once, that the A7 deletion was improper" - of course he's acknowledged it, by restoring it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is funny. No one says a word when Sphilbrick scolds OP, who was right, but the moment someone holds an admin to any level of scrutiny, the bandwagons get circled.--v/r - TP 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well hold on, that's not fair either. I know I said lots of words. And I wasn't the only one. And I know that I personally learned (or was reminded of) a fair bit of useful and relevant technical details regarding now NOINDEX is implemented for new and/or deletion-templated articles. I hope and expect that Sphilbrick has also learned from the discussion. I don't see any constructive purpose to demanding he come here and self-flagellate, but I do expect that he has taken this information and criticism on board, and will respect the community's established policies in this area going forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 2 May 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.

Second Opinions Requested on a SNOW Keep at AfD

I am a bit concerned by the speedy close of this AfD. (Full disclosure: I was the OP.) I can't ever remember Merge !votes being treated as Keep before and I would like some independent opinions on this. I left a note on Ymblanter's talk page. They have not replied so far, but it's Sunday and they may well be busy. Just to be clear I am not implying any bad faith editing but this doesn't look quite right to me. Anyways let me know If I'm way off base here. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that since delete is clearly not a valid outcome of this discussion, it should not continue at AfD. Instead, a merge discussion should be opened (with possibly the previous discussion to be copied there). I was not around between closing the discussion and now, and I do not see why my actions should be treated in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. A merge does imply a keep, just not the present location. No one is in favor of deleting the content; while a deletion discussion can lead to a merge it's not the best place for such a discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge and keep are very different, and both perfectly viable outcomes of AfD. In general, if there's consensus to merge, it should be closed as merge, and if there's not clear consensus to keep (as an option that's distinct from merge), it shouldn't be snow closed as keep (i.e. whether to delete isn't the only question). So a snow close does cut short the merge discussion that emerged from this thread. But having said all this, while nonstandard, this particular case did seem like a reasonable close to me. There is clear consensus not to delete, and I don't see a clear consensus emerging from this discussion regarding whether or not to merge (nor an indication that more time will yield consensus), perhaps in part due to the venue and range of options people are responding to (it seems many people !vote keep meaning "not delete"). We could let the discussion keep going, but that seems like it would just postpone the inevitable no consensus and subsequent merge proposal. I interpret this as a speedy no consensus, but with clear consensus against deletion (or something along those lines). Maybe nonstandard, but probably the most efficient way forward. (Disclosure: I participated and support[ed] merging). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Close looks fine to me. It obviously wasn't going to be deleted, and a merge discussion is best held at the appropriate talk page(s) rather than at AfD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Ymblanter's close wasn't incorrect (the outcome would not be delete), but it also wasn't optimal. Why split a discussion off to the talk page after over a dozen people have already weighed in on it? At that point, the discussion should be allowed to continue at its present location. No point in reverting the close, since moving the discussion again would be just as bad, but I'd recommend letting such discussions play out to their conclusion in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  Well, actually, there is a difference. Whereas AfD discussions should be closed within a week (or, in some cases, relisted), merge discussions are allowed to run until consensus (or its absence) is clear, which in this case could be well much longer than a week. Additionally, as already discussed above, keep AfD votes could mean both not delete and not move, whereas a move discussion is unambiguous in this sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The lack of delete !votes (or, rather, rationales) at AFD results in non-delete. However, keep and merge !votes do not necessarily equate to any action. A merge result at AFD does not mean the article has to be merged. Interested editors should try a non-controversial move, and if there is opposition, then a full merge discussion should be held. It's that simple.--v/r - TP 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have said before and will say again here, that when a merge is proposed at an AfD it should be a requirement to include a notification on the talk page of the target of the merge, something that did not happen in this case. Otherwise we risk a problematic situation in which the AfD participants think they have a consensus for including the merged material in the article, the regular article editors have no such consensus and may strongly disagree, and the outcome of the debate becomes a deletion (because the merge is reverted) when that was not its consensus anywhere. Fortunately the keep decision avoided that problem this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review of Mlpearc

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

Ritchie333 blocked Mlpearc earlier today for 48 hours. [51] First, Mlpearc had two reverts of the Pink Floyd material, the last one ten hours before Ritchie333's block. [52], [53] Second, the IP they reported to AIV had already been blocked a few days ago for disruptive editing for the exact same behavior. [54] There is no reason for Mlpearc to suffer for wildly inconsistent admin behavior. Ritchie333 is also editing in the Pink Floyd area (and indeed, has edited the same article they blocked Mlpearc for edit warring on [55]), took them to ANI where there was little support for their position, and placed another very dubious block on another editor editing in the same area about five weeks ago. [56]

I raised this matter with Ritchie333 on their talk page and got a lot of... something. [57] No substantive response to my concerns, though. Asking for a review of the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the fair warning that was mentioned. Do we have any context on that (Ritchie333)? On the face of it it doesn't look like a really good necessary and timely block. The AIV report, reverts of the IP by five established editors, warnings and subsequent blocks of the IP did all actually suck, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Ritchie undoes this block. That would be best.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand the timeline of events here, so dug through posting times that I could find ...

• 14:12, 21 April 2017 - on a discussion re: Joe Elliott, Ritchie333 warns Mlpearc "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning."
• 22:12, 23 April 2017 and 22:29, 23 April 2017 - on Echoes (Pink Floyd song), Mlpearc makes two reverts of WisemanOnceSaid, calling the material "Not Encyclopedic, trivia"
• 23:24, 23 April 2017 - a discussion of the material is started on the talk page by WisemanOnceSaid at Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)#Echoes Cover addition request.
• 17:21, 24 April 2017‎ - WisemanOnceSaid uses a different ref and restores the content
• 17:36, 24 April 2017 - the material is removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
• 08:54, 24 April 2017 - Blocklog for "Mlpearc" - Mlpearc is blocked by Ritchie333
• 19:58, 24 April 2017 - starting around 18:32, Ritchie333 does a series of copyedits to the article, eventually restoring the cover material with new ref.
• 20:01, 24 April 2017 - Ritchie333 makes a comment to the talk, mentioning "To be honest, this sort of stuff is borderline, like "cultural references" in films and places; some people don't mind it being there (as long as it's reliably sourced), some people think it's off-topic. I personally prefer to include it, because if you don't, somebody will come along and add it anyway, and then you'll get a silly edit war."

