Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive294

User editing a close about themselves

Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

1. Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
2. What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)

Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?

Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing [of] a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Wikipedia editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Wikipedia project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Wikipedia to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure 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.

---

• Endorse close. GR's close was simply a warning for Xenophrenic not to repeat the actions which have gotten him a block log full of edit-warring blocks. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Closing statements should not have ex cathedra opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Close - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do not, however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "think you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse close - a warning to stop edit warring is better than a block, and it's apparent that either were a possible outcome. Although the "when you think you're right" bit may have been better directed at a different editor, a warning that such activity might lead to sanctions is not a personal attack by a wide margin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly an appropriate close with no personal attack and no opinions. It was an accurate summary of the discussion and policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 11 October 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.

Sanction Discussion

• Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Wikipedia project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy interpretation

1. WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
2. WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Wikipedia", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?

• YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG^talk 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

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.

---

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mojoworker, please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Softlavender:I have to ask again – seriously? The essay section WP:Competence_is_required#Social is all about working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. It's an interesting coincidence that you, I, and Xenophrenic all began editing within months of one another in 2007. An editor doesn't last more than 10 years here, as the three of us have, without editing collaboratively. I don't recall interacting with you at any articles in the past, but I've run into Xenophrenic a handful of times over those 10+ years, and I've always found him civil and seen him provide policy based rationales when his edits have been challenged. It appears he may have edit warred at times, which certainly isn't a good thing, but you wanting a block, which, as Black Kite points out is generally indefinite, seems far too draconian and ill conceived. If you honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent, and thus should be removed from the community, then I really don't know what to say to you. You characterize his behavior as "gameplaying" and "BS". I take a different and more charitable view. Really, how would you feel if your unblock request had been handled the same way? I know how I'd feel and I'm willing to grant him some slack, in part because of that. This place has gotten to be filled with so many venomous editors that I sometimes wonder why I still continue to participate here. And, as an aside, I'd wager that a good portion of the editors !voting here haven't even looked into the issue any further than what's here on AN, yet feel compelled to add their own 2¢ worth of bile. Sad indeed. As GreenMeansGo says, we should close this godawful thing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You're totally misreprenting the section you're linking to, which was a general side note to a specific complaint about me not responding when pinged. The issue was quite simply not "mishandling" of the unblock request, though. Swarm ♠ 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm:I'm not singling you out here – no admin handled the unblock request – it appears the only admin who even looked at it was Houn (and as much as the community doesn't want to address it, there aren't enough of you admins around these days – this is just a symptom). Newyorkbrad said: "I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance." I don't think I'm misrepresenting his point at all – I certainly think that rises to the level of being mishandled, and I'd sincerely hope everyone here agrees with that. As I said before, if that had happened to me, I'd be righteously indignant. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole sorry thing has certainly pushed patrolling CAT:RFU up my priority list and changed how I approach requests there. I don't think I looked specifically at Xenophrenic's request while it was open (I don't recall doing so) but I can imagine that if I had, I'd have seen an open ANI discussion regarding it and simply thought, "Too Hard." I guess some requests languish, not because no-one gets to them but because no-one wants to make a decision and I'm trying to get better at making decisions on requests rather than avoiding them. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a perceptive assessment, GoldenRing, and your observation is spot-on. The backlog of "Unblock Requests" is not because of lack of available Administrators, but is due to lack of Admins willing to evaluate the "Too Hard" blocks. Those are often blocks issued based on very subjective discretion in the gray area between easy good blocks made because of clear policy violations or evidence, and mistaken or bad-faith blocks. As ironic evidence, note than an administrator was very available to answer general Talk page help requests and took the time to explain to me that there was a backlog in the requests for unblock -- but opted to not spend that time on the actual unblock request. That sparked my curiosity, so I spent the next few days watching that queue; request after request was added to, addressed and then removed from that queue all while mine sat there. I suspect plenty of patrolling Admins saw the request, decided they couldn't "decline" the request because it was reasonable, yet no one wanted to be the one to implicitly overturn a fellow Admin colleague by accepting the request. I admit I am at a loss as to what can be done to remedy that kind of situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
  In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it ([86], [87], among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ([104] [105] [106] (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
  The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ([118]).
  I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, holy cow, where to start? I asked you simply to add some evidence diffs to a warning you issued to substantiate your specious claim that I was justifying edit-warring because "I was right" about content -- no, worse, because I "think I am right" about content. What's that saying about "be careful what you ask for?" You've now posted a very intimidating 100+ diffs, so many diffs, in fact, that I would wager most people seeing them would simply blindly assume that whatever point(s) you are making must be well-substantiated just by virtue of the shear volume of blue links you've strung together. I wish to show that is not at all the case here. I do see where you have indeed managed to dig up just a couple legitimately problematic diffs, and while they don't establish your "persistent" or "ongoing problem" thesis, they do indicate I'm not a flawless editor, and they will get a response, too.

• "stop edit warring and editing against consensus"

Here you have collected a whopping 85 diffs, which all show me removing a problematic category (now deleted by community consensus) from 40+ articles, first because they were added wholly without reliable sources in violation of WP:CATVER. Then after the category was spammed back into the same 40+ articles, again without any reliable sourcing and under the pretext they "were under discussion" - I removed them again through a manual rollback after generously waiting until the discussion ended, as they were still in violation of our verification policy. So how do you justify calling these examples of edit warring against consensus? Grabbing some of your diffs at random, this 6th diff is edit warring how? Against what consensus, exactly, to keep that unsourced category in that article? How about this 68th diff, where I actually removed the cat three times over the span of a year, again because it totally lacked the required verification. What consensus was edit-warred against?

• "seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content"

Here you provide just 2 diffs, presumably the strongest you could find, and you claim there are "many, many more". Neither one shows me trying to justify edit-warring on the grounds I was "right" about the content. To the contrary, those diffs show me justifying my edits to Admin Fram and BrownHairedGirl as purely technical removals per WP:CAT, which requires: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I could not make a determination of whether the content was "right" or "wrong" because the required reliable sources upon which such a thing could be determined were completely absent from the article. Since you claim there are "many, many more" examples, could we dig into those please, and locate just one to support your claim?

• "sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations"

Here you provide 16 diffs of me replacing personal attacks accusing me of being a racist, block deleting, and canvassing, with the {{rpa}} template, as instructed by WP:RPA policy when the claims are completely devoid of substantiation. All of your examples are from the same now-banned editor, and same discussion, which was heavily discussed at AN/I. The result was the editor apologized for the "racism" personal attacks, the "canvassing" personal attacks were also indeed unsubstantiated. I believe our policy pages are the best indicator of what our "community expectations" are; do you agree? If not, the community would re-word them. We might disagree about severity of personal attacks, but I don't think there has been any disagreement that aspersions without evidence qualify. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you, me, and the community, are "in step" with regard to agreeing that your "warning" about my behavior should be substantiated with evidence --- you and I disagree, however, as to whether that evidence already exists somewhere in that discussion. Do I have that right?

• "what is a personal attack ... note the ridiculous double standard here"

Here you provide only 1 diff, this one. I assume you are talking about what appears to be me tagging a couple editor's signatures with the "canvassed" template, after I complained about another editor accusing me of canvassing? That looks like a double standard, I agree -- UNTIL you realize that I was just fixing my previous edits after I had inadvertently deleted those tags. They were actually added by a now-banned editor a few edits earlier here, and not by me.

• "removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!"

No, I didn't. I did, however, move an off-topic personal post between editors from a CfD Discussion to the appropriate editor's Talk page for further discussion and follow-up, as instructed by WP:TPO - (Off-topic posts).

• "editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most"

This accusation has some merit, but not as an ongoing problem, and not in any way intentional (i.e.; to make it appear that you ignored most of it). I don't intentionally edit other people's comments (with the exception of formatting for readability as explicitly allowed by WP:TPO, and removal of clearly personal attacks as explicitly allowed by WP:RPA). As you and another editor here have pointed out, when I add or expand a comment in a high-traffic discussion, with repeated edit-conflicts, and I resort to off-line editing followed by a copy&paste, I get that rare screw-up you pointed out. If you'll check, you'll see my edit to expand my comment came just minutes on the heels of your reply (and was initiated before your reply) -- it wasn't an attempt to sneak additional comments in without you knowing it. It is a rare occurrence, but one to which I definitely need a better solution.

• "he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right"

I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT. AND I WOULD NOT. That is some gall you have; did you just assume no one would check? To the contrary, here is what I actually said, quoted from your Talk page: At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. The whole reason I came to your Talk page was to try to clear up this very misunderstanding of yours, and now you have demonstrated that I have failed miserably in that endeavor. But okay, I'll bite: please quote my exact words here where you think I've argued that "the edit warring didn't matter because [I] was right".

Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to respond at any length here; I think we've both had our say & there is ample here for people to judge for themselves. What matters at this point is not Xenophrenic and I slugging it out but the community coming to some consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

T'dog, I've been relying on the directions found at one of our core policy pages, aptly titled What Is A Personal Attack. To my knowledge, that is the broader community's view on how to identify a personal attack, is it not? Broadest, in fact. I realize that often when personal attacks are removed, somebody (or a group of somebodies) isn't going to like it - it's a bit confrontational. I've seen a few folks here rally around and declare "that's not a personal attack!", including you, but that seems to directly contradict our policy page. If you are saying I have it wrong, and the consensus among a limited group of objecting editors here actually represents the broader community view and supersedes our policy page, then you are correct that I have some learnin' to do. Do you think our NPA policy needs a rewrite or clarification to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future? I've asked for clarification of the policy in the thread just below this one, but an Admin rush-closed it before the question about identifying personal attacks was addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose Softlavender's proposal as it is based on the ludicrously bad-faith assumption that there is extreme "gameplaying" and no competence. Further, I've seen nothing but hyperbole from her, zero productive suggestions, and this & this - which I'm sure will spark the appropriate admonishment (ha). GoldenRing at least made an attempt to justify his call for sanctions, but he did so by dredging up a bunch of diffs from January to demonstrate edit-warring, personal attack removal and Talk page formatting. Perhaps he doesn't realize that I was already grilled and poked on all of that at the drama boards, and the majority of his EW diffs were already cited as part of a block rationale by Fram. I'm sure all the same diffs will be dredged up and mischaracterized yet again a few months from now, and squeezed to see if yet another sanction will pop out. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Mojoworker, you nailed it (yeah, even the "irritating" part). Very much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, after that latest wall-of-text above. If Xenophrenic won't drop the stick, then the stick needs to be taken away until they agree to stop. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess you haven't been paying attention, Carlton. I don't have the stick. I dropped the stick 5 days ago and walked away from this discussion, and returned expecting to find it archived. Instead, I find that GoldenRing has not only picked up the stick, but is trying to beat me over the head with it. My concise 8K byte "wall of text" reply is dwarfed by GoldenRing's 16K "great wall of endless diffs". And if that obsessive action isn't disconcerting enough, he's building script tools to facilitate such behavior. Apparently, it wasn't enough when GoldenRing said "I think I have my answers" regarding this AN/I. Now he has declared his new "wider" mission to see me indefinitely blocked for all manner of alleged improper behavior backed by (__insert 100+ stale, unrelated, already-adjudicated and punished diffs here__). So I guess he has dragged me back into this mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you understand basic arithmetic? "I dropped the stick 5 days ago"? That comment came ONE DAY after your latest goddamned whinging wall-of-text. And, frankly, I find your officious "I guess you haven't been paying attention" attempt at an insult hilarious, considering that you IMMEDIATELY get my name wrong: so who, exactly, is not paying attention?
• But thank you for the confirmation that you need to stop or you should BE stopped for wasting everyone's time. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It still appears that you are not paying attention, or you are misunderstanding. This "waste of time" wasn't filed by me, it was filed by GoldenRing. He filed this mess over just two policy-compliant edits (count them, two) I made -after- first thoroughly discussing those edits and alternative solutions with him. So I added my input here, and on October 10 I walked away from this discussion (some call that "dropping the stick", but I say I never had a "stick" to drop) and expected it to close. For 5 days, until October 15th, I quietly watched as other editors chimed in. I even stayed quiet as Softlavender proposed weird sanctions for nonexistent reasons. But once GoldenRing decided he was done with his initial complaint here, and now wanted instead to start a whole different mission by digging up and re-litigating ancient history, I returned and left a brief refutation of his mostly false allegations, which he has decided not to challenge. So my math, and my attention to the details, are fine. If you address me again, I will again try to productively respond, as that is the respectful thing to do. Please keep in mind, however, if you feel you are wasting your time, that no one can force you to engage in this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This thread is predicated on a mess, and this is clearly still about that mess and not just the editing of the closing statement, as shown by the mass of diffs linked above. Xenophrenic saw a whole bunch of allegations thrown his way in the previous thread (some questionable, some exaggerated, some with some merit, some that needed more context, etc.). He was immediately blocked for those allegations, had all of his objections and unblock requests completely ignored for the duration of the block, and never received a response to his challenges to the accusations, as far as I know. This is all separate from GoldenRing, of course. I'm not trying to reopen the thread below this one; this is just to say that I can understand, in a powerless, frustrating situation, trying to at least address the insinuation in the close of the discussion in which he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. In other words, I think GR may be receiving a disproportionate amount of X's frustration because he is one of the few in a position to fix an aspect of this perceived injustice.

Xenophrenic, I think you're very unlikely to find satisfaction going down any of these paths, and will wind up simply preventing a scab from forming (or worse). I completely get feeling frustrated and/or hurt by the close (and think it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part, since though not quite a PA, it also wasn't a necessary part of the summary), but it was an acceptable close given the content. IMO the most positive outcome at this point would for all to drop it. You may have received a raw deal, but for better or worse, the community rarely expresses much of an interest in rehashing the past, unless in the context of the present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: As someone who has conflicted with Xenophrenic several times, his behavior (irrespective of the particular position he advocates for) has been very unconstructive and quite deserving of discipline. As other editors have already pointed out, he has excessively edit warred, blatantly disregarded established consensus numerous times, and exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND personality. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well (also, see this), and it is persistent behavior, nothing new.[119][120] Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to !vote in this discussion, because I think that would run counter to effective participation. However, I do not think that Xenophrenic is incompetent. I do, however, think that he falls rather instinctively into a battleground mentality, replete with instances of refusing to drop the stick, and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions contrary to his own. It is my preference that editors with these problems be corralled and corrected rather than blocked. bd2412 T 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • BD2412, CIR covers these behaviors, which are endlessly on display in these two threads, in WP:Competence_is_required#Social. Read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his actions. Call it WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:DE, whichever you like, he is clearly and deliberately wasting the community's time trying endlessly to derail or invalidate GR's thread here. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manipulating a closer's comments (which do not look like personal attacks, but just a strict warning over edit warring) is simply unacceptable behavior. This does look like more disruptive and, even disturbing, behavior on Xenophrenic's part. My goodness, it seems that there is much difficulty on the part of Xenophrenic to accept any consensus or any decision by anyone that does not align with his view on any matter. The fact that other admins like User:BD2412 and User:Swarm recently raised an ANI over his conduct for similar reasons of disruptive and tendentious editing which included a block over the same type of "I am right and everyone else has to see it my way no matter what" battleground mentality [121], means that the behavior has not been self-corrected since the last block and ANI. The constant, and sometimes long, commenting by Xenophrenic still look like filibustering and are not really helpful since everyone knows his position - there is little reason to repeat or to constantly defend oneself since if the evidence is strong people will naturally agree with the defense on their own. (Not sure why Xenophrenic has self-voted "oppose" above when it is obvious that he opposes a block considering the long response to GoldenRing above - who started this ANI). When it comes to discussions, other people's opinions are what we are seeking - views from others in the community. We already know the views of the accusers and the accused (both have already exchanged comments) so let the jury discuss the matter as they see fit. Things like endlessly arguing over closures over categories, constant edit warring over article content, and even now manipulating closer comments on ANI's does look like a lack of self control when dealing with dissenting comments by editors.