Am I missing something here? At first pass, the block appears out of scale given this chain of events. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Berean Hunter There is more history at Talk:Georgina_Downs#Someone_has_put_an_inaccuracy_back_in_-_please_amend.21 - essentially it is about Mlpearc's attitude to casual editors/IPs...at a time when participation is falling and we should be doing our utmost to attract/interest people in editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn Block The edits by the IP reported were quite disruptive (to the point that another admin blocked them for those actions). It's arguable if it raised to the level of vandalism, but it seems inappropriate to block Mlpearc for raising the issue. He made three reverts on the page, two reverts on the same text, which pushes the line of edit warring, but probably should have been warned about edit warring rather than blocked. More troubling to me is the response by Ritchie333. This edit gets close, but probably doesn't cross the line, into to WP:Ownership over Pink Floyd articles, but at least opens the question as to if he is WP:Involved enough that using his admin tools was inappropriate. The response seems like a real failure to WP:ADMINACCT to justify his admin actions. The only warning I could find was this "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning." Which was on something about Joe Elliott and the Local Government Act 1972. Fairly vague threat about not getting involved in a "petty" content dispute. This threat itself is a problem for me, because people get in content disputes all the time. It's not for admins to say if they are "petty" or not and threaten to block people who disagree on content disputes they don't like. I find more problems in Ritchie333's behavior than Mlpearc's so far..... -Obsidi (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the Echoes reverts were not uncalled for and definitely not reason enough for a block. First, where Mlpearc provided reasoning for their reverts, the other editor did not. Second, Mlpearc participated (although not much, but he did not edit the page after that) in a discussion of the inclusion of the cover band, providing reasoning for his actions. [58] Third, against consensus, the other editor added the cover band again, the third time within, you guessed it, 24 hours. [59] Although some of Mlpearc's actions are slightly contentious, they are nowhere near enough for a block. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the theme here is Mlpearc's manner with casual editors/IPs. That would strike me as something important to look at, or are we all treating Wikipedia as some sort of club now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's always been a "club" of sorts. Members come and go, but there's always a dedicated group of recent change patrollers who scrutinize edits according to our policies and guidelines and revert and warn if necessary. I don't see Mlpearc's manner being that at odds with this longstanding practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then NeilN maybe there's a problem with that, civility to new users has been raised as a (longstanding) issue repeatedly over the years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am certain that one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has is people who spend too much time on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that last 24 hours thing was probably a bad idea, as the editor brought it up on the talk page of the article nevertheless. Also, I think that Mlpearc's actions here were uncalled for, and I think that he could have done better in the discussion before by linking relevant policy sections and such. But, they should not be blocked for this either—they were never even told that their behaviour was inappropriate (to my knowledge). It would have been good to tell Mlpearc that their actions were not appropriate, but nothing more. I have to cut this short now—gotta eat. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue with Mlpearc goes back years. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc, particularly the opposition to Q10 - same problem now. Other warnings I have given him are here, here and here amongst other things I'm too tired to dig out right now. I think I've said everything I need to on his talk, and I've said I will unblock as soon as Mlpearc gives me a convincing unblock request, but he has got to up his game and stop biting newbies several times a day. Now, everybody else, go and find an article to improve, I'm off to bed. @Obsidi: Coming across a dispute in an article, taking action towards it and then deciding you'd like to improve the rest of the article anyway is not ownership, come off it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• As shown by your previous poor block, your judgement when adminning in the Pink Floyd subject area is not the best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing something you disagree with is not "poor" and I assume established editors know 3RR applies to them too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A block is poor when then admin is unaware of WP:3RRNO and characterizes an edit summary of "it doesnt matter what you think, YOU are not a reliable source. Find one or dont add this" as a personal attack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This: Now, everybody else, go and find an article to improve, I'm off to bed is incredibly unbecoming of an admin and dismissive, as well as condescending. I have no involvement whatsoever in this whole ordeal but I think your actions were over the top especially considering your follow up to NeilN's rather diplomatic attempt to discuss it with you was met with yet more condescension. What makes good editors leave isn't the occasional bite, it's admins who believe they are above the "law" and put down other editors and refuse to discuss their own actions. Your issue with their opposition to a question almost five years ago makes this sounds a lot more like retribution than a good-faith block to stop disruption and if that isn't the case, I'm curious to know what disruption this prevented. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to bed with unanimous admin opposition (I count five) pretty much concedes the question, does it not? Why is this block still in place? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it is late where Ritchie333 presumably lives and he's provided a more substantive and serious response here than he did on his talk page. I still think the block should be lifted as it was hasty and blocking so we can lecture at experienced editors is dubious at best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, let's debate it until the block expires. With no way that I'm aware of to negate the blocklog entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn block - I was once blocked in very similar circumstances. Long story short, the admin eventually ended up at Arbcom and would have been desysoped had they not resigned and eventually lost their bit for inactivity. I'm troubled that Ritchie333 blocked an editor in a case where he seems to be WP:INVOLVED. This was a concern that I raised during Ritchie333's RfA and I'm sorry to see that my concerns were warranted. I'm also troubled by Ritchie333's attitude expressed in this thread, his response to NeilN, and his comments to Mlpearc (linked above). Blocking editors for two reverts should be incredibly rare, and only in cases where it would be considered uncontroversial.- MrX 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is a pretty clear consensus here to overturn the block, so I'm going to go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanx everyone, thank you Beeblebrox for the un-block and especially NeilN for their efforts and for giving me a little shove towards this review. I would like to say ever since my block by Coffee not too long ago I have been actively keeping tract not to repeat and I plan to continue to not go there, this is why I stopped at just two. I have a concern, I was advised to considered the possibility of removing Pink Floyd related pages from my watchlist, I've been a Floyd fan since the first time I heard them, even seen them live once, I do a lot of patrolling of music related articles and anything short of a TB I will continue to patrol them, how can I be sure this does not happen again if I make some kind of change or revert that Ritchie333 does not approve of ? I suspect that any future Admin actions by Ritchie333 on Pink Floyd articles would be considered WP:INVOLVED anyway. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. Take a voluntary 1RR restriction on everything (I do this, see User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee). Second, use personalised messages where you can (cf WP:HNST). What I don't understand is if you're such a big Floyd fan, how come you've never done any substantial work on the articles? You have read some of the major Floyd books, and you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard. (See also Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions#Pink Floyd). Everyone else (except Cas Liber) - you completely misunderstood what the block was about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's awfully condescending, is it possible Ritdhie333's account has been compromised ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie might be a bit crankier than usual, but the account is definitely not compromised. ansh666 05:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I don't mean to be rude, but I must admit to being concerned about this whole situation. I've been chastised by admins for not giving sufficient warnings before reporting other editors to AIV or other administrator noticeboards. It is well established that civil, constructive, and escalating warnings should be given before blocks are performed except in extreme circumstances. Yet, you gave one warning, then blocked someone with whom you were essentially having a content dispute with (you have cast multiple aspersions as to the quality of the edits they were making). Also, "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning.", where was the first warning, second warning, or third warning? Did I miss these? Where's the attempts to work collaboratively with them? Maybe I'm missing something in my, admittedly, cursory overview of this. Perhaps Mlpearc could use some improvement in their collaborative skills, but it doesn't justify a one warning block in my (oh so humble) opinion. You then proceeded to be a bit uncivil with people expressing their concerns. Indeed, Mlpearc expressed a concern above, and you met it with "... you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard." I'm surprised that someone who believes civility and collaborative editing is crucial to adminship would find this acceptable behaviour. Also, if you were that upset with their behaviour and have a difficult history with them (which you obviously do), shouldn't you have sought input from other admins before making the block, or ask a completely uninvolved admin to make the block? I hope you take what I've said into consideration, and best wishes. Waggie (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've given diffs for three other warnings upthread. I think the message I left on his talk page was pretty civil and conciliatory, and I think inviting them to work on a project to improve articles in the subject interest is a good idea myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, thanks for your reply. I had looked on Mlpearc's talk page for warnings. I presume you're referring to: an incorrectly pinged and arguably uncivil warning on someone elses talk page, you warning Mlpearc for templating rather than discussing, not edit warring which is what you blocked him for, and then you giving a warning to Mlpearc for edit warring and excuses you assumed he was going to give even though his reverts were WP:3RRNO, which means that your warning wasn't justified. I agree Mlpearc should have given more detail to a new user who wasn't getting it, but I don't think there wasn't nearly enough done to properly resolve the matter. Please forgive me for being frank, but it appears that you're accusing Mlpearc of not giving appropriate and civil warnings, but appear to have civility issues yourself. It's my understanding that politely worded and escalating warnings with specifics directly on someone's talk page is the generally accepted method of warning someone. Statements like "...you may consider yourself lucky to be let off." don't seem to meet that standard. Regarding inviting Mlpearc to improve articles: "...you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard." isn't inviting someone to "...improve articles in the subject interest...", I find it sarcastic, snide, and very condescending. I'm not sure why you would think it civil or conciliatory. Forgive my boldness, but it seems like there may be a personality conflict here between you two and you both might want to consider WP:DR. Anyway, thank you again for considering my opinions. Waggie (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I am sometimes blunt towards admins very occasionally when I think they're doing something above their station (like coming to my talk page and bossing me about on a situation I had under control), and I'm not the only one. I think I even purposefully said I do that on my RfA, and a couple of people opposed, but the community was generally accepting that I don't do it indiscriminately, and would never ever do it on a newbie or inexperienced editor. The problem with civility is it's impossible to define and means different things to different people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think most people feel that sarcasm and condescension as quite uncivil, and uncivil has a specific definition. Bluntness doesn't equal incivility, and we're here discussing you and Mlpearc, not Beeblebrox. Would you care to respond to my concerns regarding the warnings? Thank you again for your responses. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Adding missing ping for Ritchie333. Waggie (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see Ritchie avoids Neil's questions and comes out with all sort of guff about being a fan for 30 years and recording a cover version. That's super. And in this very thread states that EVERYONE (apart from one lone voice) is wrong. Shine on you crazy diamond. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that discussion was at cross purposes. I'd already clarified my reasons on a thread further up the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• [60] — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And thank you K6ka for successfully appealling your block :) have a good wikibreak! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED issues aside, I think the biggest issue with this block is that it seems to be some sort of advocacy and pushing one's particular way of doing things and view of Wikipedia rather than a violation of policy. I think that the encyclopedia would be a better place if I was allowed to block anyone at will, but I am still bound by the community's trust to use the sysop tools according to community consensus. --Rschen7754 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

History proves otherwise, as a certain Parrot can attest. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that in a somewhat similar situation, Ritchie333 has succeeded in offending User:Denisarona sufficiently to stop vandal fighting / editing completely (let's hope this is just temporary). See User talk:Ritchie333#Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts As a reward for asking for intervention at AIV to deal with a persistent IP vandal at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Ritchie333 protected the page for " Edit warring / content dispute" instead of simply blocking the IP, and when Denisarona came to their talk page, Ritchie333 tells them "According to the article's history, you were edit warring; however not all edit warring mandates a block, and in this case a semi-protection, and a restoration of the article to its pre-war state solves the problem. " Phew, thank you Ritchie333 for protecting the page instead of blocking the vandal fighter! His replies after that (". I don't understand why you're upset, sorry.") make it clear that he doesn't understand the impact of his actions or why the protection policy calls for blocking the vandal instead of protecting the page. I tried to get Ritchie333 to see reason and explained the actual situation to them (for which I was thanked by Denisarona), but they dismissed by statements as "you seem to be very angry today" (not really, no) and now hatted the discussion with ""Does the very nature of the structure of Wikipedia drive out creative editors – content writers and those who significantly improve aricles – in favor of non-creative "rules"-following editors unable or unwilling to make complex evaluations of specific situations in favor of simply applying generalized solutions whether they are improvements or not?"" which was probably intended as a self-congratulatory comment but comes across as a total lack of self-awareness.

On its own, this isn't a big deal, but hot on the heels of the Mlpearc block (and the involved protection of Hyde Park, London on 21 April 2017), it shows a worrying pattern of disregard for the results of his admin actions and a refusal to make amends or to critically analyze his actions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, excellent points. Ritchie333 also failed to fully respond above to my concerns regarding insufficient warnings or my concerns regarding incivility. I'm deeply concerned about this situation here. Waggie (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Are you asking Ritchie333 to resign and give up the bit? Or if he is willing to be open to the standard recall process (I don't believe he has committed to it yet)? Otherwise there isn't much else that can be done in this forum. If you think it is serious and long term enough you could ask for an WP:Arbitration Committee case. -Obsidi (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 has made some troubling errors in judgement recently and has not been particularly receptive to criticism, but I have no doubt that he is doing what he believes best for the project. If Ritchie333 is willing, perhaps some mentoring from a more experienced admin or two can help turn this around before Arbcom becomes an inevitability.- MrX 22:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no need for a formal mentoring arrangement. Any admin should be prepared to defer to 5-0 admin opposition on any action (or 4-1 for that matter). If they want more information or explanation they are free to seek it on one or more user talk pages, or by email if they prefer to keep it private. The Mlpearc thing was a case of one admin thinking they are better with the mop than five other admins combined, which I find alarming. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(Persoanl attacks and blatant, often repeated lies removed) 86.176.15.93 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because no bullying exists. WP:ADMINACCT requires Ritchie to participate if he wants to be an admin. WP:INVOLVED required Ritchie not to do the action in the first place. Ritchie cannot avoid criticism about his admin actions by "banning" people. It's not his talk page, it's Wikipedia's. He has no control over it except that which is conditionally granted to him on WP:UPG.--v/r - TP 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

TParis, the IP is a LTA. Their standard M.O. is lying and telling half-truths. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, an editor has every right to ban someone else from posting at their talk page. If that user then continues to post there, after they've specifically been told not to, then that is blatant harassment. With regards to the block, Ritchie333 was correct. I don't find it surprising at all that the incompetent admin brigade (other than Casliber) are now here making a mountain out of a mole hill. Cassianto^Talk 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  On the subject of competence, hello Cassianto, I believe you missed the part of Wikipedia:User_pages where it says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to)" and WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."--v/r - TP 16:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  The subject was "incompetence" which illustrates my point nicely, seeing as you're not even competent at getting that right. Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can we get off the talk page ban thing? Vote (X)'s specializes in lying and misdirection to stir up crap. [61] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: You'd be okay with being blocked ten hours after you made two reverts on an article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've had to have been ok with far worse than that. Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple advert spamming on canelo v chavez

On Canelo Álvarez vs. Julio César Chávez Jr. spam keeps getting added from multiple IPs I suspect are from the same person. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like different streamers trying to advertise here instead of reddit. Semi'd 2 days...by then, it'll be over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There is still a stream link in Canelo Álvarez vs. Julio César Chávez Jr.#References 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed. I also remove a second one. The first inline citation was a live stream that had been in the article since December. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Vipul's paid editing enterprise, again

The Wikipedia community has had a lot of very trying and very lengthy discussions to try to deal with the paid, COI, POV, and meatpuppeting edits made by the pyramid-scheme consortium of paid editors that Vipul has brought to Wikipedia. (I'll try to list a few of the discussions later, for the uninitiated.)

My current point, however is that something very strange just occurred: Andrevan, a mostly absentee admin [62], has just unblocked Riceissa [63], who was indeffed per this discussion [64], without a single unblock request in sight. The request to unblock Riceissa was apparently made somewhere, somehow, off-wiki, by Ethanbas [65], another of Vipul's paid editors who is already under threat of a siteban for repeated extremely disruptive behavior. Pinging MER-C, Kudpung, Doc James, Bri, Jytdog, JzG, DGG, for review. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I unblocked Wikisanchez because I saw some productive edits in the past on healthcare related articles that I've edited and watch. I unblocked Riceissa after receiving an email from Ethanbas pointing out the parallel case. My understanding is that the block is in order only if we have undisclosed paid editing or promotional editing. If there has been some sort of Arbcom precedent or discussion of this, please point it out. I can't see how these blocks are valid under the current policy, but I am happy to rescind the unblock if someone can explain why an indef block for these cases is merited. Andrevan@ 02:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like User:Vipul himself is not blocked. The edits to Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, which I created, seem like good faith and productive changes. I'm not sure why User:Vipul decided to pay these users, but as long as they disclose their COI I think it is within the policy that they not be indef-blocked. Andrevan@ 02:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This was a community imposed block, as is very evident on the user's talkpage. A community imposed block cannot be undone without community discussion and consensus. Moreover, Ethanbas is a complicit editor in the Vipul paid-editing scheme, and under no circumstances should he have covertly emailed a sympathetic and largely absentee administrator with no understanding of the matter; this in my eyes is grounds for a siteban for Ethanbas, who has been under the threat of one for quite some time (discussions available upon request). Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since when do we get banned for emailing? Ethanbas did not ask me to unblock Riceissa, but even if he had, is this what we're doing now? What policy is that under? Andrevan@ 02:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You have absolutely zero understanding of the entire affair, and you are indeed digging yourself in deeper with these self-justifications. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: We have community imposed bans. Blocks are imposed by single admins. At least that's what policy says (i.e., there's no mention of community imposed blocks). Any uninvolved admin may review and unblock without consulting the community (again, according to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking). That being said, it is a phenomenally bad idea to lift a block which came out of a community discussion without consulting anyone, especially the blocking admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That is fair @NeilN. Andrevan@ 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, there is no wording to that effect in the policy What the policy says is (emphasis mine):

Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake. See "Block reviews" below for additional steps to take.

[....]

Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious.

-- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: See the "should" and "recommended" in there? Nothing to support your assertion about "A community imposed block cannot be undone without community discussion and consensus." If you want that as policy, you need to write it in the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Neil, if you are going to be a policy wonk, all of your statements need to be airtight and you need to actually quote the policy. There's nothing in the policy to this effect: "We have community imposed bans. Blocks are imposed by single admins. At least that's what policy says (i.e., there's no mention of community imposed blocks). Any uninvolved admin may review and unblock without consulting the community (again, according to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking)", which you said above. Did I in my haste mistake a longstanding tradition and accepted best practice as policy? Yes. But when refuting things like that, please quote policy rather than making inferences and interpretations. I also think this is worth noting, in WP:CBAN: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'". Lastly, it's very common for the community to impose, by consensus, blocks of various lengths, and the enacting administrator who assesses consensus and performs the block is acting for the community, not as an individual agent. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to mistake accepted best practice as policy, and represent it as policy, then I'm going to point it out as a mistake but agree with the core sentiment. And WP:CBAN did not apply (yet) as the community was not given a chance to discuss the unblock request and decline it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your final sentence, and I noted the section because, in my humble opinion, when it is the community itself which has enacted the original indef block (rather than it being a unilateral action by a single administrator), the same procedures should apply, and generally have applied as best practices. (Maybe I'm reading that wrong and maybe that section is referring to both kinds of original indefs -- both community-imposed indefs and admin-imposed indefs). Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Holy cow that is awful on just about every level. Instigated in secret, no discussion with MER-C apparently, and done without even reviewing the extensive community discussions about the paid enterprise and Ricessa's role in it, nor the specific rationale for this block This is cowboy adminning of the worst kind. You have put your foot in it Andrevan, and I suggest you self-revert and back away from your defense, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that every once in a while I get accused of cowboy adminning, but I am simply following common sense. MER-C's block didn't include any diffs of a community indef block. I don't see where that would be either. You need to cite a policy that was violated, and the paid editing policy allows for disclosed paid editing, does it not? Andrevan@ 02:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The diff of the block does not have to include mention of the discusion when the editor's talkpage clearly does. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any diffs in the AN/I post of these editors introducing promotional or COI content. It's well within discretion to be overturned by an uninvolved admin. Folks can feel free to disagree. According to User:Vipul's user page he is no longer paying these meat puppets or whatever they are, so the original rationale of the ANI discussion would be invalid. At any rate, what axe is there to grind on fleshing out these articles about healthcare and malaria and stuff like that? I don't understand what the political goal is that these users are being accused of advancing. Andrevan@ 02:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"I don't understand" -- exactly; you do not understand; you made no effort to review, understand, inquire, or check with the blocking admin. Nor do you seem to understand policy about reversing community-imposed sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrevan, please consider your next post very carefully. Please take your time. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference, this is the ANI discussion that lead to the initial block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If another admin happening by upon review feels that my action was wrong, feel free to revert my action and there will be no hard feelings or sticks held. However, I don't intend to revert the action myself as I believe there was no good policy reason for indefblock here, and should have been scrutinized better to come up with policy violation-containing diffs. Andrevan@ 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's me, then--Andrevan, I have restored the block pending this discussion. I would have preferred it had MER-C included a diff, but this unblock was uncalled for. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

All of twelve minutes of considering. OK then. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andrevan violated community consensus by unlocking Riceissa without at least contacting MER-C and giving him a reasonable time to respond. WP:Guide to appealing blocks If they are considering unblock, administrative etiquette requires they inform the blocking admin and allow an opportunity to comment. But I am trying to identify the specific policy that was violated in unblocking because it is a community imposed block. I see special exceptions for an WP:AEBLOCK or users banned by the community WP:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Banned_users, but I don't see any exception for users blocked by the community. Can someone point me to that? -Obsidi (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests wasn't followed in that a) Riciessa did not post an unblock notice so nobody was even aware that an unblock was under consideration, and b) As Andrevan noted above, they just glanced over some things and did not independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. That's about it. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andrevan, you stated above that "I unblocked Wikisanchez because I saw some productive edits in the past on healthcare related articles that I've edited and watch. I unblocked Riceissa after receiving an email from Ethanbas pointing out the parallel case." Your unblocks of Wikisanchez and Riceissa are less than three hours apart: [66]. Moreover, even if Ethanbas were watching Wikisanchez's talk page (odd in itself since they have not edited closely alongside each other [67]), that is a massively quick turnaround between a supposed email and the unblock of Riceissa -- another sign that you did no checking on this matter; you simply took Ethanbas's word for it that, like Wikisanchez, Riceissa had been blocked for "malaria" (as the edit summary of your bock says [68]). Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see why that series of events is suspicious. I unblocked Wikisanchez, then I received an email, then I unblocked Riceissa. I believe there was nothing improper about the email I received. It didn't ask me to unblock, it was merely pointing out pieces of the story that have been recounted here. I still haven't seen any bad diffs posted for either of these users. Andrevan@ 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already posted the final warning Ethanbas received, which contains the diff to the discussion that led to it. The link to Riceissa's ANI discussion (which was merely the tip of the iceberg) has already been posted, and as we have repeatedly stressed here, this situation with both editors has an enormous back-history that you are ignorant of. Remaining determinedly ignorant and self-justifying in the face of several good-faith longterm experienced editors and admins who do know the background on this situation is very bad form. And it's not a good idea to take the word, in an email, of an editor who is seeking the unblock of a third editor and who is giving a completely incorrect rationale for the parallel, and then spouting that editor's incorrect rationale in your block edit summary (which makes it abundantly clear you merely took Ethanbas's word for it and made no attempt whatsoever at an actual review of the situation). Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's separate out Wikisanchez from Riceissa. The latter was blocked at ANI, the former was blocked unilaterally. Therefore, the latter unblock was wrong, the former wasn't (or at least, is borderline). Some weeks ago, I asked Wikisanchez if they wanted to appeal; and they said they didn't want to, at the time. They may have changed their mind; I don't know. It's better to talk to them first; they may not want to be run the AN gauntlet. It's not a pleasant experience. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas -- 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.

---

Ethanbas, who has been by far the most egregiously disruptive and blatantly defiant of Vipul's editors, received a community-imposed and administrator-enacted final warning [69] on 26 February 2017 that he would be indefinitely blocked if he stepped out of line in any capacity. I feel this newest action more than meets and merits this sanction. Therefore I propose that Ethanbas be indef blocked.