All decisions on wikipedia are all imperfect since everyone is a volunteer but to contest every decision that one disagrees with with disruptive editing has consequences. Refusing to drop the stick so often is simply not good and in the end people will make their votes and decisions as they see fit - as imperfect as that is. If one thinks one is right, it does not mean that everyone else will see it that way (sometimes some will never be convinced no matter what), but one has to be able to drop the stick and move on without fighting so much. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple reason that whilst some of "Support" comments above are good faith, a number are still from editors who are on the opposite side of an editing issue with Xenophrenic and this is another attempt to have them removed. I am not a big fan of removing people in this way. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: There's no "removal" involved; the proposal states "Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks." The proposal is to stop Xenophrenic from deliberately wasting the community's time. His last block was for 2 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • As we all know, though, CIR blocks are generally indefinite (anything else would be ridiculous, after all - practically no-one who is incompetent enough to receive one suddenly gains a clue after a couple of weeks). And that's my other issue here - Xenophrenic isn't incompetent. They may be a number of other things, but not that. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I am curious about this. Why is the possibility that some of the people supporting the proposal are doing so in bad faith a good reason to oppose it? That says nothing about the merits of the case (and the problems and ludicrous bad faiththe problems and ludicrous bad faith continue). GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I had some dealings with this area when I closed that shitfest of a CfD a while back, and whilst doing that I read quite a bit of the background round these disputes. I'm not disputing that some of Xenophrenic's editing is not optimal, but there were/are a hell of lot of others in the same boat at the same time. There is no CIR issue here, but there surely is a lot of hypocrisy from the editors who are trying to dispose of him (and incidentally, I don't include you in that category, if you were wondering). Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Black Kite: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per the bludgeoning behaviors we're seeing at ANI and the apparent lack of good faith associated with this user's behavior. Part of CIR is the simple notion of not being more trouble to the community than you're worth, and these ANI timesinks are symptoms of this user being either unable or unwilling to understand that. This is certainly the inevitable result of Xenophrenic's recent behavior. If it doesn't happen now, it's going to soon if they don't change quickly. Swarm ♠ 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? You blocked him for two weeks just 30 minutes after a huge ANI complaint was made against him, didn't respond to his objections, didn't respond to his questions about your block, apparently missed (???) multiple pings on multiple days despite pings being activated, and apparently see nothing wrong with any of this. Now he's bludgeoning when someone else opens a thread about him, relitigating all of the previous thread, too, and he responds with a lot of text? If you responded to him and allowed him to respond to the first thread, whether or not that ended up in a block, we probably would not have seen either of these subsequent threads. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose CIR block. I don't necessarily oppose a block for some preventative reason if there's a valid one, but not for CIR - this is not a competence issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I already know how to suck eggs, thank you. Please carefully try not to be so patronizing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously - I wasn't following this anymore until I was pinged, and I wish I had never commented so I could close it myself. But for the love of God, someone please put this god forsaken waste of time out of it's misery. GMG^talk 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose further sanctions, support close. Xenophrenic jumped the shark and did a bunch of silly things. However, a two-week block for the edit warring was served so diffs showing old edit warring are no longer relevant. Xenophrenic should have seen that their approaches to the two admins were not going anywhere and should have accepted that it's not always possible to have one's views heard when there has been a great deal of background noise. The underlying problem is the abuse of Wikipedia to spread the word about atheism being evil. Xenophrenic will need to develop much more patience while dealing with that. For the record, the ANI archive behind all this shows a request for a topic ban that was unsuccessful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do. At this point (here and numerous cases in the archives) they are just wasting everyone's time. They show all the behavior of someone who is unable to accept they are wrong and that other people do not agree with them. This is also why they edit war repeatedly. So they can either be given a final warning to drop the stick or as someone points out above, it can be taken away from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er I feel that diff doesn't show what you think it shows. :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, no, quite. Looks like the script could do with more testing. Correct diff here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose as framed I share Black Kite's sentiments. Xenophrenic should, and must, drop this, but that's an attitude they should adjust, certainly not a competence issue. Johnuniq talks a lot of sense, just above, as does BSZ. -- Begoon 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being an attitude issue and become a competence issue? Take a look in the archives for here and ANI. I severely doubt this is a case of 'they have an attitude problem which can be changed'. There is zero evidence from their editing history they either want to, or are actually even able to. Which puts it squarely in the competence area. If an editor is unable to change, or even acknowledge they have to and are going to attempt to change, we are just prolonging the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it, I guess I mostly agree with whoever said "Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do.". I don't feel like we're too far apart here. I'd just rather CIR wasn't invoked in this way (hence my "as framed"). WP:DISRUPT works just fine if they don't drop it - it's then a deliberate thing, not incompetence. -- Begoon 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Begoon: Please read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Errmm... What Boing! said above in response to this, really, (although I note you somehow made me exempt from your "carefully" proviso while c/pasting.) No real need to ping me for this kind of thing. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Support block, but per WP:DISRUPT. Changing my position based on most recent contribs. Dropping it obviously isn't happening. -- Begoon 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• • @Begoon: I find this disappointing. Xenophrenic was blocked and ignored by everyone for two weeks. Whether or not you think that block was justified, he's right to raise issues about the thread about him in which he was not permitted to comment. He changed GR's close once after a long discussion, then once again which indeed wasn't a good idea. What is the other disruption? This thread is relitigating a range of issues, including what he's already been blocked for. It seems like people don't want him to type long responses to the massive number of allegations thrown his way (with, what, 50 diffs?), including those that he wasn't given an opportunity to respond to last time around. Surely replying to things in this second thread about him, which he did not start, when he was unable to respond to the first thread, is not disruptive. About half of the supports I could've predicted would show up no matter what the reason given for the block was, but I don't get the others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, you convinced me that was too harsh, so I struck it. -- Begoon 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He has a history of being a bad faith editor and a history of edit warring. He has been blocked 10 times at Wikipedia. He has been incorrigible for an extended period. His edits often do not make sense and a CIR block is warranted.Knox490 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment? - An odd sequence of edits in this thread just now... Legacypac closed this and removed this presumed accidental duplicate text. Softlavender reverted the close with edit summary "rv involved non-admin closure" (how is Legacypac involved?) and reverted the latter as "rv TPO violation" (so this was intentional copy/pasting the same text to AN five times just before proposing a CIR block?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac violated WP:TPO by removing my comment; he has been violating WP:TPO repeatedly and was brought to ANI and warned about that just within the past 3 weeks. He then also closed this AN discussion, which clearly needs to be closed by an administrator (if at all) -- this is the Administrator's Noticeboard -- not by an non-administrator with a block log for DE and a history of disruption and who has just violated TPO in the same thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Softlavender wants to attack me - we used to nearly always see things the same way until I VERY inadvertently evidently offended them. I'll AGF and stand by my assessment that their comment was duplicated by accident (I presumed by another editor) and believe that removing an exact duplicate accidental comment is not a TPO violation but should be treated as welcome housekeeping.

My attempt to close down these proposal is correct. The debate that remains nearly evenly split with support/opposes and is itself wasting time now as it is unlikely to lead to any sanctions. Ironically the proposal itself includes the rational "colossally wasting everyone's time. ... The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it." I was closing the entire thread as a waste of timr but was edit conflicted out by the Softlavender reverts, so I left it. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not INVOLVED in this dispute, I just read the entire thing and came to the conclusion it had run its course - an assessment shared by several other editors in this thread. Admins are NOT necessary better at closes than regular editors and, as my block log shows, are perfectly capable of making mistakes like the rest of us. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This has been opened for 7 days but no clear consensus has formed, and an extension might not be helpful as the oppose votes are strongly based CIR being possibly not the best reason. I will take a look at this later when I get home, but for now I think an alternative option to the original proposal would probably generate a clearer consensus. Alex Shih^Talk 07:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Please not a "close this and let's have the whole discussion again with slightly different wording" type of close. Finding that there is consensus for an indef but not the type of indef originally proposed and so actually finding no consensus would be mindless bureaucracy, surely? It seems to me (who is no doubt biased) that if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways. If there's not already consensus for a block on the basis of the above, let's drop it for now and wait until the next round adds another straw to the camel's back. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you accidently misworded your comment when you said "if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways". You do realize if I'm blocked (i.e.; not editing at all), there is no way to "see a change" in anything about me, as I won't be here. Did you perhaps mean "topic ban", so that I can demonstrate productive editing "elsewhere"? If so, what topic would that be? AN/I discussion pages? Also, blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive -- and there is no ongoing disruption to Wikipedia that requires blocking. It is evident that a few folks here are trying desperately to push the false narrative that my mere presence on Wikipedia is a disruption that needs to be "blocked", but no reasonable justification has been given for such a draconian action. (And then there are the four editors above who routinely join in any discussion about me, yelling "support sanction", not because I am a disruption to Wikipedia, but because I've been a disruption to their personal agenda, as noted by both editors and Admins in the discussion above. I don't even bother to respond to them anymore.) I don't want to see this discussion extended or rehashed any more than you do, so at least we agree on that. But if your ultimate goal is genuinely "to see a change in my ways", can you please explain to me why when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No I did not mis-word my comment. It is perfectly routine to indef editors until they can convince us that they have changed their ways. It is a flat-out lie that "when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead." You came to my talk page to ask me to revise my close on the grounds you hadn't done the things you thought it implied. I discussed it with you and gave a detailed and reasonable response. You refused to hear the answer, edit-warred over it and then emailed to continue your IDHT ways. In the face of that, I brought it here, as a marginally better option that just blocking you for disruptive editing. GoldenRing (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional clarification; your rewording of "until we see a change" to "until they can convince us that they have changed" with promises and such, makes much more sense now. That sounds like our WP:Standard offer, which requires clear delineation of a problematic behavior, and a promise to not continue that behavior. May I ask you what clearly delineated problematic behavior (not the hyperbolic, false accusations put forth above) you see as warranting an indefinite block and a promise to change?

As for your assertion that I have just "flat-out lied", I'm going to ask you to please retract that. It is 100% factual that I asked you to please point out what I did wrong, per your 'warning', by providing the diffs/evidence/examples so that I could understand and make appropriate changes, but you declined. (Show me just one diff you provided before you initiated this shitfest and you will have me apologizing profusely!) Are you now denying that I implored you, "I am always willing to discuss", and "If you want to argue, for example, that I misjudged consensus, or that I misunderstood a policy, I will listen attentively to your reasoning", and "If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you?" and "I get that as a "closing Admin", you want to add "warnings" and such to demonstrate that you aren't taking sides. That's fine, but there isn't going to be a lot of utility in warning me to not do what I haven't done in the first place. Please tell me, what useful cautionary advice am I supposed to glean from your warning when you don't refer to anything I've actually done, or would ever do?" Rather than give "a detailed and reasonable response" as you claim, you instead doubled-down on your unsubstantiated "warning message" attack by repeating, "you think you are right and it excuses "edit warring ... what you've written above is simply an explanation of how you were in the right. You don't seem to understand that being right and editing disruptively are not mutually exclusive ... the argument is about whether your edits were excusable because you were right on the content underlying it". And once again, you didn't offer a single pointer to actual supporting evidence. And I "heard" it perfectly, thank you. Then you edit-warred to keep your "unsubstantiated commentary about an editor" in place, and I briefly joined you in that edit-war by reverting you once. How much easier would it have been to simply redact or rewrite your problematic warning once you discovered your "when you think you are right" speculation about an editor's motivations to be not only unsupportable, but actually offensive? Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, I get that, but I'm having difficulty understanding all this vitriol. It's not like I'm launching a Rubin-esque action against you (or Swarm, for that matter), I simply requested that you guys either let me in on this apparently top-secret evidence you are using to justify your comments about a fellow editor's character and motivations - so that something productive can come of it, or redact the attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, just above you said, To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. So, if I understand you correctly, you'll withdraw your support for sanctions if I stop insisting that you provide substantiating evidence and (again) step away from this discussion? Is that a path for closure here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face while also, above, describing editing a closure of a discussion about yourself to change the terms of a warning in that closure as "just two policy-compliant edits." You have obviously heard nothing that anyone has said here. Have you found anyone yet who agrees that my close was a personal attack? Have you found anyone yet who agrees that, even if for the sake of an argument you accept the close did contain a personal attack, editing the closing statement and not asking for review at this noticeboard was the correct way forward? As far as I can tell you have not. I explicitly asked for review on those two questions since you refused to do so yourself and the consensus is pretty clear that (a) the close did not constitute a personal attack and (b) editing it yourself was completely inappropriate (if there is someone other than Xenophrenic here who doesn't agree with those two points, please do say so). And yet you continue to describe your actions as "policy-compliant." We have a behavioural guideline that addresses exactly this point: WP:IDHT. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you say you can't understand, I will try to shed some light on the several questions you've raised. Starting with your last comment, could we please dispense with throwing around WP:IDHT? I know it makes a nice sounding talking-point to repeat, but no reasonable person here thinks I'm incapable, or refusing to, get a point. WP:IDHT instructs us to "consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement", which is what I am doing. Some people tend to forget about that part, and simply use the guideline to try to chill dissenting discussion. You asked if anyone agrees with me regarding your "Closure Review" and "Sanction" questions. I recall someone referring to your call for sanctions as "rubbish" -- I recall another person saying about your "warning", "it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part" -- while another editor noted, "the 'when you think you're right' bit may have been better directed at a different editor" -- and also about your "warning", someone admonished, "closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right" -- and about unsubstantiated comments on behavior being personal attacks, an admin said, "I don't think you're necessarily misinterpreting WIAPA" (but also said it is taking it too far to require that every statement between two editors be backed by diffs, and I agree). As for my 2 removals of personal attacks, of course they were policy-compliant, but just to be sure, I opened a section ("Policy interpretation") above to clarify the matter, and there has been zero informed discussion of the matter thus far (although one person seemed to suggest a few editors with a local consensus could override core policies, and another editor had a fit over a formatting colon). And just so readers aren't confused by your clever word-play, let's be clear, I didn't try "to change the terms of a warning", I removed a personal attack and clearly noted the removal with a template as instructed by WP:RPA. And I never "refused" to ask for a review here, I explained to you, "I don't object to the terms of the closure, I actually agree with them ... so your suggestion that I request a review at AN or Arbitration seems nonsensical." I was merely working with you to bring your "warning" comment into policy compliance, with hopefully minimum drama. (Between you and Swarm, you are driving me nuts: he berates me for addressing his behavior at WP:AN instead of Talk page & email, while you berate me for sticking with Talk page and email instead of running to WP:AN.) Can you answer just one question? What specific action of mine prompted your warning to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So the actual answers to my questions are (a) Did anyone agree with you that my close was a personal attack? No. Apparently one admin said somewhere, "I don't think you're necessarily misinterpreting WIAPA" which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. And (b) Did anyone agree that edit-warring a close about yourself was the right thing to do? No. Even those arguing for you here are describing editing a close about yourself as "unheard of" and "not a good idea." You are literally the only editor who thinks this was the right thing to do. But you go on, arguing that your interpretation of policy is right and there-fore your edit-warring was justified - in other words, you should be excepted from the policy on edit-warring because you think you are right. Thank you for making my point so very neatly. Even if the warning wasn't justified then (which I don't accept) it certainly is now. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agreed just below. Calling it an 'attack' is a bit extreme, but references to a contributor's character (as 'justification', no less) have no place in a closing rationale. And why hammering only these two trees in this forest of much-amiss? And, again, what did editing the closing statement affect? What harm was done? TP ✎ ✓ 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"just two policy-compliant edits" is a partial reality (removing references to personal traits or character is indeed compliant; doing so to a closure is... unheard of, and did the edits change the closure outcome?), as are your accusations and presentation of 'facts' (one can call any edit or revert 'edit warring', and your 'thinks he is right' accusations are made without any examination/presentation of the 'right' in it (if the position/acts are indeed supporting policy, then that would make the accuser even more in the wrong).

This discussion is a prime example of why 'just the facts convenient to me' never works, and will most often result in a 'my gang is bigger than yours' attempt to out-whatever the opposition.

Start with the article content (was it indeed contested or non-policy compliant), and work up from there: this AN accusation (and the entire campaign against Xenophrenic, actually) is an exercise in the opposite. TP ✎ ✓ 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I see lots of claims, accusations and selective/partial-truth 'interpretations' of events from the accusing parties, but few seem to want to examine/paint a complete picture (which involves examining the policy offenses indicated at the base of all this).

As already noted by Johnuniq, User:Xenophrenic is alone against a fairly-well organised group of apologists/evangelists seeking to use Wikipedia to trumpet to the world the 'truth' about the 'evils of atheism'... not only is one contributor no match for them, they don't play fair at all, which must be rather frustrating to anyone seeking to uphold wikipedia policy against this.

One cannot demand sanctions against a policy-upholding contributor because they are 'annoying', especially when the accuser is too lazy/biased/'saving-face'-entrenched to examine/present the whole picture.

Question/verify everything; even this. TP ✎ ✓ 22:41, 20 October 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.

I am a new editor and created a new article, not sure if my editing and other editors reaction is correct

I have created article Catalan supremacism after a couple of weeks of translating from Spanish wiki with a lot of primary and secondary sources and in a manner which I find very NPOV. Sadly, due to what is probably now political tension in that region it has created a lot of hassle including, IP blanking and a lot of what I thought was unnecessary tagging of the lead (fringe theory etc.). I'm not complaining about anyone in particular but could it be possible for some "administrator" to follow the article and guide us on policy, what is acceptable and what is not and maybe help mediate. I'm not familiar with how things work so I'm struggling a little. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Article now at AfD and heading towards deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution question

Admins, I've come across a redirect which was validly deleted WP:G5, which I want to restore because I think it's useful. The deleting admin (Tavix) has already consented, so that's not an issue. However, since the entire history of the redirect is two edits by a confirmed sockpuppet, is it necessary to restore the history or would it be preferable to just recreate the redirect as a new page? I don't know if a redirect with categories added is sufficiently creative to require it, and though I'm of the opinion that we needn't attribute sockpuppet contributions that view is not currently supported by policy. However Tavix wisely observed that simply restoring the history leaves the article open to being re-deleted under G5, since I won't actually be making an edit, just an entry in the deletion log. So what's best practice here? I could just recreate the redirect in place even though I'll be copying a sock's edit, or I could restore the history and make a null edit, or ... what? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that a redirect is probably not enough to constitute a creative work, so copyright wouldn't apply, and you'd be fine recreating it yourself. There's only one way to say it. I'd like to hear others' opinions though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ivanvector, I do recall you asking a similar question before, back when the Neelix saga flooded RfD. Here is a response from Newyorkbrad to a very similar query you had on an RfD discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the same response I'd give this time. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Occasionally a redirect might have some associated content, either as an html comment, or in the edit summary of the edit that created it – say something that explains why the redirect has been created, I do that when the connection to the target isn't obvious. This is useful informaation and we should strive to preserve it. Of course, this situation arises only infrequently, and otherwise I agree that keeping redirect histories isn't necessary for attribution. However, there is one type of information that all redirect posses: that they were created at a certain date and that for such-and-such period they targeted such-and-such article. This is minimal but can still be useful, so in the absence of further considerations we should preserve redirects rather than delete and recreate them. The concern in this specific instance however is that the redirect might get deleted again per G5. Well, admins aren't supposed to speedy delete stuff that has been kept at XfD, are they? Still, it might be useful to have a way to flag up a redirect (or any page) as G5 exempt – something (a template or a category) that says in essence "This is a page created by a blocked user, but it has been examined by a trusted editor who has deemed it worthy of keeping. Do not speedy delete." – Uanfala 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• {{G8-exempt}} exists for orphaned talk pages that shouldn't be speedy deleted, so what you're describing wouldn't be completely unprecedented. If something like that is desired, it shouldn't be too hard to whip up a {{G5-exempt}} template. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughts. I restored the redirect's history and made a null edit to make an edit summary saying what I did, which should prevent it from G5 deleted again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV has been backlogged for ten hours