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there has been no diff offered of disruption or policy violation. Andrevan@ 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no diff, because the behavior was the surreptitious email to you, a sympathetic admin completely ignorant of the situation and of Ethanbas's egregious behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the policy you think this email violated exactly? Do you consider this WP:Canvasing, specifically WP:STEALTH? -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be naive; sympathetic admins are pinged all the time on Wikipedia. It's the duty of the admin involved to familiarize themselves with the matter, not the person who pinged them. As I say in the section below, Andrevan should have taken more care before unblocking Riceissa. For Wikisanchez, their actions were more justifiable, though still not ideal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• support that was pretty much a last straw for me as well, after all this mess. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, this is not how we operate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

*Comment I would like to note that under WP:Appealing a block#Other_methods_of_appeal it does say that In highly unusual cases, you may wish to utilize the dispute resolution process while you are still blocked. To do so, you may contact other Wikipedians by e-mail..., but I would want to know more as to why this is a "highly unusual case" that necessitated using email over the standard unblock request system. -Obsidi (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that it is, apparently, not the blocked editor who sent the email, the editor we are here discussing is another editor than the editor that got unblocked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support a Site-Ban for the apparent end-run here. However, this case should be taken up by ArbCom to look into administrative misconduct and into whether special remedies are needed for systematic paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sending an email is not the same as making a disruptive comment on-wiki. That/if the other editor was unblocked incorrectly is not this user's fault. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas has been instructed time and time again not to meatpuppet with the other Vipul editors, yet this was a blatant example. Moreover, it's apparent that he gave an admin a completely bogus rationale for the unblock, apparently claiming that Riceissa had been like Wikiscanchez merely doing productive editing on malaria articles. He knew very well that what he was doing was surreptitious, out-of-process, misleading, and in violation of his no-meatpuppeting restrictions. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can really go on speculation about the contents of an email that we have not seen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ethanbas did nothing wrong. Sending an email is not something we need to ban people for. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a deceitful route taken by Ethanbas to work around his/her restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment/Question The unblock was a plainly bad idea for a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving someone an indef block for sending--at worst--a misleading email. Has there been other disruption in addition to this event since they were giving their 'final warning?' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there has been continued disruption and bad-faith activity from this editor since their final warning. This is really the final straw. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Sending an email is, as pointed out above, no reason to ban or block someone. And, in general, I oppose WP:WITCHHUNTs. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I understand the annoyance here and the problems with this Vipul paid editing thing, sending an email is rarely a valid reason for an indef block (especially not one whose contents we haven't even seen). There might a last-straw action somewhere sometime, but I don't see enough evidence that this is it. Let's not forget that the actual fault here was the unilateral overturning of a community-imposed block without conducting a proper check. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No policy appears to have been violated here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - To ban a user because of an email is an extreme action which I don't think we should take. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Quick note for those opposing saying "just an email" - Ethanbas was part of the whole Vipul enterprise and was one of the key benefitors of the pyramid scheme, having recruited several other high school kids to join. As a WP editor, they edited aggressively to defend other paid editors, edit warring per MEAT for example, and narrowly escaped an indef in the ANI. The paid enterprise itself was a mass advocacy exercise at minimum, adding inappropriate content advocating for libertarian causes and "effective altruism" and several editors strongly suspected SEO aspects as well. Ethanbas has since the ANI closed, been skulking around writing snarky things about the community's reaction to the paid editing enterprise. I have to run and cannot bring diffs for all this, but much of it has been documented at ANI and COIN. The stealth unblock request really is a "last straw" for me at least. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And edits like this don't bode well. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose The onus was on the reviewing admin.--v/r - TP 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis in policy for such a block. Sam Walton (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Ethanbas was warned against disruptive editing. Sending an email is not disruptive editing. As long as his emails weren't harassing or abusive, I see no reason why he should be blocked for this essentially off-wiki behavior (however inappropriate it might have been given the history). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing the policy violation. -Obsidi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 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: Andrevan

I formally propose a trout for Andrevan, with a warning that he or she should look a lot closer at the entire history of a stuation before unblocking based on a third party's request and explanation. There is such a thing as taking AGF too far, especially in the face of a community-imposed sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what a formal trout means, but Andrevan should have taken care to talk to the blocking admin before unblocking. There was no urgency. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. That said, not sure this subsection's going to do anything more than pile on criticism, which I'm not sure would be helpful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless. Is the AN thread itself not a sufficient trout?--v/r - TP 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Considering Andrevan's proposal below, no, this thread is not sufficient, and, in fact, considering the entirety of the thread, including their proposal, something even stronger than a trout may be required.
  I am, generally, quick to praise and support the actions of admins who do good work, and, similarly, I believe that those who screw up need to be told that they did so. Andrevan screwed up, without a doubt, but his behavior in this thread shows him as being extremely reluctant to admit that, and even less understandably, reticent to do the research necessary to understand why they screwed up, despite their being given the necessary links. Their attitude is defensive and their behavior battlegroundy and retaliatory. A trout is the absolute minimum that should be considered. (And a "formal trout" is simply a trout that is not issued by a single editor, but is the result of a community decision.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever, but I'm fairly astonished that an experienced admin - a bureaucrat no less - thinks it's OK to undo a community-agreed block without either investigating the situation or even informing the blocking admin. Pretty shoddy work, that, especially as they still don't seem to understand what they've done wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As administrators, we are called upon to use our individual judgment in a wide array of situations. There is nothing so beyond the pale in an administrator determining a heretofore blocked editor to prospectively be a net positive for the project if unblocked that is requires any trouting beyond the usual community review. That said, I get emails from time to time asking me to take administrative (or editorial) action, and I typically respond, if at all, by asking the editor to make the request on my talk page. For a blocked editor, I suppose I would ask that they ping me from their own talk page. I recommend this to any admin receiving requests by email. bd2412 T 02:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Vipul-related editor general sanction

• I propose that any admin may enact a community sanctioned block, in the style of AE sanctions, on any editor under Vipul's enterprise if that editor's edits reflect advocacy in contravention to Wikipedia's purpose. Those editors may only be unblocked by community discussion at WP:AN.--v/r - TP 14:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this TParis. I support this. After the COIN thread and its escalation to ANI, I had contemplated doing an RfC to get more definitive community response but my ~sense~ was that the community was sick of dealing with the matter so I didn't. This would be a reasonable way to handle the matter. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there one convenient place where anyone who wants it can get the backstory on this overall situation? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, the big one is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 113. Pour yourself a cup of coffee first. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C had included a bunch of links to other discussions in the close of that COIN thread; I just updated them as everything has been archived. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's something that I'm confused about. I understand that these editors were being paid. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has yet been able to show me a diff that these editors were engaged in paid advocacy. My review of their contributions was that they were making good faith, informational edits, not padding the resume or credibility of a specific person or cause. Frankly I don't understand what they were being paid to do, but it seems they were mostly making productive content contributions. Can anyone offer any diffs of actual advocacy? Andrevan@ 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the many threads about this or actually looked at their edits, even now, after you caused all this drama. But I will spoonfeed you like you are a newbie. Have a look at this or pretty much any of these. And that is just one topic they worked on. Vipul actually has a page where he explained the whole enterprise and its goals. Please go read before you write here more. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, please give me diffs, since you still haven't. Andrevan@ 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave you a link to an old version of an article they built. Here i will give it to you again: have a look at this. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for a diff that shows edits which push a POV. GiveWell is a notable organization. I don't see the problem here. Andrevan@ 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not going to make everyone rehash the same old conversations. You can read the discussions that already happened.--v/r - TP 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I did read the conversation, and I did not see the diffs I was asking for. Would you like to offer any evidence or merely beat me with a rhetorical bludgeon? Andrevan@ 23:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this provision necessary? "Advocacy" as a criterion is so broad as to be meaningless. Not to mention that Vipul has suspended their operations indefinitely, so there's no "enterprise" to speak of. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of valid. The locus is effective altruism, libertarianism, and silicon valley, and the advocacy mostly manifested in hijacking Wikipedia pages to turn them into webhosts, cited mostly from EA or company websites or blogs, with hyperfine detail about exactly who gave what to who, when, and why, and what some blogger in that universe thought about it, and what some other blogger in that universe thought about that, and WOW aren't we all fucking amazing such that every time we fart it should get written up in Wikipedia. And edit warring in MEAT fashion to maintain all that. It is a pretty clear locus. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I said "yes thanks" is that we never really came to a resolution as a community about Vipul's enterprise (not sure what else to call it, sorry if that term bothers you). I have no idea if Vipul intends to start it up again and there have been a few ANIs that have broken out as clean up has gone on. The kind of measure proposed by TParis might help.... Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's so obvious and clear where are the diffs? Andrevan@ 21:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not responding to you any further and your demand that the community recapitulate the work it already did is beyond the pale, especially when you should have reviewed all this before you unblocked Riciessa. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine, but the record shows I asked for diffs to support your allegations of meatpuppetry, etc and you provided none. Andrevan@ 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My really last reply. For the record, you have now made it very clear that you did not review the already extensively documented record of all of this. There are about six diffs now showing that lack of diligence clearly. You deserve much more than a trout. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't understand your comments at all. The proposal as written is meaningless because the enterprise no longer exists; Vipul has suspended operations. Is the measure supposed to handle old articles? If so, the measure as written is useless. You are correct that there was no consensus in the ANI discussion, perhaps because it covered so many topics. But the solution to that problem is not to have an AE-style remedy without having an ArbCom case. You are free to think that the articles created were crap, but plenty of them survived CSDs and AfDs; I've been involved in a few of these discussions myself. The Vipul enterprise was not a secret; indeed it was unusually transparent. I have mentioned it myself on Wikipediocracy and other sites; and last September Doc James was interested in their model of paid editing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was and am intrigued by the model of someone paying others to edit. The thing was very transparent in some ways and in some ways that were admirable. There were some significant problems with the execution which fatally flawed it. I don't know that here is the place to go into all of that, but as brief as I can make it..

1. they didn't give everybody a heads up and get consensus ahead of time anywhere, which is generally best practice when you intend to do something big like this, and especially something that might be controversial
2. the mission was unclear, mashing together stuff that is obviously public good-ish like public health in the developing world, to profiling EA organizations, to profiling tech companies, executives, and VCs. the further you go along that list the more spammy/"classic paid editing" the articles looked
3. Vipul hired a bunch of high school/young college kids who didn't edit or behave very well; a lot of the editing was poor
4. They didn't disclose at the article level, and they didn't put their stuff through peer review
5. They were all fired up with effective altruism zeal, and the advocacy shows up in edits and behavior
6. Vipul's day job at a big data SEO company and the pay-per-click model that the enterprise used, combined with high-schoolers' poor sourcing judgement and immersion in the EA bubble of blogs, led to tons of low quality refs being cited... and all that adds up to something that smells a lot like on-wiki SEO work to many people (I am not sure, but some are very sure). And please recall that the thing Riciessa did that got them blocked, was putting badly sourced stuff that had been removed from article space, into his userspace, and tagging it for indexing which really smells of SEO.

But the problem(s) that Tparis' suggestions solves are a) some of the paid advocates are still around, and are still advocates, and b) the enterprise might come back, and c), effective altruism is a topic of low level disruption that flares sometimes, and I am worried about more as I get back to cleaning up after Vipul's folks. Mostly (ac). Like the stuff that kicked off this thread. I would not be at all surprised if the suggestion does not gain consensus. DS without an arbcom case would be something.. novel. Probably too novel. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC) (redact per great question below Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC))

What is the evidence for (a)? And if Vipul is not paying them, why should he be responsible for their actions? Any why should any of the people in this arbitrary group be responsible for the actions of anyone else in this group? What is wrong with the normal procedure of bringing these "advocates" to ANI and sanctioning them, if they have indeed done anything wrong? As for (b), firstly one can cross the bridge when one comes to it. Secondly, there needs to be a determination that what Vipul did was wrong and deserves sanctions. There has been exactly one sanction about this mess: Riceissa (if we leave aside Wikisanchez). In my opinion, Riceissa committed suicide by admin due to frustration more than anything else, because they were obviously not going to get anything done. I have no proof of this, but this is my impression from what I know about the case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, KingsIndian. Have redacted. Ethanbas is really the only active one, and as noted he has mostly been grumbling on the edges of things. Vipul is quiet per his contribs. So I have no good answer for (a) and have struck. I should have thought more carefully before I wrote. My concern is c mostly and b a little. About c, like other groups that have active online communities, effective altruism folks have been a source of ~some~ disruption. Last April there was some ruckus off-wiki that led to this, which re-flared in October (see here, and of course Vipul's thing started in Jan 2015 but just blew up the joint a month ago. And as noted elsewhere the efforts to clean up after Vipul's folks has already lead to 3 ANI threads, I think, from AE folks who were already around... some of them I think drawn by off-wiki discussion of this stuff? And there is much more cleanup to go. That is my actual concern. Had an initial minor blow up at Giving What We Can that ended up working out nicely, but then bled over into Memphis Meats which blew up in its special (in the Tolstoy) sense way, and at that point I paused my efforts at cleanup to let uproar die down, in part because I was kind of burned out of it and my sense was that the community was sick of it. I am trying to get to back to resuming the cleanup, and TParis's suggestion just sounded attractive in the face of what I fear. That's where I am coming from. but I totally hear you in your procedural objection to to the motion. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, and also support a no-meatpuppeting restriction for the entire group. The group as a whole tends to meatpuppet -- supporting each other in AfDs, edit wars, noticeboard discussions, and talkpage discussions. It's bad enough to have undisclosed advocacy and unclear/murky paid editing; it's even worse when there is an entire pyramid-scheme group doing each other's dirty work without disclosing their connection to each other. We've warned them about this time and time again. Ethanbas's entirely misleading email to Andrevan on behalf of Riceissa was another egregious example. I propose the individual editors in the group may not edit on the same article, talkpage, or discussions of any other of the group, nor advocate for each other in any way. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks are not punitive. Paid editing seems to be at the very least paused, anyway, due to community outcry. Users should be evaluated on the specific effects of their contributions and not prejudged based on what movement they belong to. Specific diffs of harm being caused have not been offered to defend such a block. Andrevan@ 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Provide diffs, do not cast ASPERSIONS on users without evidence

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Users discussed above should be unblocked due to WP:AGF until diffs of their malfeasance are provided by the individuals seeking they be blocked. These diffs should explain why the user had violated a Wikipedia policy. Support: Andrevan@ 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Please provide diffs of editors casting aspersions like you've just done.--v/r - TP 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I am not asking for an editor to be blocked, I am asking for editors to be UNblocked. Andrevan@ 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Strong Support People really need to provide extensive diffs as a function of the seriousness of the charges they make. It is rare that we can error by having too much evidence.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Comment - This section is merely a diversion from more pressing matters. Andrevan created this "proposal" because he refused to research the background of this issue before unblocking, as Jytdog pointed out to him/her several times already.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well yeah, point. And not just diversionary, but certainly able to be considered retaliatory. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Far from it, I'm asking for a single reason why this punitive block should stand. I seek no retaliation. Andrevan@ 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC) No one is required to spoon feed every single person that asks for the entire issue to be debated again. You can read the history. Short of that, you're admitting to being reckless with the bit.--v/r - TP 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Like I keep saying, I don't see an argument there or any diffs there to advocacy-pushing. Feel free to point out a single one. "Admitting to being reckless with the bit?" Drop the stick, dude. Andrevan@ 00:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC) There is an open admission of advocacy on that page. So, I'm really not buying that you've actually read it. And no sticks are being held. You've refused to read the links given that provide the history which explains clearly why your action was undone. I don't care one way or the other, we buried our hatchet a year ago. But no one here has to justify an admin action, you do. And you've failed to acknowledge you acted hastily. In fact, you've doubled down and now have gone on the offensive.--v/r - TP 00:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I'm asking what is the justification to continue blocking this user. I already allowed my unblock to be reverted per WP:BRD, so I'm not doubling down at all. I'm asking for a single good reason to keep this punitive block in place. I have read the link you are offering, and it does not offer the argument that you say it does. Andrevan@ 01:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Let me come at the issue from a different angle. I'll concentrate on the Riceissa case. Andrevan's unblock has already been reversed, so there's no issue there. Andrevan wants evidence of problems with Riceissa, for which they were indeffed. See this ANI for the proximate reason, though there are other reports scattered around in this section. Andrevan is free to disagree with the result of the ANI (I am not happy with the ANI result myself, the primary reason being that the ANI report was open for less than a day); but the sanction was carried out after a community discussion. In addition, one should consider that paid editing is controversial within the WP editor population. With this background, perhaps Andrevan can appreciate that their unblocking was hasty, and shouldn't have been done without consultation or familiarization with the background. What's the use of a community sanction if any admin can come along and reverse it on their own say-so? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I think you've summed it up fairly.--v/r - TP 01:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Sure, me too. Andrevan@ 02:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Can someone clarify for me what "aspersions" are being referred to? Please provide diffs. In terms of the currently blocked editor, that editor is welcome to avail themselves of Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Alternatively, anyone is welcome to file an official Block Review here at AN or at ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose as non-serious, retaliatory, and battlegroundish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose, retaliatory. One of the users you unblocked unilaterally was blocked because of an AN/I thread (User_talk:Riceissa#ANI). You are not to overrule that by just deciding that you do not agree with the community support for the block. If you disagree, you bring it to the community, address their concerns and let the community override (if that is then the decision). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose--This is plain retaliatory.Kind of NOTGETTINGIT behavior.Pretty sad to see an admin cum bureaucrat continuing with these type of pathetic monkey-business, instead of admitting his/her mistake and giving in to the fact that it was a horrible un-block--as told by a magnitude of editors and admins.Winged Blades Godric 09:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion

Please see WP:VP/Pr#Unblocking after community-imposed block. To my surprise, undoing a community-imposed block isn't addressed in the blocking policy, so I'm proposing that we add a piece that addresses the subject. Please add your opinions there. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Nyttend. I found that surprising too--I have always acted and advised as if that's policy; it seemed common sense to me. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: My understanding comes from a close at ANI where a senior admin pointed out blocks come from a single admin, bans come from the community. I'll have to trawl through the last two years of archives to find it but technically it seemed they were right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocks, in general, for cases that aren't clear vandalism/policy violation or based on ArbCom sanction, are reversible. A community ban didn't always exist, and it should be regarded as a last resort in a case of serious behavioral issues and/or disruption, not given on a whim. You can say that I jumped the gun to unblock without raising a discussion or contacting the blocking admin, but we have policies of boldness and of admin autonomy to conduct block reviews (and make/adjust blocks). As part of that autonomy, you as an admin have reversed my bold action, which is also fine. Now we have a discussion to hash it out. I don't really understand why the "effective altruism" movement decided to start paying Wikipedia contributors, but if they are as their name suggests, being altruistic by making good faith edits AND disclosing their "paid editing" scheme, I don't see that as prima facie basis for blocking. Andrevan@ 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I have no horse in this race, but I feel moved to counter this nonsense that Andrevan in any way overstepped his authority; he did not. If admins have the authority to unilaterally indef block editors, then they damn well have the same authority to unblock. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Joefromrandb I think you are misguided. Admins just follow the community's consensus. What you are referring to, cowboy adminning, is not very popular around here. Sure, I have no issue with an admin blocking an obvious vandal/troll but if a group of editors come to an agreement about a sanction and an admin just undoes it without even bothering to address the community, there is a problem with that. You can't think, because admins have more tools than us, that they are above us and can disregard our input.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstand me. No, I don't "think that because admins have more tools than [we] they are above us", but sadly, that's the way it is. Admins can and do routinely act as judge, jury, and executioner, unilaterally indef-blocking at their own discretion, sans community discussion. This in and of itself is something which I abhor, but since it continues to be suffered by the community, I therefore eschew the idea that an administrator may not unilaterally decide to unblock an editor. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for the re-opening of a closed RfC

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 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC on Indicscript in infoboxes was recently closed with "strong consensus" for the proposed changes. I am requesting that this RfC be re-opened. Its closure occurred 14 days after the discussion was started, less than two days after its last comment and only after twenty editors had participated. This is not much in itself, but the result affects a very high nubmer of articles – potentially all 170,000 articles under the scope of WP:INDIA, and the major issues raised with the proposal had not yet been substantially addressed in the discussion.