 Administrator note As of now there are 0 open items. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently about fifteen reports or so. Many are old though. Can an admin sweep by to reduce or remove the backlog please? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It was at least 12 hours on Sunday too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It gets backlogged because people report things that aren't vandalism. It's not administrator intervention against unsourced content, POV pushing, sock puppets, or edits you don't like. Reports of genuine "blatant vandalism" are usually handled within a few minutes. I'm not blaming either of you, but that is the reason for the backlog. And with that off my chest, I'll go and have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well WP:VAN goes on to say "or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies...", citing verifiability - "is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". So the addition of unsourced content would come under that, for example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No it wouldn't; unsourced additions don't change any existing content beyond all recognition. Besides, the longstanding and mostly agreed-upon interpretation of that is that an edit is vandalism iff it's obviously and actively malicious towards Wikipedia. Unsourced content additions, by and large, aren't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced fails WP:V, esp. on BLPs. That sounds like vandalism to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you should review WP:VANDAL, because that's not what vandalism is. (I will push back against HJ Mitchell's inclusion of sockpuppetry in that list, though. It is completely fine to report editors who are engaging in vandalism at AIV, even if they happen to also be sockpuppets. That is actually the preferred venue for quick action against active disruption by sockpuppets, as SPI is slow.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So adding unsourced text to a BLP isn't vandalism? I'll have to remember that one for next time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No it is not. The BLP doesn't even prohibit unsourced material, it just says unsourced material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has to be supported by an inline cite per WP:V, and extends that in biographies to "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" - but that is not vandalism just because it is unsourced. On a daily basis plenty of clearly vandalistic material is added to BLP's, but it is not the lack of sourcing that makes it vandalism, it is the intent behind it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV does get a lot of reports of "blatant sockpuppetry" which are really only blatant if you know the sockmaster, and most admins don't. As a result they often sit there for hours waiting for an admin who knows that sockmaster well or who is willing to do the research to establish that it's definitely a sock. Hut 8.5 21:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with HJ Mitchel and Rob. I've been at AIV recently mainly to get a feel for how the different admin areas work and the one thing that's shocked me the most after getting the tools is how many good faith users or other non-vandals get reported to AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As one of the more active admins at AIV, I've definitely noticed a recent increase in the number of inappropriate reports at AIV. A few more admins willing to decline (rather than ignore) inappropriate reports would definitely be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll try to work AIV back into my routine. A Train^talk 08:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've also noticed that some IPs like to report other "users" when they have only done 1 vandalism edit in a month. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an LTA-ish case. If you see an IP mass-reporting like that, just remove their report. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς

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.

---

Proposal: topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#Proposal for a self-imposed ban on closing threads
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 126#WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#Where Do We Go from Here ?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#This is not a BLP violation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

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

Last 30 deletions by Medeis / μηδείς --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[01] [122] Edit summary: is it legal legal advice? WP:DISCLAIMER. WP:NOTAHOWTO, WP:DNFT Does the OP even care? Note: Edit warring. Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [02] [123] Edit summary: we don't speculate or give medical advice, there is no source on a 100% salmon no water diet Note: Medeis answered this, then deleted the thread. Classifying a dietary question like "what if a person ate only salmon?" as a request for medical advice is controversial. [03] [124] Edit summary: no need to archive Note: At the time Medeis deleted this, it had been hatted (by Medeis) for three days and was about to be auto-archived. Classifying a "does this cleaning method make a surface clean enough to eat off of?" question as trolling is controversial. [04] [125] Edit summary: we do not answer and may remove requests for loegal[sic] or medical advice Note: Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [05] [126] Edit summary: not a forum Note: another example of deleting a thread that was already hatted. [06] [127] Edit summary: spam not to be archived Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. This deleted good advice discouraging future spammers and a comment saying "we don't delete, we hat it" [07] [128] Edit summary: no point archiving spam Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. [08] [129] Edit summary: delete as no point archiving Note: Another deletion of a hatted discussion just as it was about to be auto-archived. [09] [130] Edit summary: remove doxxing--seriously, we have no reference on Monty P. Burns Note: I cannot find any doxxing in the removed section, and in fact Nil Einne documented the relation between the named individuals and mining in the material that Medeis deleted. [10] [131] Edit summary: remove trolling by one-day user who posted and deleted same "question" on many different boards Note: The user in question appears to have made a good-faith effort to delete the questions from the other pages before asking at the refdesk[132][133][134] [11] [135] Edit summary: redact unsourced critical BLP violations Note: Removal of part of a comment. Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that were posted about Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein today, or is it removing criticism only for some public figures? [12] [136] Edit summary: remove irrelevant comment by sock of blocked IP user Note: While removing posts by banned user Vote (X) for Change is allowed, in this case Medeis has a COI , because the post in question disagreed with an answer she posted. She should have let someone else do the deleting. [13] [137] Edit summary: this is a BLP and needs balance, which is not helped by comments from non-notable authors and sources Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [14] [138] Edit summary: remove crap Note: Another removal for reasons not listen at WP:TPOC. [15] [139] Edit summary: rmv puerile trolling Note: Classifying a question about why dogs go into heat but humans do not at as a request for medical advice is controversial. [16] [140] Edit summary: : blatant BLP violation, unsourced speculation and derogatory remarks re living person Note: Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that are posted about Donald Trump every day? [17] [141] Edit summary: entirely unsourced BLP violation Note: See above. [18] [142] Edit summary: Russian interference: remove repeated violation of BLP; we do not speculate on people's secret motives and intentions Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. /Language&diff=next&oldid=781331054] [19] [143] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [20] [144] Edit summary: Undid revision 776767014 by JackofOz (talk) take me to ani, jack - we do not decide such nonsense Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [21] [145] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [22] [146] Edit summary: what if conspiracy theories were never posted? Note: Another removal for reasons not listed at WP:TPOC. [23] [147] Edit summary: remove obvious WP:BLP violation Note: Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [24] [148] Edit summary: WP:BLP speculation and opinion by editors does not justify discussion unproven criminal activity by Barack Obama Note: Edit warring. Removal of "Removal on grounds of WP:BLP reverted; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. This is a well-documented allegation and the source is directly noted without sensationalistic adjustment." comment. [25] [149] Edit summary: speculating on the possible criminal activities of living persons violates WP:BLP Note: See above. [26] [150] Edit summary: WP:RD/G Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [27] [151] Edit summary: either a banned user or should not be closed; but bad links incline toward summary removal Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [28] [152] Edit summary: BLP violation at best, not to mention there's not a ref in the entire thread Note: Edit warring. What BLP? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? And since when do we require refs in refdesk questions? [29] [153] Edit summary: removing defamatory speculation involving personal legal and financial matters, we have no answers Note: Edit warring. Who is being defamed? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? Some coffee shop that accepts credit cards? [30] [154] Edit summary: remove request for personal financial and legal advice Note: Reverted with comment "Defend your position on the talk page, where your behavior is being discussed."[155] That discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats, listed in the "Previous discussions" section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017

Poll

• Support: as proposer. The previous discussions and the link to recent deletions say it all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the reason I am not replying to Baseball Bugs is that I do not want to have any interaction with him. Responding only encourages more WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous reasoning. There are posts that should be removed ASAP and no argument has been presented to jusitfy M's ability to do that. OTOH this WP:HOUNDing of M needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's look at one "problematic" deletion by Medeis as presented above, shall we? this discussion goes against all basic talk page guidelines we have, and Medeis should get a barnstar for deleting this. If this discusion is what most refdesk regulars want, then it is past time to simply delete the refdesks instead. Fram (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram failed to give the number of the edit he refers to on the above list. It is #11. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One unintended purpose your list serves is to demonstrate the lack of vigilance by yourself and certain other members, for questions that have the potential to compromise Wikipedia itself: BLP violatons, requests for professional advice, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's a good one. That is a discussion. BLP does not apply, and the deletion was absurd. --Viennese Waltz 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP does not apply? Strange, and here I was thinking that BLP applies everywhere on enwiki. And of course, discussion of living persons and our opinion of them and their idiocy or greatness is another thing we don't do at enwiki, as we are not a forum. I'll take that as "strike one" for abolishing the ref desk then? Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, that's what you're gonna do anyway. (More seriously: If you really believe you can take this response as a "strike one" for your plans of abolishing the ref desks, then there's not much more to be said. One diff chosen from one list from one user's allegedly problematic actions, and one response by one user to your one criticism to one diff is apparently all that's needed. Knock yourself out). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram is dead wrong on this. Nothing in our BLP policy even hints at deleting commentary -- even negative commentary - about the published statements of a public figure. I think that such commentary is a waste of time, but it is not deletable under WP:TPOC or WP:BLP. I believe that Fram's oft-expressed personal dislike for me may be clouding his judgement and causing him to take a position about BLP that is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's you that's got it wrong. Yakking about a public figure's mental health is a blatant BLP violation, and removing that garbage was totally the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is black-letter Wikipedia policy that BLP applies in every nook-and-cranny of Wikipedia, including talk pages, and the commentary on them. From WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion ... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

I don't see how the policy can state it any clearer than that. Contentious BLP material must be removed immediately, wherever it appears on Wikipedia. The Ref Desks are not excluded. Anyone arguing otherwise is misinformed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You are actually claiming that asking "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?"[156] is a BLP violation? Yes, one reply called Trump an idiot, but Medeis / μηδείς didn't delete just that one comment. She deleted the entire thread. The essays WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP have some excellent advice about what you are doing here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Please at least attempt not to make more of a fool of yourself than you are already doing, for your own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. Your personal attacks won't distract the reader from noticing that you made a factual claim that is untrue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No evasion, and none required, since the policy directly and correctly applies to the situation. That you apprarently cannot see that is actually kind of sad, for an editor of your experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't seem to be able to recognize a trolling question when you see it. The OP's premise assumes facts not in evidence, and an answer to his actual question would require knowledge of what's in Trump's head. It's a ridiculous, POV-pushing, BLP-violating question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Wikipedia policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view.
  As for unsubstantiated accusations of Guy Macon's hounding: Seven experienced editors, including four admins, have recently stated that WT:RD was the wrong venue for this discussion, even if non-binding.[157][158][159][160][161][162][163] I fail to see how it can be hounding to follow their advice. Never mind that 8 experienced editors at WT:RD voiced support for a TBAN, lending significant legitimacy to the complaints against Medeis. Unless someone wants to allege a hounding conspiracy and call for sanctions against all 8 editors, such accusations are an abuse of WP:HOUND. In any event, such an accusation is pointless and unconstructive outside a separate boomerang discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nothing more than the usual scapegoating (or bludgeoning, to use Macon's term) by certain users who look for a target every few months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. I have noticed quite a lot of inappropriate forum chatter at the ref desks, and Fram's diff along with others I have seen shows that ref desk regulars often lack judgment about what is an appropriate usage of Wikipedia. It's likely that Medeis is wrong or stubborn on occasions, but the same applies doubled to many of the enthusiastic regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you appear to be ignoring multiple violations of WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• And you ignore the importance of not violating BLP rules and not allowing professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look like Guy captured all of the many times many people have raised objections to Medeis's self-appointed refdesk curatorship. I don't think basing a support/oppose on the list of the 30 most recent is so helpful here, since some removals are appropriate. The problem is more visible in the discussions. If you search the refdesk talk archive and administrators' noticeboards archives for something like "medeis + hatting", you'll find an awful lot. I encountered it repeatedly shortly after stumbling across the refdesks 4-5 years ago. My frustration with not just Medeis's hatting but her persistent dismissal of objections is one of the reasons I couldn't bring myself to put my time there. Though, to be fair, it's less of a problem than the tendency of a couple other users to either answer every possible question with an inane response or to use the refdesks as a joke-around-with-friends social networking site. ...And that's why I wouldn't support a straight topic ban for the reference desks, since Medeis's responses to questions deemed acceptable are not the problem. Disclosure: I became involved in a couple of the threads from a few years ago and started this one (already linked above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would also oppose a topic ban from the reference desks. Medeis / μηδείς should be allowed to ask and answer questions. It is the violation of WP:TPOC and the constant WP:CRYBLPing that is the problem, and a narrow topic ban from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user is the correct solution. There are plenty of other editors who will remove any actual trolling, vandalism, and undisputed BLP violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removing BLP violations and requests for professional advice does not constitute censorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've no idea who or what you're replying to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like it's time for my annual eye exam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the reference desks are not a general forum, and curating them is a good thing (and if curation of the ref desks isn't covered by WP:TPOC, then that can be easily fixed). I am quite happy to see speculation on the motives of certain politicians removed, although I would prefer to call this "offtopic" instead of making this about BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: This has been an ongoing - for years - issue, if nothing else, it would stop pointless fights over questions that aren't really causing problems. In the event that this user thinks something needs hatted/deleted, they can use the talkpage; it isn't like there aren't enough other regulars around for when something is an actual issue, and this would remove her from dealing with borderline cases, cases where she has been over zealous. The issue is not that none of her removals are good, but that a good bit are questionable; so that she has removed some questions that were worth removing does not seem to me to be a reason to support her having the ability to continue hatting/deleting - and, as this doesn't stop her from answering, it still enables her to make useful contributions. I would say that the average vandal/troll causes less issues because they are gone quickly, so I would make the case that despite doing some good, some of the time, the repeated problematic actions have, probably, caused more aggravation (over time) than 95% of the posts she removed/hatted legitimately - in short, she is, over time, more of a problem than most of the problems she has fixed, thus, if they were worth removing, then I think this power is worth removing from her.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - prefer the solution to cut the Gordian Knot and just eliminate the ref desks. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• It isn't an either/or situation. You could support eliminate the ref desks and support topic baning Medeis / μηδείς from comments posted by other users. that way, even if your preferred solution doesn't get consensus, you would at least have done some good. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support for the topic ban. She's never shown any competence in knowing when to delete things, and shows no interest in learning, either. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Opppse - All I get from Guy's list of diffs above is that the ref desk is out of control/apparently overrun with junior high school boys. This editor should be commended for placing some limits & trying to keep a lid on the nonsense, not topic banned. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Fyddlestix - Most school districts in the United States have rebranded the schools as middle schools. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I have long thought that Medeis was a difficult editor of the Reference Desks. However, it appears that Guy Macon is over-reacting and is causing more trouble than Medeis. I would suggest closing this with a warning to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. Have you noticed that Guy Macon (talk · contribs) has been forum-shopping like crazy, in order to try to impose his will upon the ref desks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Stop pinging me. I do not want to have any interaction with you. Leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have never pinged you. I don't use that function. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are you really that ignorant after 10 years and 100K+ edits, or just being deliberately obtuse in order to further bite at Guy Macon's ankles? You coded a {{User}} template with Guy Macon's username in it, thereby generating the very same notification generated by the {{ping}} template. For your newbie edification, there are numerous ways to generate that notification, and we commonly refer to that facility as "pinging" regardless of the method used, and that fact is clearly stated in the first sentence at Wikipedia:Notifications. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• It is bizarre that Mandruss fields questions that are posed to Guy Macon while Guy Macon created the thread to restrict Medeis. Yet Guy Macon doesn't want to be pinged by Baseball Bugs. It is enough to make one's head spin. Then Mandruss hats the "offending" area of the discussion. I am removing the heavy-handed hatting from this group of posts. I don't think this particular wrinkle in the discussion needs to be hidden. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It turns out that Macon and Mandruss were right about this "ping" that I didn't know was invoked by template:user. I was unknowingly pinging him. Now I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's news to me. I've used template:user countless times and had never been told that it contained a built-in ping. Nor do I see that in the template documentation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. In the template documentation: "This template is used to create a link to a user's user page (unless using Example (talk)), talk page, and contributions, and generates a special notification." Regardless, why would Guy Macon ask you to stop pinging him if he didn't receive a ping from you? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why would he? You'd have to ask him. I've been on his enemies list for several years now, and I figured this was just one more shot he was taking at me. Thanks for the info. It would be nice if the word "ping" actually appeared in that document. "Generates a special notification" is kind of vague. I guess if I want to point to any user's contribs, I'll have to link directly to the user's contrib page rather than using that convenient template. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell you're the only person who reads it that way. For your comparison, multiple editors including me have objected quite strenuously to your disruptive harassment campaign against Guy Macon. You seem unable to stop despite a complete lack of support and significant opposition. There is only one word for that: stupid. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's Macon who's doing the harassing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Evidence is not persuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. While in broad strokes, I generally support Medeis' policing of the RefDesk, I have found some of this editor's removals contentious in the past. I think a less aggressive approach would be welcomed by all. But I don't think the aggressiveness in itself rises to a level warranting a ban. On balance Medeis' work in this area is definitely a net positive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Medeis has been too disruptive over the years and that they also do some good does not compensate for it. Other people can do a better job of anything they have done that is anywhere useful. There have been enough complaints and warnings. They should be banned from the reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• How does tolerating BLP violations qualify as "doing a better job"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can't say I think your presence has been useful either. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I must admit I don't hat or delete rule-violating questions as often as I should. But I do occasionally get thanked by OP's for providing useful info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. User consistently provokes controversy by closing/hatting/deleting content against policy. User has been informed politely, many times, over a period of several years of this, by a variety of editors. User pointedly ignores pleas to act according to published guidelines and community consensus. So when we see that asking/informing does not work, topic ban seems like the only option left. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User is a continual thorn in everyone's side. Has single handedly changed the Ref Desks from a place where people supported each other and had a pride in providing the service into one where this self-appointed pseudo-moderator will step in and trash entire threads, delete perfectly valid questions and generally behaves as judge, jury and executioner of things the (s)he doesn't like. This has been a pattern for YEARS and it's time to take a stand and end it. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find Medeis at all a problem. I've only seen Medeis act on threads that were problematic in some way. In the case talked about above, we have an opening question containing the terms "outrageous things", "clever tactic[s]", and "manipulat[ing] the media". Those are highly subjective terms. In my opinion they are a recipe for debate. Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I get that you don't like that question. I even agree with your reasons for not liking it and in fact I don't like it either. The problem is that you are perfectly fine with violating WP:TPOC and replacing that policy with "I can delete anything that I don't like". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• BLP rules override talk page guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The reference desks are not a chat room. WP:FORUM might be applicable. You can't have a pristine, upstanding reference desk without people doing "housecleaning". It is not just Medeis who steps in to WP:HAT a part or all of a thread. My feeling is that I am OK with that as long as personal animus is not the motivation. In this case it is the sloppy political gibes that do not belong on the reference desk. What I see in that instance is Medeis trying to keep the reference desk operating within the realm of answering questions that can be answered, not on general discussion in which people alternatively defend and skewer the president. A thread like that could have gone on for a long time. Medeis had the wisdom to end it. This is a matter of opinion and sensitivity. You are citing WP:TPOC as if it spells out every possible situation that can arise. We have conflicting aims here: to not touch another person's writing, and to keep a reference desk functioning as it should—free of wandering "conversation". The problem was, as it often is, in the introductory question, because it serves as a reference point for all that follows. Bus stop (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Medeis has over several years acted in a a high-handed and anti-collegiate way, has repeatedly proved unwilling or unable to engage in constructive debate about her actions, and seriously harmed the Reference Desks. SteveBaker puts it very well above. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Allowing BLP violations to stand is much more harmful to Wikipedia than anything Medeis has done over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you want me to bring up the time she violated BLP by making false statements about me? I will, if it would help you Bugs. DuncanHill (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Haven't you heard? BLP is only for deleting things you don't like, whether they are actually BLP violations or not. See WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP. They just twist the rules and keep asserting that things that are not BLP violations are BLP violations. If they tell that lie often enough, maybe someone will believe them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, Guy Macon, you misstate what the BLP policy says. I won't restate it to you again, since you simply ignore me and take it as an opportunity for BATTLEGROUHDing, but you really need to read and understand this very basic piece of Wikipedia policy, because you obviously do not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not responding to you is the opposite of WP:BATTLEGROUND. See [164]. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I actually kind of liked the Trump thing. But it's a BLP violation and had to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: Special:Permalink/805458887#Straw poll: Ban Baseball Bugs from the Reference desk. 5.69.234.241 (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.170.141 (talk)