Also, I don't believe the result of the close was appropriate. While the "strong consensus" might be justifiable on the strength of numbers (14 of the 20 participants supported the proposal), I don't believe it's a fair interpretation of the discussion. Many of the "support" comments were simple votes, while the major "oppose" argument remained unaddressed. Also, no arguments were given against the counterproposals for a more nuanced solution.

I've already brought this up with the closer (see User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Indic scripts RfC). Their response was to append a long a detailed explanation to their close. While this is of course appreciated, I don't think it does justice to the discussion: it makes no mention of why the major "oppose" argument was ignored and it uses rather strong language in support of the proposal that suggests the closer might not be completely uninvolved any more. – Uanfala (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• Ping---@El C, Yashovardhan Dhanania, Ind akash, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, Capankajsmilyo, Kashmiri, Basawala, Yamaguchi先生, Mahajandeepakv, Johnuniq, and Ms Sarah Welch:---pinging all the participants of the discussion for commenting on my closure.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pings to the ones that were missed: Vin09, Sitush, Kautilya3, IM3847, First Light and Kwamikagami. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Winged Blades was right in closing. Per closure guidelines for RfC, requests for closure may be made (...) for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear. This two weeks old RfC, but one the community has discussed many times with the same result, falls in that category. Unafala: [1] isn't the accurate count of vote: 14 No, 2 Yes, 4 mixed (no to unrestricted number of scripts, yes to allow one exception but no clarity/consensus on what the exception would be)? [2] If you or someone wants to propose exception(s), why not come up with a clear proposal and specific rules for deciding the exception(s), listing objective guidelines to prevent abuse, then discuss it on that project page. You clearly accept and realize the complication of zillion Indian scripts that are in use by creative and culturally rich people there, when you wrote "At any rate, I'm ready to support any proposal to deal with the Indic-script edit-warring (...) – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)". The AN board is not the place to help you formulate it, nor would reopening the RfC help because RfC work best on "short, simple, focused questions". So, instead of reopening RfC, perhaps you need to create and present persuasive WP:INDIA exceptions proposal(s)? I haven't seen one so far. El_C, RegentsPark, Winged Blades, etc have done a good job in proposing /guiding /closing that RfC. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala's reply

If by the community has discussed many times with the same result you mean the community has shouted down anyone who disagreed with it then you might be right. The current discussion clearly shows that there is a majority but I don't really see the consensus. I'm not sure I understand why my vote count wasn't accurate: 6 editors opposed the proposal as it stood (and passed), and I don't see how the fact that they had different counterproposals takes away from this fact. And please don't quote me out of context: I did not write I would support any proposal, I wrote that I would support any proposal as long as it has a more well-defined scope and actually tries to address the specific problems it's meant to solve. On a less grumbly note, I don't think I'm in a good position to define and propose an alternative (my personal opinion is that scripts shouldn't be removed unless subject to contention, and if I tried to start a new RfC this would effectively be an attempt at overturning the previous one). Also, my issue is with the closure of this RfC and I don't believe that starting a new RfC would be a sensible way to deal with it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The RfC may have succeeded in getting local consensus to some degree, since most of the participants are mainly Wikiproject India editors, or editors who are involved with India-related topics. I tried to advertise the RfC on other talk pages to get a broader spectrum of editors, and on 26 April I added the policy tag to the RfC, which according to here is how Wikipedia-wide policy/guideline proposals should be advertised. Perhaps the recency of the category addition warranted the RfC to run for longer, but we didn't get many new participants after a few days. As far as I can tell, my attempts at advertising the RfC more broadly failed, and we failed to get broader participation; as the closer concluded, "consensus was absent" on how WP:INDICSCRIPT should interact with pre-existing guidelines that conflict with it, such as on geographic articles; thus, WP:INDICSCRIPT only has scope over Wikiproject India, whereas other guidelines like WP:PLACE have WP-wide scope. Right now, users have already started removing Indian scripts from geographic articles, when it's not clear that WP:INDICSCRIPT should apply over WP:PLACE; similarly, users have removed Indian scripts from biography articles like Narendra Modi when it's not clear that WP:INDICSCRIPT should apply over WP:LEAD, which encourages local names for those who write their names in non-English. If this RfC is opened again, these would be the issues to address. But perhaps a better idea would be for an editor to challenge a removal of Indian scripts in a case in the guidelines conflict, and turn that into a new RfC. I have no opinion one way or the other. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that running an important RfC through the May holidays period is quite inconvenient. Those located outside of Europe may not be aware that 1 and 8 May are national holidays in most European countries and a lot of people are taking the remaining few days off work, heading off for 10 days' family holidays (29 April - 8 May). That could explain low participation from Europe. Personally, I intended to submit an alternative proposal but just could not manage before the current RfC was closed. I throw my support for re-opening. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Most Europeans being unfamiliar with Indic scripts, like most North Americans, I wonder why this is an issue? I don't expect that we'd have a problem about running an India-related thing that conflicts with the July 1-4 holidays (Canada Day and US Independence Day, respectively) unless it were related to North America as well, and the same should be true of a non-European thing in early May. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As Ms Sarah Welch above explains, the close was proper. All we're seeing is the editors who don't like the idea showing up here trying to reopen it. That's not how this is supposed to work. --regentspark (comment) 23:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment : The closure was proper after long discussion.--Vin09 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Although Winged Blades of Godric should probably have left this closure to an admin, I cannot find fault with their closing statement. They have read consensus accurately. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close as an excellent distillation of the emergant consensus. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:11, 8 May 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:RFC/N opened on admin formerly known as ^demon

I have opened a WP:RFC/N on another administrator, User:😂. I think this matter has extra considerations related to the expectations of administrators . Do avoid a discussion fork, please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.25F0.259F.2598.2582_.28.F0.9F.98.82.29_.28formerly_.5Edemon.29 in regards to the specific instance. A more general conversation may be warranted as well. The last community discussion I can find related to these types of usernames mostly died out at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_151#Emoji_usernames Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to comment on that name then what about User:Lourdes's alt account? It is a heart emoji - maybe that could be brought up? For the record, I am in agreement with you that it is disruptive. Thanks, Patient Zero^talk 12:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Just as an update on the situation, the RFCN has been closed as "allow username". The advice for anyone objecting was to start a RFC to discuss the existence of all emoji usernames. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lot of fuss over nothing. What next, attacking users with names like this? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI: AIV is backlogged {

Resolved

I handled what I could, but it's going on midnight here and I just can't stay up any longer. There is a significant backlog. Also a handful of the IP's reported are showing some odd stuff in their edit filter logs which I have not seen before. It appears to be a list of disruptive edits by numerous other IPs and registered users. Is this something I missed in new admins school? I will try to check back in the morning (maybe). -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of the IPs reported were by an overzealous user who went "they did one vandal edit and were warned for it, block them." Some of them were already blocked by other admins but the bot isn't removing them for some reason.

That said, it is big. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

AIV is no longer backlogged. Thanks to everyone who helped out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Procedural question re socks

I have just run across Sockpuppets of BlueSalix. I know that G5 on WP:CSD gives us the go-ahead to delete anything created by banned or blocked users. I know DarjeelingTea and LavaBaron are two of the somewhat prolific socks here. Based on G5, should we just delete articles they created (and I think there are many), such as United States presidential election, 2020, Secret Service Counter-Assault Teams and Abraham Lincoln's hearse are examples. Do those articles just get deleted because they were created by a blocked user? In the case of these last two socks, I think you might need a bot to go through them all. Also, the same thing for reviews. I just deleted one GA nomination submitted by one of the socks. Just off the top of my head, I remember seeing many LavaBaron nominations at GA in the last year or so. And I notified the Military History project that one of the socks has posted throughout several of its on-going A-class reviews. What is the process? — Maile (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

On a procedural note as I don't see you mention it in your question, the CSD G5 criteria only applies to articles and pages "that have no substantial edits by others".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say what Ponyo said. Creations by sockpuppets of blocked/banned editors may be deleted, if there are no substantial edits by others. There's no requirement to do so, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The other thing to note is that pages created before the SPI was filed and/or the users were master was blocked are not G5 eligible. Not sure if this is the case with some of the articles, but I thought I'd mention it for the record. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the master was blocked at the time the sock created the article, it is eligible as it was created "in violation of their ban or block".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Amended above. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this is something I see at CSD, which are numerous speedy delete nominations where the article was created before it was determined they were a sock. In most cases, it's articles that could be deleted on other factors anyway. But now I see the clear answer - if the master was blocked when the sock created it, it's eligible. Overall, I'm glad I opened this thread as I do a lot of work at CSD, and all of the above is good information to have. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

An article which survived an AfD (such as United States presidential election, 2020) can't be deleted under G5. The other2 articles you mentioned could be, althoughan admin may simply decide against. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, something that's been alluded to but not stated explicitly in this section: just because a sock created an article, it doesn't mean it has to be deleted. If the contributions are clearly helpful (as the ones mentioned here), there's no real reason to delete them. ansh666 08:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

^^Technically speaking, an article that survived AfD can be speedily deleted if the speedy deletion occurs for newly discovered issues that could not have been foreseen by the AfD. Say an undiscovered copyvio or as here sockpuppetry. However, what Ansh666 says applies as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no: aside from G12, for copyvios, an article must not be speedy deleted on problem-related grounds if it survives AFD. The criteria for speedy-deletion-after-XFD-survival, according to the WP:CSD page, are G6, G8, G9, G12, A2, A5, F8, and U1. Aside from office actions, G9, and copyvios, G12, they're all housekeeping to some extent or another, and the only reason G9/12 are included is because we can't bind the WMF Office and because copyvio is a legal thing; there's nothing legally problematic with an article just because it was created by someone's sock. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion 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.