That oppose was removed by zzuuzz (talk · contribs) but restored by the ip. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That is banned user Vote (X) for Change. As a banned user, they don't have a voice. I have struck the comment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Whatever you do, don't use the term "rabbit hunt" [165], [166] The shortsightedness of this poll is illustrated by what happened yesterday. A question from the Nazi troll sat on the Humanities desk for over an hour and a half. If Medeis had been topic banned it might have sat there for much longer. 31.52.216.53 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Did you think nobody would check? The last time Medeis / μηδείς edited the humanities refdesk was 22 days ago. The only deletion yesterday was this one:[167] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• That seems a reasonable question to me, there's been literature and TV programs about that and it could be answered factually with references Was it from a known banned troll? If a troll is suspected but not fairly sure I think that would be a good candidate for marking a question as possibly controversial so only factual answers with references should be given. As to 'throwing the first stone' that's a silly argument and ANI is a correct place for some stone throwing, the purpose of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopaedia not to be a cuddly social forum where we say aw diddums about disruptive behavior. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• • • There were no edits in between the addition and the removal. The ref desks are not necessarily monitored 24 x 7. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram, Johnuniq, and Kusma. There is a very large amount of irrelevant questions and equally irrelevant answers at the Ref Desk. WP:NOTFORUM. Someone needs to police it, and anyone who tries gets my approval. The best solution would be to close the ref desk down - it's got little to do with the encyclopedia and it generates more heat than light and encyclopedia editors have to sort the mess out here at AN instead of going about their work on the content.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose--Mainly per Fram and Kudpung.(Though I choose to believe that the RefDesk shall not be shut down at it's entirety, due to it's potential benefits).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the RefDesk needs policing and threads to be closed and deleted. Kudpung and Winged Blades of Godric are both quite correct. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Once more, per the diff posted by Carrite in the section for StuRat's TBAN proposal and then further, per the evidence presented in the proposal which supports letting Medeis police the refdesks. The first five threads, to paraphrase summarily, in order are; Can you burn your fluff with a blowtorch?, What impact would eating only salmon everyday for the rest of your life have? If you dip a solid object in deadly diarrhea, how much cleaning would be required before it'd be safe to lick it? Did Eileen Wournos predict nuclear disaster in 2019?, and How do I make money online from home? What the fuck does any of this have to do with a) building an encyclopaedia or b) fulfill the role of a refdesk? Please tell me what library material you'd point the OPs to, to answer their questions. I once more reiterate my desire to seek the refdesks gone. Thankfully, for as long as they are around, I know at least one person is dedicating themselves to improving the place by getting rid of the shite. Be glad she's deleting some of this rather than archiving, it'd be embarrassing to see Wikipedians treating and responding to such tripe seriously. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose From what I've seen, this user is being attacked for attempting to bring some semblance of order and professionalism to the utter shambles that is the Ref Desk. I've just left my very first contribution there and earnestly hope it will be my last. The sooner ArbCom takes a long hard look at the disrepute this chitty-chatty POV project is doing to Wikipedia, so much the better. It needs a clean-up, and Medeis should be applauded for trying to make it a better place, against all the odds. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to close down the ref desks?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Call for close

It is now 25 October 2017. The last comment was posted on 21 October 2017. I believe that the time has come to close this and make a decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have undone your disruptive refactoring above. Furthermore, the last comment was apparently at 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC), not on 21 October. The last vote may have been on 21 October, but this is a discussion, not a votecount. Fram (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I too think there has been enough time now, Is there any limit or do things nobody wants to deal with just get archived and join a list like that at the top of this discussion? Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not everything requires a formal close. The purpose of this thread was to have Medeis banned from doing certain things at the Ref Desks. An uninvolved admin could evaluate the commentary and formally close it, but - I think it's fair to say - it's likely that the close would be "no consensus", so admins simply allowing it to be archived without action is the functional equivalent of that -- sort of like the pocket veto in the American governmental system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If no decision is made regarding this proposal, I will be filing an Arbcom case on the grounds that this is a situation that ANI is unable or unwilling to handle. This situation has gone on far too long. ANI has three choices: Either decide that Medeis / μηδείς has special permission to violate WP:TPOC, decide that she doesn't and apply an appropriate sanction, or do nothing and let Arbcom make the decision.

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis / μηδείς vioating WP:TPOC again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I see: "If you don't do what I want I'm going to tell ArbCom!"

Good luck with ArbCom. A quick look in my crystal ball predicts that they won't take the case. But - as always - when you're on a crusade, you'll do whatever you want to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean "ANI can do three things: decide that a bunch of Refdesk regulars may violate WP:BLP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP and Medeis or anyone else shouldn't interfere with that, decide that these policies do apply to these pages and warn or sanction these editors accordingly, or do nothing". You are free to take this to ArbCom, but beware of the boomerang (for you and editors like StuRat) in that case. Fram (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Echo Fram except for the usage of boomerang.(I think ArbCom will not accept the case) And Guy, it's high time, you spend some time off opening frivolous AN/ANI thread(s).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram, there you go, making up your own rules again. Nothing in WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP allows an editor to delete comments that he or she decides to be violation of FORUM or SOAP, (the list of deletable material is a WP:TPOC and the question "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?", which you picked as your example of a good delete, is not a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question was an invitation for comments in violation of these three policies, which of course appeared left, right and centre. Deleting all replies and keeping the question would have been a useless and probably counterproductive action: and in any case, that such a highly leading question is not' a BLP violation in itself is debatable, but that it has no place anywhere on enwiki should be clear to everyone who wants to work at the refdesks or any discussion page here. My reading of TPOC doesn't indicate any problem with the deletion by Medeis, only problems from the people actually posting in that thread. Fram (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually Guy that's Macon up his own rules. BLP rules override nearly everything, because violating BLP can result in harm to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reasonable question and it can be answered with perfectly reasonable citations like for instance Donald Trump Out of control? Or is Trump's tweeting designed to distract?, on the other hand the article Donald Trump on social media does not say anything on the matter so it may be false sorry it does say something under "covfefe".. I think having a tag to avoid forum type answers on contentious questions might be an idea but removing questions like this is just disruptive behavior. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is unanswerable unless Trump or his staff have made such a declaration. Otherwise it's just somebody's opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly in WP:BLP does it say we have to ignore anyone except the people themselves when writing a bio? Looking at it I see under public figures 'If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.' It is not our job to whitewash biographies. Multiple reliable sources have discussed this question. In line with the reference desk guidelines 'The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.' It doesn't say that we have to make certain the answer is yes or no - just direct them to relevant information and discussions. Dmcq (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree agree with Dmcq's analysis, and I would add that, even if a question is one that we should not answer on the ref desks, that does not give anyone an automatic right to delete the question. We have rules about that sort of behavior. Acceptable alternatives are:

• Answering the question with a link to a Wikipedia article.
• Answering the question with a statement that we are not allowed to answer such questions.
• Collapsing the question with Template:Hidden archive top and Template:Hidden archive bottom
• Ignoring the question.
• Warning editors who answer the question on their talk page, and if they persist reporting them at ANI.

The basic concept that any comment that violates any policy or guideline make be freely removed by any editor goes against Wikipedia's core policies. For most infractions, deletion is NOT an allowable response. Whether some editors like it or not, there are behaviors on Wikipedia which are not allowed, but also are not on the "delete on sight" list. Items that are deletable include unambiguous vandalism, unambiguous BLP violations, unambiguous copyright violations, outing, etc. A comlete list is at WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPOC is a guideline; the actual policy is Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards., and this explicitly applies to every page on Wikipedia, not just to articles. Much as it pains me to say this, Baseball Bugs is completely correct in what policy says; if you don't agree with the policy, start an RFC and get it changed, but we're not going to sanction someone for following the current wording of Wikipedia's policies. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you quoting this policy when multiple reliable sources have discussed this question? The question "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?" has received significant coverage in the following sources,[168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175] So how can you call the question "unsourced or poorly sourced"? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue of whether the question and/or replies violate BLP is secondary. The main point is that a question of the form "Is person X doing bad thing Y as a tactic to hide a problem?" is obviously unsuitable for any page at Wikipedia. The intention of the questioner is not relevant, but something that looks like push polling or trolling should be treated like that and removed. We know there are refdesk regulars who welcome all questions and would love to offer opinions on anything. That's why quite a lot of non-refdesk regulars are supporting the proposal that the refdesks be closed. The proposal will fail because there are enough refdesk people to overwhelm the discussion, but the message that the refdesks are out of control should be clear. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It does matter whether it is a BLP violation when that is the reason given for the deletion in the edit summary and the reason why several editors have defended the deletion. Nonetheless, I will address this new reason for deleting criticism of Donald Trump:

Removing trolling is already allowed per WP:TPOC. The question is whether this is trolling. Can you quote the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that a question of the form "Is person X doing bad thing Y as a tactic to hide a problem?" may be deleted by any user? It's a question that was asked by The Guardian, US News, Slate, Vanity Fair Yale University, and Salon. These sources have all raised the same question that our questioner raised. Are they all trolls as well? Are their published opinions also "obviously unsuitable for any page at Wikipedia"?

Also can you quote the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that a question may be deleted because other editors are likely to misbehave while answering? If you have a problem with someone giving bad answers, collapse the answer and post a warning on their talk page. If they do it again, report them at WP:ANI where, if the admins are doing their job, they will face a series of escalating blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What reliable source can definitively answer the Trump question? Answer: NONE, unless it's Trump and/or his staff proclaiming it. Anything else is just somebody's personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You've already said that but that is wrong both by WP:BLP for articles and by the reference desk guidelines for the reference desk. I quoted the relevant sections above. We don't have to give a definitive answer and in fact that is not what we're supposed to do, we're supposed to just direct to relevant articles or reliable sources for opinion by weight. And a person's own word is not taken as gospel truth about themselves. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did you link to sources that might contradict what those left-wing sources' opinions of Trump are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE about that sort of argument. But I certainly would not have left one out if I had found it. This is not relevant to your argument about WP:BLP which was just wrong. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Directing an OP to biased sources is every bit as bad as ordinary users speculating here. Maybe worse, because the OP might think their opinions are somehow authoritative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline are you talking about now? Or are these arguments of yours to be see as coming under WP:IAR for the betterment of Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Closure review request for "StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)"

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

---

(This is my first time posting such a request, so tell me if I need to do anything differently.)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again). I believe this was closed prematurely, as we were working out a "probation proposal", then would have a !vote on it. This closure occurred before it was finalized or the !vote could be held (although some started !voting before the proposal was finalized). Less than 3 days elapsed between when it was opened and closed. I also offered to stop editing the Ref Desk entirely until this was resolved, but right after that it was closed. Can we get more time, please ? StuRat (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note that in my opinion, like AfD discussions, potentially contentious AN/I discussions should run for 7 days ideally, although that may not always be the case. Alex Shih (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is no time limit. 3 days encompassing both a weekend day and 2 weekdays is plenty of time on one of the most watched and visited noticeboards. The length of time discussions are left open is almost always relevant thow many contribute, how clear the consensus is, and is the discussion held in an out of the way area. Given the mountain of evidence that clearly supported your ban (and there are plenty of diffs which also clearly support you lack even a basic ability to comprehend *why* you have been banned), it was in a highly visible area and had substantial contribution from a wide range of experienced editors and admins - I don't see any problem here. Unless someone is going to pony up a range of diffs that contradict the clear factual evidence you don't know what you are talking about and like to hear the sound of your own opinions, not to mention the refusal to listen when people who *do* know what they are talking about and are not interested in hearing your waffle... I think this is done. -edit- As an aside, offering to not edit in an area to a group of people who are in the process of clearly making sure you are unable to edit in the area was never going to fly as its easily resolved by banning you from the area. Perhaps if you had instead shown some understanding of why people wanted you banned in the first place instead of doubling down on your mistakes, they might have been more receptive. So in six/twelve months time when an appeal has a hope of actually passing, bear that in mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't think this was the appropriate place for diffs in my favor, as I already placed many there. I can repeat them, here, if that's what you want. But, here's just one recent diff: [176]. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll just say that I thought consensus was clear and that further discussion was unlikely to be productive (the last comment before I closed it started, "Honestly, what is wrong with you?"), making the discussion ripe for closure. I remain of that opinion. But if people think there's any chance of a different outcome from further discussion, then by all means re-open it. I would, however, urge StuRat to look again at that discussion and ask if there's any real chance it will achieve any better outcome than what he's got now. It seems unlikely to me. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe you gave too much weight to that last opinion, when there were many others saying we were making progress towards a solution. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I was disturbed when I saw that discussion had been closed while active discussion was still ongoing (although it was done in good faith). Given that StuRat's own proposal was only allowed less than 24 hours before the close, and clearly not all interested parties would have had the chance to examine it, I have reverted the close. It was not acceptable to extrapolate from the few contributors who had been able to comment at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that it was then reclosed. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• It still looks open to me (though the "How to appeal" section remains closed as it has been answered). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK, my mistake. In that case I'll go ahead and strike out my current Ref Desk posts, as I wanted to do before. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, if you think there's mileage left there then by all means. I've self-reverted the logged sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I suspect the eventual close might not be a million miles from your initial assessment, but I just think StuRat's offer should be given a little more time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 31 October 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.

Jonah Bryson

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.

---

We should start a page for Jonah Bryson (film Director, Activist). Links below for credibility:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/planet-in-focus-film-festival-establishes-rob-stewart-youth-eco-hero-award/article35863702/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jonah-bryson https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2015/08/05/15-year-old-jonah-bryson-asks-for-your-help/

Verified social media:

https://twitter.com/JonahLBryson https://www.facebook.com/JonahLBryson/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceJedi (talk • contribs)

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.