---

Not sure if this is the right spot to put this, but I would like to request that this specific revision be removed from my talk page as it contains an attack against my actions. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. I can't even find an insult in there. And for the record, this isn't the place to make such a request. Use {{revdel}} next time (it would have been declined anyway, but that's how you request a revdel). Primefac (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Not even remotely close to a reason to revdel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@SlitherSnakeSempter: Have you considered that the criticism is perhaps valid and your actions at the article unnecessary given that the creator of the article is still actively working on improving it? Your comment "The single source could be the best in the world, but an article still needs at least 2, preferably 3 or 4 sources" is also incorrect and is a pretty confident statement for a two week old account with less than 100 edit to make. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone care to make a wager on how much disruption this guy is going to cause before he gets indef blocked again? Any side bets on which specific previously banned editor it is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Considering they just deleted this comment of your Floq, I'm guessing they won't be around for long. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the comment because I interpreted it as harassment. That's all. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you ask around at many of the other non-WMF sites listed on my user page (especially Miraheze), I'm sure that they can tell you that I am a good-faith contributor. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 20:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As it's your talk page, you're welcome to do that. It's just not a revdel-worthy edit. In the interest of not turning this into something it's not, I'm closing the discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 10 May 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:UAA crosspost

Just posting this here to increase exposure. There's some text I'd like to see converted to a template for use at WP:UAA. Details are here. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: {{no edits}} has been created and will be usable shortly once I do some cleanup. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Egyptheology

• For information:
  • On 22:07, 6 May 2017 User:Samuel Abucaya created a page Egyptheology, with text "Egyptheology is the scientific study of Egyptian antiquities combined with the study of the original Hebrew scriptures of the Tanakh תנ"ך. Egyptheology has for goal to expose Pharaoh's societies." and a link to web page http://egyptheology.com/ , which proved to exist.
  • On 22:11, 6 May 2017 User:Uncle Roy added a {{notability}} tag to the article, using Twinkle.
  • On 22:12, 6 May 2017 User:Velella added an A11 speedy-delete tag "Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". using Twinkle.
  • On 22:16, 6 May 2017 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Egyptheology.
  • Google search for the word "Egyptheology"
  • Search for the word "Egyptheology" within the English Wikipedia

  At 07/05/2017 - 04:03 I received an email from Samuel Abucaya via Wikipedia and the Mediation Committee complaining about me deleting that article; in it he said that Egyptheology is a genuine new line of science.

  My link using {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks}} currently lists no mediation tasks.

  At 07/05/2017 - 04:09 I received an email from Transporter Man via Wikipedia and the Mediation Committee saying that the Mediation Committee cannot handle page deletions and linking to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions.

  • • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox version of the page as a copyright violation of http://egyptheology.com/index.php/our-goals/, and note that the article had the same exact text. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly original research and fringe, invented by someone named Sam.[70] Purely promotional, a million miles from being notable and gigalight-years from being science. But shouldn't someone post something to the article's creator? Doug Weller talk 13:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting review on closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

Some editors felt that the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages was inaccurate. The discussion was closed as "procedural closure" due to concerns of canvassing via notifications at some affiliated WikiProject and mass announcements via mailing list. However, it was also listed in Template:Centralized discussion. I wonder whether the closure should be endorsed or overturned. --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reopened the discussion, as the procedural close is incorrect. The notification of wikiprojects was sufficiently neutral to not be construed as canvassing, and as it was posted as a central discussion, said wikiprojects were not the only people notified (which is the CONLEVEL justification as well). Having said that, Fæ your email was rather biased, and appears to be cherry picking arguments which support your position (as RfC initiator). It would be best to refrain from these sorts of emails during an active RfC, and you should know this. I am not commenting on what I think the outcome of this discussion is, nor what my opinion on the matter is. I will await the pitchforks and torches on my talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest if any pitchforkers turn up, you redirect them to the RfC, where they will feel welcome. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The email wasn't great and shouldn't be repeated, but it's worth noting it came so late and was followed by so little activity relative to the total activity at the proposal that it can have no appreciable effect on the outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There were a couple of straight votes in support of the RfC that came after the email; they may have been influenced by it, but there's no way of telling. And that, of course, is the problem with canvassing: it taints legitimate !votes. StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe someone mentioned there were also a couple opposes. Given that an experienced closer would close an RfC based on strength of arguments and overall levels of support, a couple !votes would have essentially no effect on the outcome. Having closed hundreds (over a thousand?) discussions, I can say that the marginal effect of a single vote in an 100+ editor discussion would have literally zero effect. I do agree the email is problematic, we just shouldn't pretend it actually had much, if any, influence on the discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case, 60% was being viewed (by the proposer, among others) as a sort of "magic number", and since the final support percentage was 58%, a few votes might have made a difference in some people's minds. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be an error on their part. Were the numbers 65%-35% it would still be no consensus given the weak arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the RfC should be closed by an experienced editor. "Procedural close' is an affront to the people who took time to participate. They deserve better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Aside It is my opinion that many editors use the term canvass and wp:canvass as a shorthand that is misleading. I see several examples on this page and two in this section. I have a summary of the problem along with a proposed solution on the talk page of the guideline: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Issue_with_lead_wording.2C_and_possible_improvements--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

How to control my Firefox web browser's text display size when I am editing Wikipedia?

Resolved

• My Firefox web browser's text display size when I am editing Wikipedia suddenly became much bigger, probably when a stray finger hit a wrong key. Please how can I set it back to the type size that it had before? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

On windows you can hold Ctrl and press 0. Ctrl + makes the size bigger and Ctrl - makes it smaller. Ctrl 0 resets to default. ~ GB fan 13:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @GB fan: Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And via the menus, View/Zoom/Reset (at least on Mac). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Doxxing link in article

Resolved

 – Spill has been mopped. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what WP policy is on this, but I've just removed several unsourced contentious claims and a doxxing link from Ryan Arrowsmith in this edit. Can the content of this edit please be removed from the page history? Uncle Roy (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the whole article is even easier. Bencherlite^Talk 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of item that should never be reported at a public noticeboard. Rather, it should be privately communicated to an admin, or preferably, an Oversighter. There is a large pink box in the editnotice for this page that states that, by the way. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Caution from the BBC and Reuters, but not Wikipedia

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Per comments below, this is a content matter, not a matter that appears to require administrative intervention at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is the wrong venue please let me know of other options.

At Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Editorial policy: alleged, I've pointed out that while the BBC and Reuters are always cautious to describe Russian "hacking" or "interference" in the US election as "alleged," we take the opposite editorial approach. That approach is also contrary to the French, German and Spanish wikis whose articles are titled "Accusations of Russian interference..." or "2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US."

I'd like to invite comment because our article has been disputed since it was made, and I suspect a thought process that has helped generate this situation, among otherwise very capable editors, goes something like "well I didn't and don't like Trump, so who cares if we're adamant he was elected by Russia?" As someone who didn't and doesn't like Trump, I still maintain we can be at least as cautious as the BBC and Reuters. -Darouet (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Before we start debating specifics, it is important that BBC and Reuters are both based in, and generally operate under the laws of, the United Kingdom. WMF is, obviously, US-based. The legal systems of the US and UK are similar, but not the same. In particular, libel and defamation law uses different standards in the two systems. The difference in presentation is at least as much a question of legal liability limitation as editorial caution. WMF has no need to follow BBC or Reuters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The focus of this complaint is treatment of Russia in our articles. Libel law may be relevant to comments about Putin directly but not Russia (in general) as far as I'm aware. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't see libel being an issue if we remain faithful to reputable sources, which I believe we have so far. Wikipedia is not beholden to the editorial standards of Reuters and the BBC. This is why it is important to use a broad array of very reputable sources. My impression is that sources overall treat the Russian election interference as an accepted fact. Of course, if you only read a narrow range of sources, you could form the impression that Russia has merely been accused of election interference. In any case, this is a content dispute. If the proposal here is to adopt the editorial standards of specific sources, then perhaps WP:VPP would be a good place to start.- MrX 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This can't possibly be the right Noticeboard for this complaint. NPOVN, RSN, BLPN, and ANI or AE if you really wish to make good on the general aspersions you've highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Un-reviewing" pages which I have looked at or worked on

• Recently I have received these messages:
  • User talk:Anthony Appleyard#I have unreviewed a page you curated "... I saw the page you reviewed, Numbered Panda, and have un-reviewed it again"
  • User talk:Anthony Appleyard#I have unreviewed a page you curated "... I saw the page you reviewed, CostPerform, and have un-reviewed it again"

  Why is this? I had obeyed user requests to history-merge both these pages, but I did not "review" them in the sense of reporting or deciding on their contents or quality, or similar, or as described in wikt:curator. History-merging page X to page Y necessarily involves deleting page Y for a few seconds, then moving page X to Y, then undeleting page Y. It may also need me to first temporarily delete and undelete page X, to remove stray WP:Parallel histories latest edits made after the cut-and-paste event, such as redirects and User:BattyBot edits. Does history-merging a page cause a false-alarm report that I have issued a review on that page? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This would probably be better at WP:VPT, but I think that, from what Mz7 said on your talk page, it's because admins have autopatrolled and histmerging requires undeleting - I'd guess the software treats undeleting as creating a new page, which will then be marked reviewed by autopatrolled. If that's not how it works, then completely ignore this. @Mz7: does that sound about right? ansh666 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Ansh666 has it right. All administrators have the autopatrolled flag, and when you delete then undelete the page in the process of histmerging, the flag apparently automatically marks the undeleted page as "patrolled". You can manually unmark pages as patrolled using Page Curation, but doing so automatically notifies the "reviewer", in this case it was you, as the autopatroller. I wish that we could somehow modify Page Curation to suppress this reviewer notification so that we wouldn't have to bother editors who were merely doing maintenance. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Introducing the Community health initiative on Wikipedia

Community health initiative

Helping the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects.