@Blackmane: The article title in question is titleblacklisted, so this is the "right venue". A block (or at least an SPI) of the requestor may be in order. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Signed the request, it comes from a single edit account created 3 days ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104:If SpaceJedi had been requesting creation of the article because they were trying to do so and failing, then this would be accurate. However, the context of their post was that this Jonah Bryson merits a page here for whatever reason, which is not what ANI is for, hence my NAC close. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on potential username changes

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Tobias Conradi is now back again with some vigor, I've blocked close to a dozen of his active IPs in the past hour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. The SPI links to the global ban and somewhere in the archives of the SPI are also links to the many ban community ban discussions on here. He's also likely to cause disruption at Wikidata to affect articles at projects. Pinging Goldenring who, if I remember correctly created some sort of script to identify Tobias socks a couple of years back, and The Blade of the Northern Lights who is a revert target of Tobias, and Pkbwcgs who seems to have identified a lot of socks earlier this month. This mess will affect a lot of geo articles across all continents and also MOS and policy pages related to geography.—SpacemanSpiff 01:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging the right GoldenRing. —SpacemanSpiff 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: IIRC my involvement was merely searching some page histories for all users who introduced a specific string. But if there's anything I can do to help, please do let me know. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• He should get an award, fighting for The Truth for over a decade. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sock

User:Drmies - no evidence provided he is doing it, but the IPs have been editing in accordance with Wikipedia:Five pillars, while User:SpacemanSpiff and User:CityOfSilver reverted these edits and you protected them in that state. WP:VANDAL: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia" Category:Jagannathpur Upazila https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Jagannathpur_Upazila&diff=807288635&oldid=807288555 WP:OC upazila categories go into the district-specific upazila categories, not 1) whole country 2) district 3) division WP:3RR violated Boalia Thana https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boalia_Thana&diff=807289385&oldid=807288922 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boalia_Thana&diff=807289614&oldid=807289385: WP:VANDAL / MOS:UNDERLINK removal of type parameter from infobox including link MOS:CAPS capitalization of term of art "thana" WP:LEAST / WP:LINKCLARITY / WP:SPECIFICLINK change piped link under label "thana" from specific target "thanas of Bangladesh" to unspecific "Administrative divisions of Bangladesh" MOS:SEEALSO insertion of section "See also", with three links to article that are not specific to the article WP:3RR violated Fultali https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultali&diff=807289384&oldid=807289343 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultali&diff=807289487&oldid=807289384 WP:CAT miscategorization, categorizing this village as upazila WP:CAT removal of location category, although the village is in that district WP:3RR violated Hum Hum https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hum_Hum&diff=807300539&oldid=807295633 MOS:UNDERLINK link removal replacing proper name "Rajkandi" with an unsupported name "Razkandi" Bellinzona (district) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellinzona_(district)&diff=807289386&oldid=807289266 WP:LEAST removal of class name "district" in infobox WP:LEAST unbolding of class name "district" in article intro WP:LEAST mismatch of bolded name "Bellinzona" and local name (Distretto di Bellinzona) Calvas Canton https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvas_Canton&diff=807289383&oldid=807288866: WP:VANDAL Flag removal MOS:CAPS capitalization of term of art "canton" WP:3RR violated Template:Cantons of Ecuador https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cantons_of_Ecuador&diff=807287281&oldid=807287122 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cantons_of_Ecuador&diff=807311383&oldid=807287281 WP:NAV#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative: replacing standard color for footer navigation with "background:#FCF75E;color:navy;" without justification, not even the most similar Template:Provinces of Ecuador uses this color WP:3RR violated 80.171.234.197 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Several days ago, after blocking a dozen of their IPs, I asked here whether it would be possible to renge-block them. The answer I got (my apologies, I do not remember from whom) was that they use the major German provider, and there are no obvious ranges to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Over the past couple of days I've blocked socks in at least three different /16 ranges from this major German provider, so I don't think a rangeblock without significant collateral damage is likely. —SpacemanSpiff 11:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand anything in range blocks, I am merely translating what I was told. Btw they are recently very active at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, one can safely assume that all IPs posting there are used by Tobias Conradi.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, I did not see that. I've semi protected WP:CFDS now. Pinging Fayenatic london as the last time (a couple years back) it was he(I think) who fixed a lot of the category mess caused by Tobias. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I don't remember doing that, although it's possible as I was one of the few admins active on category work for some periods about that time. I have added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_25#Category:People_from_Pietrykaŭ_District, a technical nomination originated by IPs. However, I'm not sure it's helpful to protect the CFDS page; the IP socks may still be tagging category pages, and they might as well also do the work to list the nominations at CFDS, otherwise it leaves more housework for CFD admins to clear up later. The nominations should only be processed on their merits (currently they are usually checked by me, Ymblanter, Explicit or Black Falcon). – Fayenatic London 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised there's no WP:LTA page. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hoax Image

This image at Commons needs to be deleted as its simply a hoax insignia.[177]. This was created for an article called "Flag Admiral" which, a year or so after writing it, it was discovered the entire thing was a hoax using false document copies to make it appear as if the rank had existed. See "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag Admiral (United States Navy)" for further details. The image in question has been inserted into the Admiral of the Navy (United States) article twice [178] [179] apparently spurred on by this image. The image should thus be deleted but my knowledge of Commons is very limited. -O.R.^Comms 08:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Slow Edit War - topic ban needed for Syrian Civil War/ISIL

User:Ferakp continues to repeatedly insert unreliably sourced extraordinary claims about citizen journalist group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, which myself, an IP and most recently User:Harpoon6 have removed. Specifically this editor wants the page to say the subject supports ISIL - but RBSS formed to tell the world about ISIL atrocities in their city. ISIL has murdered various members of RBSS in Syria and Turkey so the claims from a single website that they are in any way supportive don’t ring true. Arguably this page falls under Syrian Civil War/ISIL discretionary sanctions. Could an Admin please review the article history and talkpage discussions as well as this editor’s contribution history across other SCW pages and do something like issue a Syrian Civil War topic ban or stern warning or something? Harpoon6 provided some good rational for Admin action on the article talk. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Too many empty accusations against me. The user calls the Aranews something bigger than a blog despite its popularity among the Syrian civil war experts and international organizations. Also, the user didn't explain how Aranews is unreliable. I've answered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raqqa_Is_Being_Slaughtered_Silently#Criticism_section Ferakp (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB. The content added here is always "According to ARA News", and nobody is a better source for ARA News' statements than ARA News itself. However, this has several issues, including (1) Except in literature and other artistic topics, where you have professional critics, "Criticism" sections are virtually always non-neutral — either they present elements that could be integrated into the rest of the narrative, drawing inordinate attention to those elements, or they present elements that can't be integrated into the rest of the narrative, so these elements don't belong in the first place. (2) Who are ARA News, and why do their opinions matter? If Shawn Christian offered an opinion, and it ended up being reported in some media outlet, you could add something saying "According to Shawn Christian, RIBSS is [adjective]", but why would that matter? Opinions virtually never matter unless they're the opinions of movers and shakers, so you need to present evidence that ARA is a major force in this dispute. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to bring the bias of the RIBSS to the public. It's criticized in the region for pursing Arab chauvinism and attacking non-opposition groups in the Syrian civil war. The group tries to sell itself as an independent and neutral source but with the criticism section I wanted to show that their members are even criticized by some opposition groups, so I think my edits were appropriate.Ferakp (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ferakp, am I correct in thinking you have tried to add essentially this same content to the article eleven times now? MPS1992 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not the same content and I didn't add anything eleven times, I reverted unexplained and inappropriate edits by Legacypac. The user failed to prove the ARANEWS is not a reliable source. I would like to hear what the administrators are thinking about the ARANEWS. Ferakp (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve not counted, but they keep trying to insert the same material and various editors remove it. The claims are far fetched and based solely on one questionable source. Legacypac (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

We seem to be backlogged again at WP:RFPP, with 20+ requests, some going back for more than 24 hours. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody, not yet exactly cleared, but at least we are back to acceptable size/delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass copying into sex offender categories

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 Maria Matveyevna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because they were doing mass copying of actors into categories like Category:American sex offenders. The user looks relatively new, and not sure if the account has been compromised or not. I don't have time to undo all the edits, or am hoping that someone is aware of some tool to undo the edits.—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a necessary block, whether it's compromised or a sleeper-vandalism account isn't really relevant. @TAnthony: looks to be some of the cleanup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All the edits have been rolled back now. - Nunh-huh 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a User:INeverCry sock. He does the exact same sort of vandalism on Commons. Sro23 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not all of them, there are around 600 in total. Matt Rippy hasn't yet, for one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like there are still many left to be undone - Leighton Noble is another. Chubbles (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize there was more than a page of changes. -Nunh-huh 08:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I an wondering if the edits and their summaries need R/D or even oversight since they are WP:BLP violations. Another question does this post merit talk page revocation. Thanks to anyone who can take a look at these. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm rolling back and revdel'ing as I go. This is definitely a BLP violation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot. I have reverted a few too. But hey will need revdel'ing too. Eno Lirpa (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost crushed my browser doing mass rollback, and turns out I rollback-conflicted. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume it was conflicting with mine. Sorry about that. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think they're all revdel'd now. Excellent teamwork ladies and gentlemen. Handshakes and cigars all 'round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

On Commons, we've been using User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js to quickly clean this up. —Guanaco 08:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This .js page should be G4d too. — fortunavelut luna 13:34, 30 October 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.

Merge closure requested at Thirteen Colonies

Please see Talk:Thirteen Colonies#Merger proposal for the discussion. I think there is clear consensus to merge but it would be nice to have it reviewed, and closed by an admin. We would also need help performing the merger itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC close review: Algerian War

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Algerian_War#RfC_about_the_result_parameter_in_the_Infobox to determine whether it was an appropriate summation of the discussion. I discussed this with the closer here.

It is my understanding that the role of the closer is to ascertain consensus by judging the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, and that the policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable and avoid being original research is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

• I explained the guideline's requirement and presented a large number of quality WP:RS (including two books about this war that won the Wolfson History Prize and George Louis Beer Prize) describing the result as either a "FLN victory" or "French defeat".

• Looking at the actual !votes, it's clear that all 6 of them have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy (they're all based on either personal opinions or WP:OR), with 5 of them clearly disagreeing with the scholars without bringing a single valid source to back up their claims. The one and only editor who attempted to proffer countervailing sources failed: first, they misrepresented a source by claiming it said something it clearly didn't, and when challenged, they brought 3 irrelevant sources and shamelessly highlighted bits of text about the battle of Algiers (an event that happened 5 years before independence).

Yet, the closer decided that none of !votes should be discounted, writing in their closing statement there is a clear consensus opposing a change to FLN victory; with an underlying consensus that this would not accurately reflect the complexity of the sources, ignoring the fact that the editors who alluded to the so called "complexity of the sources" presented no sources and discussed none of the ones I put forward.

Unfortunately, the explanation given by the closer as to why they didn't discount the !votes, and their clarification that followed our discussion, left me none the wiser and even more confused by the following related statements which appears to rest on a circular reasoning:

• I further found while the parameter documentation is clear that the term used should reflect the sources, there is no guidance within the parameter documentation as to how editors should decide whether to use the "See Aftermath" (or equivalent) option; how they should decide that the "X victory" or "inconclusive" options are not sufficient to accurately describe the outcome. 1) The documentation is clear, the term used should reflect what the sources say. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about it. 2) I still have no idea what the closer was hoping to find in the documentation, but I can't think of any possible outcome that hasn't been catered for in the guideline. 3) Reliable sources "accurately describe the outcome", not the options within the guideline (this is a content issue).

• Without any such additional guidance, such a decision is a matter for consensus (agreement) among editors - that is: opinion, not on the article subject itself, but on where to draw (or ignore) the lines of the parameter documentation (particularly the "See Aftermath" provisions), if it is neither fallaciously reasoned nor demonstrative of a lack of understanding, is within the discretion of a consensus of editors. This is the core the problem, since the wrong conclusion (that turns every !vote that has no basis in policy into valid one) is based on a false premise.

From this, one can reasonably conclude that the closer failed to apply the content policies and closed the RfC based on their misunderstanding of the project's guideline.

References

M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Seems to be a good close to me, especially as not a single editor supported your proposal. The real issues appears to be your WP:BLUDGEONING (which is continuing here) and inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK when consensus is clearly against you. This report will only end in a WP:BOOMERANG if the stick isn't dropped pretty quickly. Number 57 21:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Looks like an accurate assessment of the consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse and sanction bad-faith proposer. When everyone who participates is opposed to your suggestion, there's no possible way that one could conclude that consensus is in your favor; don't waste our time with such an absurd request. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong endorse--Just drop the stick and move on.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong endorse No one so far has reasonably concluded that Ryk72 failed to apply the content policies, and I'll wager no one who comments after me will so conclude. You harangued every editor who commented, you harangued Ryk72 when he didn't throw out the !votes you didn't like, and now you're here because you didn't get your way. Take the advice of the previous commenters and back away right now. Katie^talk 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse well-explained closure by User:Ryk72. There is no way that this could have been closed as a consensus for M.Bitton's proposal.
  I recommend multiple WP:TROUTings of M.Bitton: for bludgeoning the RFC, and for a failing to drop the stick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm only responding to your comment because you pinged me. I have never said that the RfC should have been closed as a consensus for my proposal, in fact, I have made it clear here and in my discussion with Ryk72 that it's the rationale behind the closure that I have an issue with, particularly the part that, through circular reasoning, concludes that the parameter's options are a matter of editors' opinion (hence, closing with no support for X, a bit of support for Y, some support for Z, etc), despite the guideline saying otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIV

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.

---

Where's all the (other) admins? Drmies (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this is reasonably under control for now, but as this is at least the third time in the last few weeks that this has come up, there's clearly an underlying problem. What is it, and how can we address it? Tazerdadog (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I could suggest three issues which commonly appear: 1) Banned user Taokaka (that IP editor) tends to throw dozens of reports at AIV, with insufficient warnings/edits. That can sometimes drown out real reports, backlog AIV, and also make AIV look more backlogged than it is. 2) Dodgy reports from other users, including edit wars and content disputes, insufficiently explained reverts and reports, users with insufficient or just really poor templated warnings, users who stop editing before or after being warned, reports without diffs, diffs not containing vandalism, non-obvious sockpuppets, automatic reports from Huggle and so on. Typically, in my experience, more than half of all AIV reports are thrown out. 3) Not enough patrolling admins. More admins with an interest in this area would always be beneficial, as would reducing admin workload elsewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 1, it would be helpful if admins didn't encourage the practice by blocking based on 80-90% of their substandard reports. Special:Contributions/67.43.19.24 and Special:Contributions/169.227.254.9 are two recent examples I can think of where I was about to decline the reports when another admin said "good enough for me", so to speak, and beat me to it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 2 and 3, has some kind of non-admin clerking at AIV been discussed in detail before? Short of getting more admins (which is great, but beyond the scope of this discussion), that's the way I see to bring in substantial new blood. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerking would only increase the problem, IMO, because the people who would be attracted to clerk would likely be the same people who are putting in the bad reports. Something to consider would be updating the bot to remove reports that are stale after X number hours. I use the decline templates pretty regularly, but on cases where its borderline, I prefer not to block personally, but will let it sit for someone else to review rather than put a decline template on it.

I suspect others do this as well. We have to manually clear the stale reports now, it might be worth letting the bot deal with it automatically: if the user is not actively vandalizing, they aren't an immediate threat to the encyclopedia. If they start again and it is obvious, they can be rereported to AIV and dealt with then. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, exploring the bot idea a little more in-depth, are there heuristics that a bot can use to decline bad reports? For example, if we had the bot decline all reports for a user whose last edit was more than say 2 hours ago, or whose talk page is a redlink (unlikely to have been properly warned), or where they had only made one edit in the past say 7 days (the idea here is that they can't realistically have vandalized, been properly warned, and then be vandalizing again actively with only that one recent edit. This also covers both concrete examples listed above). There are probably other heuristics we can use, but these should be sufficient to get the ball rolling. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps tagging the report as well when it contains the phrases "sockpuppet", "personal attack", or "edit warring". SQL^{Query me!} 15:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like that would create a whole class of vandals ensuring their sprees would be short and separated by two hour intervals. Unless a human noticed that pattern before the bot removed the reports, there would be no consequences. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

AIV is only for active, persistent, and obvious vandalism. The two hour time limit was designed to enforce active. I'm very open to tweaking the time used in this filter, but I'm not sure how your hypothetical vandal exploits it. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not object against an opt-in bot which would leave a message on my talk page or sen me a notification once AIV is backlogged.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you delay long enough, then everything goes stale and the admins don't have to do anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Where's all the (other) admins? Drmies (talk) 2:39 am, Today (UTC+0)" - I'll give you three guesses what I was doing at 2:39am :-P I have a higher threshold of tolerance for AIV reports and will decline those even when I think a block could be warranted, but for non-vandalism reasons (typically excessive POV pushing). Example here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Watching reruns of Baywatch? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You must have me confused with somebody else.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, that's the one. You two could have been separated at birth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Undelete and merge help?

Resolved

I happened to notice that the article EyeBuyDirect was once on en-Wiki as early as 2009 (under a slightly different name) and had been deleted at AfD [180]. Should the history of the deleted article be merged with that of the newer one that was created in 2014? I'm guessing that at a minimum, the AfD should be linked at the talk page. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The history does not need to be merged, because they are effectively two different articles (there's no evidence that the old was directly copied to the new). I have added a link to the old AFD on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

TFA Bluelock request

Balfour Declaration is coming up for TFA in 2 days. With the increasing press ahead of the 100th anniversary, it has begun to attract attention from inexperienced users with agendas. Could we add an ARBPIA WP:BLUELOCK to ensure stability? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Although this is technically an arbitration enforcement action, I have no objection to others modifying protection in whatever way they see fit. GoldenRing (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with ECP but I do not think it appropriate to say that "users with agendas." You can say "users who disagree with my POV", or even just inexperienced users. I looked at a couple of the edits and they were not out there or wild POV pushing. We know you have a POV and that is of course OK, but you don't need to say that if someone disagrees with you, they must be pushing an agenda. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think ECP was justified just to enforce the ARBPIA 30/500 restriction, though I know I referred to "non-EC-POV-pushing" in my log entry. GoldenRing (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ughh, I'm really not liking having a TFA be under severe sanctions - it is so against the anyone can edit mantra. Pinging in the TFA coordinators should they want to comment: @Dank, Jimfbleak, Ealdgyth, and Wehwalt:. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've pinged WP:ERRORS to this discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't always agree with the idea, but there is longstanding consensus that the TFA should be as free as possible to edit. However, I have not looked into the matter as deeply as GoldenRing has, and I take no stand on what's a good idea here. I tend to stay out of I/P conflict matters anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Without going into the ARBPIA question, I can certainly say we've had semi-protected TFAs before. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh sure. And there used to be more of a fuss about it. It's really not the protection at issue here, it's the fact that the sanctions can expose a newbie to severe penalties.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I don't see what can be done about it; the problem is inherent to using articles subject to arbitration remedies as TFA. The article is not subject to the 30/500 restriction because I applied EC protection; it is subject to the 30/500 restriction anyway because of a remedy in an arbitration case. So for an article used as TFA our options are:

1. Somehow make an exception so that article is not subject to the arbitration remedy while it is used as TFA (and perhaps for some short period after);
2. Let people edit the article but whack them with arbitration sanctions if they are not extended-confirmed; or
3. Apply EC protection while the article is used as TFA.