Hello! Today we'd like to introduce the new Community health initiative, the people who will be working on it, and most importantly how you can get involved. See the post at Village pump (miscellaneous), Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC))

• "This initiative addresses the major forms of harassment reported on the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2015 Harassment Survey" - I look forward to seeing how you deal with the revenge porn harrassment that is rife, RIFE I say on wikipedia. Or you could put that grant into funding the prosecution of identified banned users who constantly engage in harrassment of wikipedia editors, instead of feel-good initiatives based on faulty research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Only in death Revenge porn is that bad of an issue here? I wasn't aware it was that prevalent. And I'll add that there need to be a way to limit the banned editors that have targeted specific editors for continued harassment, I agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• There's been all kinds of obnoxious and vengeful behaviour on Wikipedia but I hadn't heard of actual revenge porn being an issue. Hmm, I can think of some specific off-wiki incidents of some years back, but calling them revenge porn in the usual sense of the term is a stretch. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Take a look at the actual survey, it's results and the subsequent talk page discussions. Basically it was technically flawed which made all it's results suspect. One of the clear early indicators being the unfeasibly high amount of revenge porn victims. Although it was subsequently amended, given the flaws involved in the design and implementation, I wouldnt trust anything coming out of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, the survey included "sexualized pictures" in its definition of revenge porn (a wider class of images than actual, unsimulated explicit pictures that the term is sometimes reserved for) and some perennial wikilawyers decided they had the wp:truth about the issue and stirred up shit about it. Revenge porn aside, lots of the other listed harassment forms are experienced by basically everyone here, frequently enough that staying around requires either thick skin, masochism, or a high level of editing sophistication that takes a long time to acquire. I see the more acute instances as the pointy bits of a generally obnoxious landscape. The landscape itself is the worst problem; there's a desire implicit in the survey for something like a no asshole rule, but Wikipedia culture reinforces the opposite. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• From what I've understood, I think the actual issue being raised by Only in death is that the question asking about things like revenge porn had a slider from 1 to 5 for the first week of the survey, but should have been 0-5, with 0 being "no revenge porn harassment" and the rest counting as "some revenge porn harassment". As such everyone answering that question had to say some level of that harassment took place. Is that right Only in death? Sam Walton (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As I recall that was one of the issues. The place that shall not be named had a thread about the survey detailing all its faults. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): Is this accurate? And if so, was it taken into account in the subsequent analysis? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sam Walton, The Harassment Survey 2015 was released first as a preliminary document for community feedback. Both the raw data and the presentation slides based on the analysis of data were released. After the community and internal staff discussions, a final document with updates was released several weeks later. The final document took into account any significant issues discovered by the community or staff. It is also important to note that the work of the Community health initiative will reflect a variety of feedback streams by the movement from past years, as well as ongoing communications and future consultations. Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): Makes sense - thanks! To be clear, I'm very supportive of this initiative; I just wanted to make sure points like this were clarified :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:, no problem. :-) SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh ha, that's funny about the slider. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Followup: After looking at the VP post I'm pessimistic. While there are definitely some incidents of acute harassment, there's a more grinding problem of overbearing and bureaucratic behaviour ingrained in Wikipedia culture that is much harder to fix. It's like living in an oppressive police state punctuated by the occasional stabbing (or harassment). Occasional stabbings happen everywhere in the world but most of us don't live in fear of them. It's better to get rid of the police state and take one's chances with the stabbers, than the other way around. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A fix could include, forms for posting at noticeboards (dif, rule, argument), requirements that only content edits should be discussed, fact check system (is arg valid?), limiting comment count. prokaryotes (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Really like to get more input from other editors/admins on this. Probably has been addressed in the past. Updates? prokaryotes (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboards aren't really the problem. It's everywhere: mainspace, talk pages, edit summaries, etc. And fixing a bureaucracy problem with more bureaucracy sounds counterproductive. I'm outta here for the weekend but will check back next week. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard's are the primary issue since all the mainspace stuff eventually ends up here, or what do you suggest? You need well defined procedures to remove the noise from the facts. prokaryotes (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardly anything winds up on noticeboards, but is a huge hassle anyway. Look at recent changes sometime, and see how many of the edits are either bots on noisy joyrides, officious templates on user talk pages, brusque reverts of perfectly good edits, etc. Every one of those things alienates people, most fall under one or more of the harassment categories in the survey, and hardly any get reported on noticeboards. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible change to global policy that would override a just-established local consensus here

As some of you may know, there was two recent entries WP:RFC/N, probably the most widely attended ones of recent years, in which a consensus was arrived at that we will in fact allow unicode characters and emojis as usernames. And now all of the sudden there is a discussion at m:Talk:Global rename policy to make it a global policy that emojis cannot be used. Thought the community should be made aware of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit much into one of those discussions. The close says that the specific rename was acceptable, not that "all future renames" (i.e. at the moment there is no actual consensus regarding emoji usernames). Thank you for bringing this to our attention, though. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Those cases hardly mean that emoji usernames are now fair game. If they were, then why hasn't the local restriction on creating an account with one in the name been removed? This is just a discussion within the global renamers group (and open to the public, of course) regarding our own practices, and whether future renames of that sort should be allowed given the drama they might stir up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that people are weighing in on the really important issues that face Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Our own Sayre's Law 😲

I'm guessing the answer to Ajraddatz' question is "because it's easier to argue about pointless stuff than to actually do anything about it" ;) I've wondered aloud in every one of these threads about why emoji are on the local blacklist, and nobody's taken the cue, so: why are emoji on the local title blacklist? Have we really had a problem with people running around creating bad emoji titles? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: This edit by @Ilmari Karonen:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Other than the recent examples, have there been well-attended discussions establishing some sort of broad consensus on non-Latin characters in general? I know they're generally accepted, with various suggestions, but I've long thought any name with non-Latin characters editing on enwiki should be required to have a Latin equivalent that redirects and, in some way, generates notifications for them. Copy/pasting every time you want to engage with the person (or using one of the other mechanisms to produce such characters) is a nonminor obstacle to communication. I realized this most clearly when I tried to ping someone with a non-Latin character in their name from a mobile device in a Village Pump discussion. Reading isn't a problem, but finding the name in a long section, copying, returning to where I want to add a comment, and pasting... potentially repeatedly, is a huge pain especially to our mobile users. This is a bit of a tangent, I know, so feel free to respond on my talk page if someone is more inclined and finds it more appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There going to be some discussions in the WT:U archives. I don't buy the argument that names need to be easily memorable and typeable. Try reproducing any usernames you're familiar with containing over 8 characters, with punctuation, capitals, and spaces here and maybe there. I sincerely doubt I could accurately spell your username if it wasn't right in front of me. Even my username is usually got wrong. I'd go so far as to say that most names should be clicked on or copy-pasted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• This characterization of those discussions is incorrect. The close contained "In that light, I am recommending that anyone who wishes to disallow emoji usernames should start an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard (be that here or at a Village Pump) to formally allow/disallow such usernames to be used as the primary name of a user." That very explicitly states there is no consensus here to allow emoji usernames, just that the issue hasn't been discussed. Indeed, many of the comments supporting the specific emoji username said this should be handled in a big RfC, not individual cases, but that they didn't necessarily support emoji usernames. That global discussion is the wider discussion requested in the close, from what I can tell. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm glad someone read my close. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  The global discussion isn't even quite that. We aren't talking about banning those usernames altogether, just banning renames to them. Stewards and global renamers, much like bureaucrats, should be seen as neutral processors of technical requests. If people are going to be complaining about a certain type of action, then we (on that principle) should avoid it. Our own decision to not allow such renames won't prevent people from using those usernames, since they can always create a new account with one as the name. It just takes the dramahz off of us. Ironically, in a process which creates more drama. What a fun website. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  Eh, well, at least it will get you guys out of the emoji username business. We'll need an RfC on this on enwiki at some point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• The result of the RFC/N was that current policy doesn't forbid it. That doesn't mean that policy should or shouldn't.--v/r - TP 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

AN in the news regarding "EJustice matter"

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288 § EJustice matter

I spotted this at Talk:Donald Trump § Breitbart tutorial on BLP. The thread has been reported on by Breitbart.[71] Jytdog is named and quoted in the article. It even includes links to the discussion here, the Wiki Ed discussion, WP:BLP, and Jytdog's user talk page.

Murph9000 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems oddly neutral to me. EJustice did something improper, they were reverted/banned. I can see how some people would read between the lines (especially with the feminist snipe) and see them saying "we're pro-Trump" but I read it as a decent commentary on our neutrality. If anything, Jytdog's comments helped that narrative. Either way, I don't think it's anything to get our panties in a twist about. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's anything of immediate concern here. Overall, it doesn't feel like a bad news article for WP. This thread was for the sole purpose of letting people know that it exists, and the side issue that there may be slightly more external eyes watching AN than usual for a while (hello outsiders, welcome to WP, we do just about everything in full public view). Murph9000 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Primefac (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Compared to when the Daily Mail reported on the banning of DM as a RS (which outed an editor and threw various labels at them), this is very sane and reasonable. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and kudos to Jytdog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not a happy thing, on any level. But it was necessary that we take action, unfortunately. Am unhappy with the Breitbart piece for framing this as a "trend" and claiming I commented on the trend, per se. Whatever - the blogosphere will bloviate and spin, as it will.Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the author understands what Wikipedia is about, and refrained from sensationalism; nice to see. Added a {{press}} mention to the relevant pages, except Jytdog's private space. — JFG ^talk 10:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Pablothepenguin violation of 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.

---

Pablothepenguin continues to violate his topic ban on all editing on Scotland in relation to Great Britain/United Kingdom, broadly construed. Previous violations resulted in an indefinite block. He was unblocked under the condition that the topic ban was extended to indefinite and that further violations resulted in reinstatement of the block (see here for unblock conditions). He has violated the topic ban as recently as last week, along with such choice edit summaries such as this one. Please review.--Atlan (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Since a recent problematic edit is identical to one that got him blocked in the first place, I have reblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that it was part of his unblock conditions that a topic ban violation would result in an indefinite block, so this block should probably not be lifted upon appeal. See here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

..? Rob, you've linked to User talk:Cesaree01. Are you saying Cesaree01 is the same as Pablothepenguin, or might you have pasted the wrong diff? I don't see anything about a rename. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Pretty sure he meant [72]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That I did. Grabbed the wrong link. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 12 May 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.