It's hard to see how we would enact option 1 short of asking the committee to rush a motion through, and I think it's doubtful whether it's actually a good idea; option 2 is clearly very unfriendly to newcomers, leaving option 3 as the least-worst option. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We could just be very light with the ban hammer, and only escalate the protection if there is actual issues while it is TFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That still seems to me to be creating a minefield for new editors, with the added unpredictability that the response to violations of the 30/500 rule will depend on which admin notices it, whether they've looked at the main page that day, whether they're aware of this discussion and so on. It also seems to be a recipe for a large number of new editors to be welcomed to wikipedia by a DS alert placed on their talkpages. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't poke my nose into I/P areas, so I'll leave the question of whether it qualifies for the restrictions to others better qualified, but if it does qualify, it certainly is better to have the protection in place rather than get good faith newbies into trouble. (If it gets some idiot vandals into trouble, well... couldn't happen to nicer people or something...) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Participate in Dispute Resolution Focus Group

The Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program is working with the Wikimedia Foundation to help communities develop tools to resolve disputes. You are invited to participate in a focus group aimed at identifying needs and developing possible solutions through collaborative design thinking.

If you are interested in participating, please add your name to the signup list on the Meta-Wiki page.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to learn from the Wikimedia community. We value all of your opinions and look forward to hearing from you. JosephNegotiation (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging is still harassing SPECIFICO

Here is the history:

• In December 2016 I brought an ArbCom case against TTAAC. The outcome was that he was "admonished and strongly warned" by User:Dennis Brown.
• On January 12, 2017, TTAAC was sanctioned per ArbCom and indefinitely TBANned from U.S. politics articles by User:Sandstein. The major issue was his persistent personal attacks on User:SPECIFICO.
• On July 12, Sandstein lifted the TBAN based on an emailed promise from TTAAC, in which he acknowledged that his TBAN had been because of "incivility and personal attacks", and said he had "no intention of returning to the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble".
• Less than a month later, August 2, he filed an ANI against SPECIFICO. There was some suggestion he should be boomeranged, but the discussion was closed without action.

Recent diffs:

• October 26: [181] "SPECIFICO is simply flaunting her refusual to read the source in question and/or making things up… SPECIFICO "challenged" this material under transparently false pretenses, part of her long-standing and systematic WP:GAMING of Discretionary Sanctions to purge content she doesn't like and get editors she disagrees with blocked or banned."
• October 15: [182] "Unfortunately, editors can and do abuse the "do not restore challenged edits" discretionary sanction to effectively override RfC consensus and cherrypick the content from sources. SPECIFICO, who has done this systematically across numerous articles, knows what she is doing—as does everyone else familiar with her Wikipedia history.
• October 2: [183] "Since December 2016, SPECIFICO has made numerous incomprehensible edits denying that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD in order to paint the CIA as infallible…. She is only able to generate this remarkable conclusion by way of deliberate cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, similar to her misquoting of Thucydides411 above. Her false, unsupported assertions have been repeatedly debunked on this talk page."
• October 1: [184] "Undid revision 803263212 by SPECIFICO (talk)WP:WEASEL revisionist nonsense; debunked repeatedly at talk, but this user insists on not hearing what other editors or RS say."

It would be tempting to look at this record and say "oh, that's not so bad, it's not very frequent, look how spread out they are in time." The truth is that TTAAC rarely edits the same pages as SPECIFICO, but when he does, he invariably turns his talk page comment into an attack on SPECIFICO. That is the very behavior for which he was previously TBANned.

I am looking for at least an IBAN: that he is forbidden from talking to or about SPECIFICO, either directly or by reference, unless he is specifically addressed by her. Others may prefer some other outcome and I am OK with whatever people want, but I do think this harassment has to stop - especially since he was previous TBANned for it, and got the TBAN lifted by promising not to resume the "vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble". --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm an iBan seems reasonable. Also reasonable: a block next time there's a personal attack. I think we have a policy against personal attacks. [I wonder if I had an edit conflict while posting this; with luck it was just a forum post that I overwrote accidentally.] Drmies (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Melanie that there is a pattern here, but the solution sounds like a one way iban, which can be a dangerous thing, as they are easy to game by the other party, so it needs to be clear that any antagonizing by Specifico would results in action. The bad faith ANI was about an article that falls under US Politics, which is what the previous tban was for. Restoring the tban is probably a good idea as well, same terms as the AE. That can be done here unilaterally by any uninvolved admin as an AE action, btw. American politics (and particularly, as of late) is a poisoned well that not everyone should be drinking from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. I agree that any iBAN should be mutual. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is that his TBAN should be reinstated. Clearly, it was lifted on the basis of a promise that it was no longer needed for prevention. Clearly that turned out not to be the case. All this behavior happened under the ARBAP2 articles covered by and in violation of the discretionary sanctions. I am not comfortable with a 2-way iBAN, which I feel would restrict me from ordinary editing, in effect punishing me for for having been the target of this harassment. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever people here decide. It's true the TBAN was lifted on the basis of promises that have not been kept. But IMO a TBAN may be overkill and in any case does not address the real problem, which is his attacks on you. If he is prevented from talking to or about you - including by implication or reference - I don't see why he couldn't continue to edit in this area. And I don't see how it would "restrict you from ordinary editing" if you could not talk to or about him. (Your response might appropriately be "I didn't want to talk to him anyhow.") I assume an IBAN would also prevent you from reverting each other, but aside from that I don't see how this would be a problem for you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure one way or another on the rights and wrongs of this or sanctions, but I'm a bit concerned by how the evidence is presented above. In every case but one they are excerpts from longer comments where TTAAC backs up the statements made with numerous diffs. There may well be an argument to be had over whether those diffs show what TTAAC thinks they show, but the way they are presented here makes it look like TTAAC is throwing around evidence-free aspersions when in fact this is not the case. @MelanieN: would you consider please quoting whole comments? GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: In the interest of brevity (nobody likes TL;DR complaints), I quoted only the parts that I considered to illustrate a pattern of harassment. The entire comments and context can be seen by clicking on the links to the diffs. Yes, it's true that the portions I quoted are excerpted from larger posts about the article's history and/or content. The problem is that he can't seem to say anything about the content without also bashing SPECIFICO. The fact that he cites previous diffs to support his aspersions does not take away from the fact that they are aspersions - appropriate for an ANI report, but unnecessary and inappropriate for an article talk page. At the very least, this promotes a nasty tone and battlefield atmosphere on the talk page. Anybody can make unpleasant posts on talk pages now and then, but this is a pattern going back the better part of a year - one for which he was previously sanctioned and which he promised to stop. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• The comments are sharp but ultimately are a content dispute. Personalizing it in edit summaries is bad form but hardly justifies a topic ban. If the attacks are disruptives or heated, then short blocks are in order. TBANS or IBANS, though, seem to be an attempt to win a content dispute by silencing alternative views. --DHeyward (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• For context: I participated in the Russian Interference article one of the pages linked above. SPECIFICO's behavior there has not been ideal. Since Oct 3 SPECIFICO has made 26 comments. Of them approximately half have been either partially or wholly unconstructive and personal. Thucydides411 and Humanengr are frequent targets.

1. Boys and girls why do you jump in for another episode of dancing with the trolls every time a drive-by throws up this same kind of diversionary BS? (in response to a discussion started by a 12 year old account)
2. And, like flat earth skeptics, 9-11 skeptics, and the JFK's alive in Tanzania crowd, there are virtually none of that ilk represented in published discourse
3. How very rude of you! I have no views about your American politics. Maybe that's why it's easy for me to edit according to WP neutrality policy. I have no opinions. It's pure process -- like flipping flapjacks. One up, one down, one to go, on to the next.
4. The intelligence reports are not of lasting significance. (SPECIFICO is referencing the "17 agencies" report, the basis of the article's lede sentence and central to official claims of interference)
5. Since all the RfCs and other discussions here have rejected your POV, maybe you need a new approach. Wait a couple of months and mount another RfC. That would be sensible. Maybe your ship will come in.
6. Let's pull out Dewey Defeats Truman and Lincoln Shot by Unknown Assailant.
7. Not only is such repetition unconstructive. It also violates of our WP guideline with respect to disruptive editing
8. This article is not about the report. It's about the Russian attack. Undue opinions of the unclassified report is irr[links picture of elephant]elevant (Again referencing the "17 agencies" report)
9. Welcome home, Rodney Dangerfield.
10. Human, it's hard to know what you're driving at with these extended interrogations. Frankly it reminds me of Inspector Clouseau, "so you ate the popsickle but discarded the stick! A-HA!!"
11. Nobody seems to understand what you're trying to say.
12. Nobody seems to know or care what you're talking about at this point

These comments seem intended to frustrate and encourage sanctionable reactions. The pattern repeats in other contentious political articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Reacting only on parts of this reasoning of JJ Lambden: 'SPECIFICO's behavior not being ideal' is not an argument. We don't have to be ideal (perfect), we just have to refrain from obvious misbehaviour. And we have to discriminate here between personal attacks (harassing) which is gravest misbehavior and at stake here (see heading), and unconstructiveness (which may be unfortunate but is not really at stake here). Comments that 'seem intended to frustrate and encourage sanctionable reactions' are not yet clearly violating any basic, sanctionable rule because 'seem to encourage… seem intended…' is a very vague, subjective assessment. It is everybody's own responsibilty NOT to react in any sanctionable way, and sanctionable reactions of TheTimes are exactly the case that we are dealing with here. (If sanctions are to be proposed also against SPECIFICO, say so clearly and preferably in a new section, it could confuse things too much to handle that issue here). --Corriebertus (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard to say which of SPEC and TheTimes is harassing the other...[185] I'll just point out that SPECIFICO has an uncanny propensity to stir drama in AP topics. Trouts all around, please. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

All the more reason for a mutual iBAN? --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How's that? A diff, out of context, that has nothing to do with TTAAC is reason to ban me from interacting with TTAAC? Here's a weird one I just found by accident when I looked at another Politics article -- Lo and behold TTAAC is disparaging me about some edit of mine and announcing in his edit summary that I "abused discretionary sanctions" 3 months ago!

I presume everyone's aware of the dossier he kept on his talk page [186] for months, even after he was TBANned for harassing and attacking me. This really isn't very pleasant and whatever the outcome of this thread, it should not be an IBAN that limits my editing as if I am the cause of TTAAC's behavior. This is an editor who, after he was TBANNed, then used a sockpuppet account to evade the ban, resulting in a block. Then after the block expired he promised @Sandstein: not to resume his battleground behavior if his TBAN was lifted. That didn't happen.

ARBAP2 calls for escalating sanctions on repeated breaches. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I'm not fond of IBAN at all, in general, as a sanction. It seems totally unpractical to allow two people to work on the same article but forbid them to directly discuss with each other (see Tower of Babel, Genesis 11). If someone makes personal attacks(PA) at one colleague, he probably does it also on others (TheTimes did it on me, 15October,07:03, I'm planning to confront him with that yet, I just mention it now as example). As for 'two-way-IBAN': it's totally unfair if a 'law suit' that's opened (with a clear charge) against person A would lead to a sanction against person B. It is quite possible that B (also) deserves a sanction, but a fair judicial proceeding then requires a new 'law suit' fairly to be started against B.
2. If TTAAC(TheTimes) broke a promise that got him out of TBAN, perhaps it's most logical to bring back that TBAN (as SPECIFICO contends).
3. Or, probably better yet: a simple, (short,) general block (as Drmies suggests). Melanie observes that a TBAN does not address the real problem (=his PA's)—I agree: see the example of TTAAC's pers.attack at me—in that case a simple general block would seem more suited. Also DHeyward argues that a short general block would be better against personal attacks than TBAN or IBAN—provided the PA's are 'bad enough', but that seems already the stance of Melanie.
4. Whether SPEC is also "harassing" TTAAC (as JJL and JFG suggest), should not be the issue in this section. Every individual is responsible to refrain from PA's in every circumstance, and if a pattern of PA's is 'bad enough' he should be sanctioned for it. This section evaluates/judges TTAAC's behavior (see section heading). Possibly SPEC is also to be reprehended for some behavior (I don't know about that) but in that case a separate section with fairly and properly motivated complaint ought to be started against SPEC: that's fair, proper and just proceeding in any 'law suit'. It's utterly unfair (JFG) to insinuate here against SPEC without even giving any explicit evidence. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Corriebertus deleted 5,465 bytes of well-sourced content from Taliban relating to the group's violence against civilians with a completely non-responsive edit summary after opining that "'Human rights' are a (originally Western) concept/idea. There's no indication that Taliban agree to it. Therefore, using the term here would be partisan, not neutral, possibly cultural imperialism." My revert of 07:03, 15 October, which Corriebertus now alleges crossed the line into a blockable personal attack, reads in its entiriety: "RV continued blanking of well-sourced content. UN figures are correctly attributed to 'the Taliban and their allies.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The wacky season

How about we be like France, and lock down articles about US politics at some point before elections happen? (I know this is not the place to actually do it, but thought I would float a balloon here... Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal, Jytdog, is that the "wacky season" in US politics started with the Declaration of Independence, and has considered without respite 24/7/365 ever since. There is no time without wackiness and no time when diligent editors cannot counter it. "Locked down" articles do not serve our readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

:) that is true, but we are reaching peak wacky, is all. And most things that happen from here to the election are going to be high froth, and nobody will know if it mattered for at least a couple of weeks. Since we are not a newspaper, content about last minute tactics doesn't "serve our readers" in any case. You are dead wrong there. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been slightly less than a year since the last national election and slightly more than a year until the next national election, and speculation about each election begins before the votes for the previous election have been fully counted and certified. There is no plausible cutoff date. We are not a newspaper because we do not publish original reporting but we should properly and neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about all notable topics, even current electoral campaigns. If we did not do so, we would justifiably be ridiculed. I concede that it is difficult. Writing an encyclopedia is difficult, but look at what we have accomplished. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You made your no clear, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. There are too many problems for this to be a feasible proposal, and this is the wrong board to discuss those problems in depth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Take a look, please?

I've got to go offline for a bit, but would someone take a look (and possibly deal with) [187]? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The user adding the content is a long term (libelous) BLP troll. Range blocks are not so straightforward - I'll semi the page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi'd for 3 days. zzuuzz, apologies that we appear to have attempted this at the same time; I think it's worked out okay but feel free to tweak if you disagree with duration or whatever.

I see the IP they were revert-warring with has been blocked. This seems a bit harsh to me, as they could very easily claim the BLP exemption from 3rr. GoldenRing (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I've reverted to your expiry date. GoldenRing (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So for the record, this is a long running campaign of libel and impersonation of Douglas Docker. That article is protected, but the edits spread to quite a wide variety of other articles, not just music-related. The IPs are in the ranges 2600:1:F, and 2600:387, along with a variety of proxies and accounts. Please take any related complaints seriously - any vigilance would be appreciated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all! Much appreciated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Should admins act aginst user names which target them personally?

Recently, I've seen many usernames designed to attack specific admins, which were blocked by the admin in question. I believe that in such cases, the admin should always allow an other admin to handle the situation, per WP:INVOLVED: Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would say no, strictly speaking they should not act but rather report. I believe I always reported such abuse when it was directed at me. On the other hand, I understand that it is sometimes embarrassing to report.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Is it covered by WP:ATTACKNAME? I don't think it needs to wait for someone else to block in these cases when it's clear the username is targetting another editor. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I would say the context is absolutely necessary. If the attacking username was created from a content dispute, for instance, then WP:INVOLVED may be applicable here. If we are talking about a general attack against all admins like the anti-Semitic/Communist tirade that I had the pleasure to deal with recently, then no. Alex Shih (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) There is an LTA who chooses anti-vandal admins and makes silly names out of them (we certainly find them amusing on IRC). This goes with the "context" issue Alex mentions, but for those particular usernames it's painfully obvious who is creating the usernames and there's no "conflict" for any of the named parties to block them. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) But how does one know whether the attacking name was created from a content dispute? I had names like "Yaroslav Blanter white supremacist" (do not remember the exact details) created visibly out of nowhere ant then showing up at my talk page; in the end it was an IP unhappy I protected the page or smth like this, but before they start posting nonsense one does not know this.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There aren't many ways to find out. So in a sense I am echoing the response of xeno and Writ Keeper, that an admin should not be handicapped in straight forward cases. Alex Shih (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• INVOLVED also says that In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Usernames designed to attack specific users are pretty much the most straightforward case there is, so (in my opinion) to answer the question in the header, yes they should act, and to respond to your statement, no they should not always allow another admin to handle it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) An attack username account is most likely to attack the named user in the first instance. If any reasonable administrator would block the user, hamstringing the target admin would just allow a vandalism-only account more time to damage the project. –xeno^talk 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, bordering on red tape. Someone who creates a username that is clearly an attack targeting another user is a) violating WP:NPA with every edit, b) clearly WP:NOTHERE and c) using Wikipedia as a battleground. They can surely be instantly blocked, by anyone, simple as that. Why should I need to get a second opinion before blocking User:Filelakeshoe is a terrorist? – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, if y'all want me to hand in my bit for that time I blocked User:Writ Keeper sucks and needs jail (really), then that's cool I guess, but it seems a bit silly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Grey area might be something like Buttgumba, but WP:DUCK applied for other reasons. For the record, I did not block them.—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Commonsense should apply. If the username is so obviously a direct personal attack, of the sort that in an edit would be revdelled or an article would be summarily deleted per G-10 then just block the silly twit and move on. None of our guidelines are a suicide pact and interpretations of them that just add unnecessary red tape (as mentioned above) are not helpful. If someone showed up with the account name 'Ad Orientem is a bleeping vulgar word for the male appendage sucker' I'd be mildly embarrassed to ask another admin to deal with it. If it doesn't rise to that level then just send it to UAA and let them deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Attack usernames should be blocked by the first admin who notices them. If that is the admin who is being attacked, that is OK. (It should be caught by others most of the time, though). —Kusma (t·c) 15:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely they should. If a user creates a username specifically to attack an admin, that admin should feel no guilt about blocking them immediately, and no one else has any right to object. That's not a good-faith content dispute, that's obnoxious, and the sign that someone isn't here to help out. How this should even be an issue is beyond me. Block away! --Jayron32 15:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not strictly on the username issue, but certain long-term abusers have targeted pretty much every admin going at some point; if you called those admins INVOLVED then there'd be no-one left to block them. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely they should. Per what filelakeshoe said, and also a user creating an attack name is so likely to be a sockpuppet that you should just go ahead and assume they are. Nothing is gained and harm is likely if an admin hesitates to block such a user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• If it's clear cut, block. We do not need to let harassers and jerks play games with our policies. When in doubt, ask. That would be my take on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, per filelakeshoe and "any reasonable admin would block". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Usernames may not contain attacks against anyone. There is no conflict in blocking them regardless of who the target it. The purpose of the "involved administrators" policy is to prevent admins from gaining an unfair advantage in a content dispute or other type of dispute. "Administrator vs. throwaway account with attack username" is not the type of "dispute" the policy has in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  This is indeed the meaning of the policy, and I normally would expect that if admin X blocks an account "X is an asshole" gets dragged to AN/ANI/ArbCom they get fully cleared. The problem is, on paper only vandalism (and I believe BLP violations) are exempt, and there are many users who read the letter of the policy very strictly. I have heard an interpretation that an RFPP admin who protects a page on request becomes involved and is not allowed to protect the same page again (which means that pretty soon some pages will run out the protection admins). And this means that in the process of clearance this hypothetical admin X will get loads of shit on them, and not everybody wants this. I would say it is safer to amend the policy exempting obvious personal attacks - OTOH admins have very different bars concerning personal attacks, and this could be dangerous as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's not what the paper says. I quoted the relevant text above, and while the only thing it mentions is "blatant vandalism", it does it explicitly as an example, not as an exhaustive list. Someone interpreting that to mean that only blatant vandalism is allowed as an exception to INVOLVED isn't interpreting the letter of policy very strictly--they're just interpreting it incorrectly. I don't think the policy needs modification. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  An interpretation that an admin protecting a page is therefore INVOLVED is just plain wrong. The policy says explicitly that uninvolved admins do not become involved by virtue of purely administrative actions, such as blocking or protecting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, they should. And such a name is vandalism, because its presence is damaging to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Admins should block every account with an attack name every-time - regardless of who is being attacked. A reasoned reading of INVOLVED, completely allows all such blocks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Vandals will often create a username of the admin who is patrolling the list of new usernames and who blocked their last abusive username minutes earlier, so it's no real surprise they are the first to see them and block them. I've always though it good practice to let other admins have a go when it becomes personal, not because of WP:INVOLVED but only in order to DNFT, but if there's none around then why delay the inevitable? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, and should be grounds enough for a sockpuppet investigation as most of these are accounts created after being blocked by an admin. -glove- (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Per not bureaucracy, admins are not bound by petty rules that an oh-so-clever LTA can exploit by logging on with a name that attacks anyone. WP:DENY is served best by the perpetrator being blocked immediately and with the minimum fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about a name which explicitly refers to a specific admin; while a name could specifically refer to 2 or 3 admins, it couldn't refer to all active admins by name (that would be too long). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Understood. I believe the situation is that admin Example is attacked by someone who creates accounts such as ExampleSucks and then posts where Example is likely to see the hilarity. Of course the first admin who sees and understands the situation should immediately block the perp. That is likely to be Example, so they should do the cleanup. That is standard WP:DENY, while posting somewhere such as WP:AN or another admin's talk would encourage the troll. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, since any reasonable administrator would do the same. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes; I can't imagine someone complaining if I had blocked User:Nyttendsucks, rather than MuZemike doing it. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Per all of the above, yes, if the username is an unequivocal violation. If any admin would be correct in taking the action, then it doesn't matter if the one taking the action is the target of the attack. bd2412 T 14:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Of course admins should be able to block accounts that have usernames that personally attack them. Let's not have ridiculous rules that enable harassment. Deli nk (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, this is not rocket science. GAB^gab 15:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes...common sense...not a bureaucracy...IAR...I'd be very happy if this didn't come up again in my lifetime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• While Intelli Spiff and Motospiff are not attack user names technically, I have no regrets blocking them as I'm pretty much the only one who acts on that sock group. Likewise I wouldn't have hesitated to block this one if I'd gotten to it on time, but someone else got to it and then a steward suppressed the account too. I get a regular stream of imitator and attack accounts from the many sock farms I block and I think it's simply futile for me to wait for someone else to catch it. In fact, there were a few such accounts created by one sock farm that no one caught, except for one IP editor 99 (who now uses various IPv6 addresses) and he reported them to AIV where it languished for a while, before I figured out what was going on -- User:SpacemanSpiff1 —SpacemanSpiff 04:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with this?

This is a request for advice, not a request for any type of sanctions. At Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, there has been since 2 October a section RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version? which I started. Until 27 October, this had received (apart from a lot of discussion) 9 supports and 2 opposes, heading for a rather clear consensus. As is usual with RfCs, voting was intensive the first few days, and all but died down near the end (one vote 14 October, one vote 25 October).

Until suddenly, between 16:03, 28 October and 09:32, 29 October, there were 4 oppose votes in a row, out of the blue, three of those by editors otherwise not active on enwiki recently (and the fourth one by a "retired" editor I have been in conflict with).

It turns out that the discussion was mentioned by User:Mike Peel (creator of the infobox version about to be reverted) mentioned this RfC at Wikidatacon 2017, a conference where you get (with regards to discussions like this one) a rather one-sided audience of course. See here for the slide with the mention. This was disclosed by Mike Peel when asked where the sudden influx of votes came from, with his remark that "Note that I did not WP:CANVAS for votes"[188]. While I believe that Mike Peel didn't explicitly ask anyone to vote "oppose" at the discussion, it is still a clear (but probably not intended as a policy violation) breach of WP:CANVASS point 3, Vote-stacking.

The end result is that suddenly an RfC which headed for a support is now looking (purely based on votecount only) as a no consensus, based on the opinions of users recruited from a pre-biased group.

How is this normally being dealt with? Adding a note to the RfC that all opinions post date X are canvassed? Hoping that the closing admin will take this into account? Striking the late votes seems harsh, but just doing nothing and letting this influence our decision making process seems unfair as well. All opinions, ideas, help are welcome! Fram (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is entirely to be expected. As SOON as Wikidata was created as a separate project, many people (myself included) forsaw these sorts of problems. Wikidata should have never existed, and it is rife for abuse of this sort. It was a terrible idea then, and it is bearing out now. My advice for a closing admin would be to treat such votes as one would treat WP:SPA voteor canvassed in an AFD: give them no weight at all. --Jayron32 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think it's reasonable to expect the closing admins to take the nature of such votes into consideration. If the closing admin closes the RfC in the less than optimal way, then the closure could be reported here at WP:AN, in which perhaps it can be discuss together to reach a collective decision. Alex Shih (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

    Well, Mike Peel did not say he gave a link to that discussion, he said he mentioned a template in his presentation - which is, as far as I am concerned, not exactly the same, and it is less clear to me that mentioning the existence of the template is canvassing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Seems strange that you reply in a section from someone you right below claimed is stalking you... Anyway, if you had looked at the link Mike Peel provided (and which I repeated in my op), you would have seen the text "{{Infobox World Heritage Site}} (depending on outcome of current RfC)". So not simply mentioning the template, but mentioning the RfC and that the existence of that template (as a Wikidata one) depended on the outcome of it. Fram (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The RFC had one bot-summoned response in the previous two weeks, then 4 opposes in 14 hours. Two of whom had zero other edits in the last month, and the other two hadn't edited in nearly a week. It is clearly abnormal, and it tripled of the number of opposes. I have no reason to believe there was any deliberate canvassing, however it was effectively publicized at a Wikidata convention. This falls under the partisan AUDIENCE notificiation portion of the canvassing guidelines. As stated in Advice_on_closing_discussions: SPAs, socks, and canvassed editors will normally get little to no weight. Any closer should think twice before giving these late-opposes much weight. Alsee (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Now the RfC expired, the discussion has to be summarized by an uninvolved suicidal volunteer (who I guess needs to be an administrator).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It only seems "suicidal" to you because you're clearly only contemplating the close you want. A consensus-support is an easy and safe result. It's not even a difficult case. Prior to being de-facto canvassed at a Wikidata convention, there was an overwhelming 82% support. After canvassing it's still majority support. Easy-peasy. Even if the artificial swarm of opposes achieved a majority it wouldn't matter. I once issued an undisputed closing consensus against a 67% majority (ten vs twenty), after I discounted the weight of a much larger canvassed swarm. Alsee (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is trivial to check that I did not vote in that RfC. Not before the incident and not after the incident. This means that I do not have an opinion either way, since I was clearly aware of it, and would have voted if I had an opinion. Which means that what you wrote is a pure assumption of bad faith against me which is not supported by facts.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you did not vote, you just made stellar comments like "Reverting improvements is vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC) " to defend the version under discussion (oh look, you commented in a discussion I started there as well, in an attempt to contradict me, perhaps I should complain that you are stalking me?) Fram (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, the issue here isn't as simple as Fram makes it sound. Yes, I mentioned the ongoing RfC in my presentation at Wikidatacon about the status of Wikidata infoboxes on enwp - it is difficult to avoid mentioning it as a milestone. I did not canvas for votes, it was up to people there to decide if they wanted to comment in it or not. The people that voted after that weren't all at Wikidatacon, only a couple of them were (and the presentation wasn't streamed on the web), so assuming that all of them came from the mention in my presentation doesn't seem accurate. It's also a month since the RfC started now, so some may have come along due to the resurgence of conversation before the RfC is closed, although that's speculation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It was very easy to avoid mentioning it of course, but you choose not to. You didn't include any of the closed TfD discussions like the one about infobox person, but you included the one open RfC, about an infobox you had created (as Wikidata version) and pushed in many articles. You did this at an event with a partisan audience (most people taking the trouble of attending something like WikidataCon are enthusiatic about Wikidata a priori). "assuming that all of them came from the mention in my presentation doesn't seem accurate" is pure speculation, and belies the coincidence of timing, type of editors (much more active on Wikidata than on enwiki) and sudden one-sidedness of the votes. "some may have come along due to the resurgence of conversation before the RfC is closed" What resurgence? The conversation was basically dead before you mentioned the RfC at Wikidatacon, and suddenly after that the conversation restarted. Votes after my post here may be caused by the "resurgence of conversation", but the opposes right before this can hardly be attributed to some non-existant "resurgence of conversation". If you want to make something simple look like something complicated, at least provide some actual facts and not wild speculation. Fram (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved admin please close this RfC? It has been open for long enough (30+ days) and seems to have gone from a reasoned discussion to something more akin to a battleground since the canvassing anyway (including some back-and-forth on attempted closes already). Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC is now closed, thanks! Fram (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, unless I missed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winged Blades of Godric, should an actual administrator close this? (Not me, I've already lobbed my 2c into the Wikidata debate) For the record, it's a pretty good close from my point of view, but as you said, the discussion has turned into something of a battleground, so I fear not everyone will be happy with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes; yes they should. Not because of the quality of the close (at all- it's nearly as good, even, as the one I had in my head :p ), but because non-admins should above all avoid closing controversial discussions. And I find it hard to imagine that this does not count as controversial (defined as "likely to be challenged"). — fortunavelut luna 12:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I never checked whether they were an admin or not... Fram (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose per NOTBURO etc., all it really needs is for our erstwhile 'uninvolved admin' (whomever they may be!) to endorse / second the close, just to copperfasten it for future? — fortunavelut luna 13:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we could ask the major opponents in the RfC (which would be Mike Peel, pigsonthewing and RexxS) to just confirm that they accept the consensus in the close, and that saves us an admin job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed  :) better you try that then. — fortunavelut luna 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

I read through that discussion yesterday and intended to close it today; my thoughts align very closely with those of Winged Blades of Godric, and so I have left a note in the closure as an administrator endorsement. GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Off topic

Temporarily closing this section in the hopes to de-escalate and prevent further discussion away from the main topic of this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that this goes in the direction of stalking. May be Fram should be topic-banned on mentioning Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Can't speak for all of Fram's edits in that topic area, but that one individually seems reasonable and raises a serious concern about Wikidata. Maybe it would be more suited to Wikidata itself, but in the context of the RfC which seems to be the impact of Wikidata on enwiki it doesn't seem unreasonable to have raised it on this project. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Is it really appropriate to write that I "promote spambots and no one checks their history or contributions either before or after this promotion"? Especially when this is clearly not the case, aka fucking lie? Especially for the audience which is not familiar with the subject?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Any reason to you defend your first personal attack ("stalking") by adding another one ("fucking lie")? Anyone can check the linked discussion to find out what "lie" that is supposed to be; you promoted a bot on Wikidata which sources soccer statistics to the website owned by the bot operator, who has no other edits, and where the "source" page doesn't contain statistics but promotion of a new cryptocurrency, where the bot owner claims collaborating with Wikipedia as credentials. So you approved a bot which uses as only reference on all the pages it creates a link to its own commercial site (selling their own new cryptocurrency), but your only problem is with the person reporting this. And somehow reporting this is "stalking"? You may be right that getting your bureaucrat flag removed on Wikidata would be impossible, but getting your admin flag removed here can happen quite suddenly if you keep up these unfounded accusations to defend your own mistakes. Fram (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Ok, go fucking ahead to arbcom and try to removed my admin flag here, which the community gave me with 99% support. Go agead.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC) No, I'll give you a chance to cool down, check you allegations, and retract them first. You are clearly very upset now, which won't last. Fram (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Ymblanter, "stalking" who exactly? I noticed the activity of that bot when checking some claims made by DannyH(WMF), for which I checked multiple bots who had edited very recently then: [189]. This specific bot I then checked a bit further, and I noted my conclusions. Please kindly explain what in that report is "stalking", or withdraw that rather serious personal attack. Perhaps also indicate what the relation is between that "stalking" edit and the RfC on another page I was discussing here, as it escapes me completely. The edit you are now complaining about doesn't deal with either Mike Peel or any of the four canvassed editors, so why bring it up here? Fram (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I gave a precise quote above to what I believe is stalking. And at the very least a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I brought it here because you apparently unable to write about Wikidata without breaking English Wikipedia policies. Which means you should just stop doing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC) You obviously have no idea what "stalking" is, which is worrying for an enwiki admin. But indeed, you at the very least leveled a personal attack or two, I'm glad you admit it. Fram (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC) No, I did not admit this, which everybody can check by just inspecting this section. So you are lying again. However, I came to the conclusion that the best way of communicating with you is to stop replying, which I will now apply to this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I was sarcastic about your multi-interpretable writing: "I gave X and at the very least a personal attack". You have not shown any personal attacks in that quote, where the second part is about Wikidata in general (the bit starting with "no one"), which leaves only the first part. The bot is clearly a spambot, which was obvious from the three (3) test edits it required to get approval (contrary, by the way, to Wikidata's bot policy, which states "The bot operator should do a test run of between 50 and 250 edits, so that the community can observe that the bot is working correctly."[190], so your claim that approval followed policy is mistaken as well). And you approved it. So which part of the claim that you "promote spambots" is wrong? You know, that bot you just blocked for "Spamming links to external sites" (your text). Thanks for taking that action, but please withdraw your personal attacks here now. Fram (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC) And this one, to be honest, reminds me of my favorite "Pls remind me why I should care about your opinion", after which one user was indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC) You seem really quite determined to dig your own hole here. You comment about me alienating you, as if I should give one fig about this. But saying that somehow will get me indef blocked? It seems that you have lost all sense of perspective here. Fram (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I do not see where I suggested to indef Fram. Definitely not here. It looks like they just do not read what I write.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:IamIRAQI

Hello, can any administrator review notability of the articles created by User:IamIRAQI? --Alaa :)..! 17:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can check and confirm the notability of article subjects, in fact that's a core part of Wikipedia. I've had a look at a few of them and so far they seem fine to me. They're about various middle eastern political figures, TV networks, singers, etc. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was, rightly, SNOW closed as "no way!" Reyk _YO! 13:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Closed? Yes. Rightfully? I'm not so sure. The question was a given. Whether asking it should result in any specific change of wording in policy was not so much. GMG^talk 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the close does kinda seem to overlook that important part of the question. -- Begoon 14:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....Agree with Begoon. In that case, this edit may need to be reverted.On more expenditure of thoughts, I would have prefered more discussion on the wording and a minimum run-time of 24 hrs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah GOL. Might not be a bad idea to self revert that, and if User:cyberpower678 doesn't wan't to reconsider their close (especially given that there have also been two post close comments already), then it may be time to take the discussion to WT:COI. GMG^talk 14:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done.And assert that WT:COI would be the best place to fine-tune the wordings and/or continue the disc.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:An_alternate_account_not_called_dave

This is an alt account of mine, but I can't find/remember the password. Please block it, therefore, as I will not be using it again. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Need closure of a merge discussion

Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Alpha (anthology series)#Merger proposal. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm...Came back to the topic after quite a span.Would a close be prudential or something sort of an RFC?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN wars

Several editors, most prominently BlackJack (talk · contribs) and Rhadow (talk · contribs), have been engaged in heated disputes regarding Wikipedia's coverage of Sri Lankan cricketers. I have tried to propose a consensus solution, and have failed to do so. I intend to withdraw from all discussions on this topic for the immediate future.

I suggest that an admin should close all the currently-open cricket AfDs (the most recent nominations being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players) as No Consensus. There is clearly a wider dispute for which no clear consensus exists at this time.

Further, I propose that the involved editors be prohibited from making any cricket-related AfDs until a wider consensus is reached on the existing disputes. I am unsure of the correct forum, but WT:CRIC will probably work. I would prefer to let someone with a vested interest in the debate open any voluntary mediation process. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed -- I shant make any more cricket-related mainspace edits until there is is consensus. No prohibition is required. Yes. I have PRODded and sent to AfD articles with database-derived articles (no English press found) on cricketers that have made only one appearance. When put to AfD, others agree these articles fail WP:BLP1E. I posted two model articles I believed would meet everyone's needs. One was deleted. The second one likely shall be. The subject is getting plenty of discussion at WT:CRIC. Let someone else propose a workable solution -- one that does not assume that all subjects are notable and that cricket is not subject to WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that these two slapdash stopgap solutions are being seen as unacceptable is proof that they are probably unhelpful to the project. I would like opinions from someone not involved with the cricket Wikiproject to tell me - would an article based on a team which no longer plays first-class cricket be likely to be deleted as long as it was complete? Eastern Punjab has not existed since 1966, and last played Ranji Trophy cricket in the 1959-60 season. If I set up an article on List of Eastern Punjab players, in the same vein as List of Evansville Crimson Giants players, would this be likely to be deleted as long as it was comprehensive? Bobo. 23:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And you are probably 82% of the problem because you persistently misrepresent guidelines like BLP1E and, shall we say, state blatant untruths about sources in such a way that some inexperienced or unknowledgeable editors at AfD could easily be misled into supporting your recommendation. Would anyone like to see the long list of instances? For now, I'll give a couple of quick examples. BLP1E expressly excludes anyone subject to NSPORTS and yet, as he is still doing here, Rhadow insists that BLP1E is actionable in those cases. The CricketArchive site, which is tertiary in terms of its content, is widely used by WP:CRIC for convenience and it is entirely WP:RS for matches, teams and players in the 20th and 21st centuries. Rhadow has on a few occasions, despite being corrected, declared that it is a primary source. Whatever his agenda is, it is not being presented in accordance with site principles. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how many people would complain "but we have no idea who put cricketarchive/cricinfo together therefore how can we have any kind of knowledge over whether the information is independently verifiable by a named source..?" Surely that's true of any American sporting database too..? Bobo. 22:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

All they have to do is look at the sites to see they are independent, They are news and information collation efforts with tertiary content. Similar American sites do likewise. Indeed, isn't ESPNcricinfo an American site itself? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Why not name all the "prominent" editors? I think the discussion should include User:Bobo192 on the one side (with me) and User:Reyk, User:Blue Square Thing and User:Dee03 on the other (with Rhadow), plus an open invitation to all members of WP:CRIC via WT:CRIC. The essential problem is how to interpret the totally ambigious GNG which is completely at odds with subject specific criteria right across WP, although the issue has come to a head in terms of GNG vis-à-vis WP:CRIN, specifically re cricketers in Sri Lanka who need WP:NEXIST given a shortage of pre-internet English sources and their reliance for "notability" on Sinhalese sources.

And I propose that no one with less than, say, 30k edits should be allowed anywhere near AfD, CfD, TfD or suchlike. Seriously. We have a major issue around people who are bent on deleting articles and justifying their desire by means of guideline misrepresentation. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If people simply had kept to the insultingly simple rule of WP:CRIN (especially since the two main notability "guidelines" contradict each other), we wouldn't be in this mess. It's that simple. If someone who knew nothing about baseball or American football were to AfD an article on a onetime baseball or American football player, they would be shouted at from all sides, probably blocked for disruption, severely castigated and topic-banned from the project.

If someone is going to come along and say that CRIN isn't perfect, the fact that it is single-rule bright-line criteria proves that it is the only logical criterion to work to. CRIN has served us well for (ten?) years and hasn't done us wrong until now. People have been complaining all this time the cricket Wikiproject has been pushing an inclusionist agenda, but if this were any other sport this wouldn't be an issue. Bobo. 22:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

CRIN complies with NBASE, NFOOTY and others re a single top-level appearance. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade will not accept that or the fact of WP:NEXIST re non-English sources for qualifying cricketers in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc. whose sources are Sinhalese, Bengali, etc. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

People complain that Cricket Archive and/or Cricinfo should not count as links by themselves, I wonder how many American footballer bios quote just https://www.pro-football-reference.com (or similar) and none other. Bobo. 22:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking only from considering notability issues, as long as there is 1) agreement that CRIN (which I believe is part of NSPORT) has generally been accepted as a subject-specific guideline, and specifically the one criteria that allows one pro game to presume notability and 2) that Cricket Archive/Cricinfo or Pro-Football-Reference.com are RS that meet WP:V, then the presumption of notability is met and we allow the standalone article. However, these can be deleted if someone shows that there is no additional sources (ideally secondary) about these players, following the required steps at WP:BEFORE. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that two independently compiled sources, two of the most comprehensive, most reliable, independent websites on the Internet may be considered "not enough" is proof of how far backwards this project has come. Bobo. 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's prove enough to meet the presumed notability by CRIN (the base verificaiton the player played a pro match), but not enough to meet a quality article, so a valid WP:BEFORE challenge to show no additional sourcing exists or is likely to come into existence is completely fair to challenge the presumption of notability and have it deleted.

To that end, one then needs to ask how much of a search needs to be done. To take the lead example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam, this is a player who's pro career was all within the "Internet age" - if this was an American pro footballer, and otherwise the same situation (only sourced to respected stats pages), and I cannot find anything about in on a thorough Google search, that meets WP:BEFORE. However, we're talking someone from Sri Lanka, and I believe they aren't as connected as the US or Europe. So in that AFD, the claim no sources exist without evidence of doing a paper search (eg going to local Sri Lanka libraries) is not a valid BEFORE claim, so the AFD can be considered bad. If these editors are engaging in such a pattern - where they are not following BEFORE properly to demonstrate a lack of sources, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Presumed" is a tricky word because it has two opposing meanings depending on precisely who is "presuming", and on what grounds. If the claim is that we are asserting without proof, (sense 3), this is clearly untrue, as long as "proof" incorporates "secondary sources". Admittedly this is only one sense of the word and renders the other senses tricky to assert. Bobo. 00:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:N establishes "presumed" as equivalent to rebuttable presumption. If you can minimally prove a topic meets the GNG or SNG, we allow the stand alone article to give it time to develop into a proper article, as we presume this possible. If someone else shows that that expansion effectively cannot be done by showing a thorough lack of any possible source (eg WP:BEFORE) , then our presumption was wrong and we allow for deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem, one of the biggest issues we have is the refusal of Rhadow and his ilk to accept WP:NEXIST. As far as Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi players are concerned, they are top-level players about whom the needed information is in Sinhalese or Bengali sources. We even proved, via a contact in Colombo, that information about one player could be enhanced by reference to a Sinhalese newspaper. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I know Facebook is a crap "source" but I wonder if I wonder if I were to contact some kind of page on Assam cricket team, they would be able to provide me with sources to find the name of a player who made a single appearance (making the assumption that a player who played in the 1995-96 season is still alive and therefore traceable). Bobo. 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And I would add that I have found a THIRD source re all these players in a book published by a cricket history society who are themselves RS. Needless to say, the don't like it mob are trying to ignore that one. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not complaining towards you Jack, just thinking of something that makes me smile, I wish WP:NEXIST didn't exist as an abbreviation because it makes it sound to me like the guideline is "subject must exist". ;) Bobo. 23:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bad acronym or whatever. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a question. It's been claimed in the past that the cricket Wikiproject exhibits something of a "walled garden" (list of articles whose only internal references within the site are to each other), but wouldn't that be true of everyone? After all, if we were to claim that the former NFL player Dave Smith (name invented for purpose) liked birdwatching, this would be considered simply trivial material... Bobo. 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I have been named here, if any progress is made on resolving this could someone let me know please. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that many of these articles are suitable as stand-alone articles if they are based on purely statistical entries, and especially if they don't allow for the player's full name to be determined. I have several reasons for that. Firstly, this approach dilutes minimal content over a multitude of unnecessary articles. Secondly, and more importantly, inflating raw numbers into prose has the potential to introduce factual errors. I've seen some of these microstubs assert that a player has retired, or is still living, when there's nothing in the source to say that. I've seen ambiguous cases where it wasn't clear whether it was two different people playing one game for two different clubs, or the same person switching teams. All of this is a problem from a WP:BLP standpoint. Thirdly, I maintain that a better way to get use out of these statistical entries is to present them in the form of lists of players by club, because all the data could be presented and nothing new would be introduced by trying to write prose around raw numbers- and you'd also get the ability to compare players quickly and easily which you can't currently do with the diffuse cloud of microstubs.

Unfortunately, much of the problem is behavioural. WP:CRIC is rather toxic, with most of the hostility coming from Bobo and Blackjack. Anyone who disagrees with their views on inclusion is presented as either malicious or stupid, and usually both. I think this discussion on WT:CRIC is illuminating; at the first sign of disagreement Bobo taunts and belittles the dissenter until he succeeds in provoking an outburst, at which point he proclaims victory. If I took my concerns to WT:CRIC it would certainly end up the same way (except that I know not to allow myself to be baited this time). That's the primary reason this dispute is played out at AfDs and ANI- you can't go to the WP:CRIC people with a contrary opinion without them hooting and throwing poo at you. Meanwhile BlackJack is placing bogus warnings on people's talk pages so he can then flood AfDs with frivolous points of order and yelling "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED!", and spamming the mainspace with what can only be described as wikiproject propaganda. Seriously, this drivel is three times longer than the article. If you need to devote three times as many words to explaining why a subject should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V than you can actually say about the subject, then it does not belong in the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 06:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - if people were able to follow insultingly simple-to-understand inclusion criteria, none of this would have become an issue. Bobo. 09:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the "guidelines" are basic or not. It's that they lead to a proliferation of very low quality articles and the inevitable introduction of errors into the mainspace. The problem isn't that people don't understand your "guideline", as you keep incorrectly insisting, it's that they quite rightly disagree with it. From what you've said below, it seems that you intend to keep ridiculing and insulting people simply for having different opinions and, what's worse, you state that merely disagreeing with you is enough to make them a net negative on the project. Obviously, this is ludicrous. Reyk _YO! 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If the articles are "low-quality", improve them. If you are unable to improve them, then there is no need to complain about their quality because, judging by the sources available, the articles are of the best quality we can get with the information we have right now. There are hundreds of Test cricketers(!) with crap articles including dozens without sources, as I've pointed out on WT:CRIC. Aren't these what you should be complaining about? Bobo. 10:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, all of that deserves a full reply but I don't have time right now and will be back later. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly if they don't deserve articles based on simply "statistical entries", and those who complain are unwilling to do the work to fix this, then as a project we are not the problem. If you are unwilling to improve the project then the project itself is not the problem.

As for my behavioural problems, I apologized back in mid-September when I first snapped and I can do nothing but apologize now. A couple of things were going on then which I wish hadn't been going on when the issues themselves had initially flared up, and if the two hadn't coincided, nothing of this mess would have occurred in the first place. A friend of mine had passed away, I was going through crappy medical issues, and everything got on top of me. I don't respond well to outside pressure and unfortunately, it exploded at the wrong time and in the wrong place. I genuinely wish it hadn't.

Secondly, an article is never to be based on its content but on its suitability for the project. And if we are agreed that the article meets standards according to guidelines (from now on I'm always going to apply WP:5P - thanks Jack for pointing this out - as the two most often-quoted guidelines are essentially contradictory nonsense...) this wouldn't have turned into an issue.

Thirdly, it's odd that a lot of people who say, "This is unsuitable for Wikipedia, get rid lol!" have been prepared to offer an alternative solution which is workable and involves no form of NPOV breaching. Frankly if these people are unwilling to offer an alternative solution, then I don't think their argument stands up and I think we're absolutely fine working to the guidelines we've been working to for all these years (worth noting that those who disagree with this guideline are suspiciously new to the project and had no say in the curation or upkeep of any guidelines - which have changed over time, so it's not as if we're resistant to change).

The solution to the argument over cricketing articles is simple. If people worked to a single, simple, NPOV guideline, one single major cricketing appearance, this wouldn't have even become an issue. As I've quoted elsewhere, I truly believe that if those who were offering up cricketing articles which they full well know reach inclusion criteria, were doing so for an NFL, NHL, NBA or MLB article, they would be severely castigated and ostracized by the project.

As for "taunting and belittling", I'm not sure of a polite way I can put this, but it basically comes down to the same thing I said above. If you are unable to conform to insultingly basic inclusion criteria guidelines, then you are a net deficit to almost any part of the project and are pushing POV on the Internet's most high-profile NPOV resource. Bobo. 09:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How does your last point tally with WP:5P4? If someone doesn't agree with you, it does not mean they are a deficit to the project. You cannot justify your comments by further use of pejorative language Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Last point"? "If you are unable to conform to insultingly basic inclusion criteria guidelines, then you are a net deficit to the project"? We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To do this you need guidelines based on bright-line criteria. If you are unwilling to work to bright-line criteria in order to create an encyclopedia, you are a net drain on the project because you are here to push an agenda. Bobo. 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your last point where you justify insulting people because they disagree with you, which is in direct contravention of the Pillars you are newly fond of. Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. "If you are unwilling to work to bright-line criteria in order to create an encyclopedia, you are a net drain on the project because you are here to push an agenda." I said nothing about "disagreeing". Bobo. 10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And as far as being "newly fond of" something, that is true but irrelevant. That's like saying I'm "newly fond of" the latest Super Mario Bros game and thus won't come out of my bedroom to do anything else for the next 17 hours. Bobo. 10:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You throw insults at people who disagree with you in discussions about these bright line criteria. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the fact that you still think I've insulted anyone. Bobo. 10:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

So how would you describe these two comments if not insulting or belittling: "Any adults with opinions on this matter please? Bobo. 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)" and "Usually I would argue that by acting like an ignorant thug you are insulting your own intelligence. Sadly in your case I don't think that's true. Bobo. 21:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)" Spike 'em (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I said both of those things. I was looking for opinions from other people. And I received them. Job's a good 'un. Bobo. 10:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And you don't think they are insulting then, or do you only apply policies when they suit you? You are quite disparaging of others when they fail to follow mere guidelines. Spike 'em (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

They are fairly simple guidelines to follow. First-class, List A, major cricket, in. Not first-class, List A, major cricket, out. How much simpler do you want them to be? Bobo. 11:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The simplicity of the guidelines is not the issue, it is your attitude towards people who disagree with you. I will repeat the question : Do you think your comments are not insulting, or are you ignoring policies you don't like? Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. This is what this whole conversation is about, as per the topic subject. If you're not willing to engage in this conversation, then please exit. Bobo. 11:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. It is clear you don't want to answer my question, from which I am choosing to infer that you only apply policies which suit you. Goodbye Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice knowing you. See you. Soon, no doubt. :) Bobo. 11:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I'm still short of time, I'm afraid, but I will say that Bobo has no need at all to apologise to this editor (i.e., Reyk) who is, as usual, twisting the facts and blaming everyone but himself. Where did all the bad feeling begin re the Sri Lankan player coverage? Well, it was with this statement by Reyk, including: "I'm honestly starting to wonder if this whole article and DRV is not just an experiment to see how much bullshit one can get away with around here". He was warned about his attitude by one of the senior admins and, soon afterwards, he responded to another CRIC member with this and restates his bad faith accusation by saying that he "can genuinely only wonder what games are being played here". That is bang out of order. No one else was accusing us of bad faith so what was his agenda?

Moving on to the next section of the Perera AfD, opened by Dweller with this comment. All perfectly reasonable and yet it produces first, this response from Reyk in which he sarcastically states: "I think I made that clear earlier, but since you weren't paying attention I'll repeat myself". He goes on about NCRIC being "strongly disputed" and I would ask who by? Apart from him, nobody. Others, like St Anselm who was CRIC's main opponent in the discussion, raised questions about that particular player but certainly did not strongly dispute a project guideline that was created by WP:CONSENSUS, is maintained and updated by consensus and exists (through NSPORTS and numerous AfD cases) by consensus. Dweller then challenged one of his statements and finds himself being called a "jerkass" in the edit summary of this odious response which includes "really fucking petty, even for you". Dweller justifiably responded with this ANI warning, including the sound advice that "ad-hominem stuff doesn't belong anywhere on WP". Surely no one would disagree with that. No one except Reyk, that is, who replies to Dweller with this. The most offensive part of that is actually "erroneous sources". The sources are genuine. No argument about that at all. As, indeed, Dweller tells him.

Reyk's attitude to consensus is then highlighted by this instant endorsement of an unauthorised (and ludicrous) change of WP:NCRIC by someone called Müdigkeit. This amendment had the effect of declaring all first-class cricketers including the likes of W. G. Grace, Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers to fail WP:NSPORTS and so rely on GNG only for notability. Absolutely ridiculous and this is where we might begin to think in terms of WP:CIR, unless of course something more sinister is afoot. It is at this point that Lugnuts puts himself into the Reyk firing line because he reverts NCRIC "until there's a consensus to change it". The change was reverted and the resultant discussion at the NSPORTS talk page resoundingly opposed the change (note that the precise wording of NCRIC was later modified to be in synch with CRIN).

I could go on with plenty of other examples of Reyk's "behavioural" activity, including recent wikistalking, but I think anyone who reads what he has to say above should be aware that poor little Reyk is by no means the innocent party.

As I say, I am rather short of time today because of the good old real world but I do have much more to say about Reyk's accusations. I would, in the meantime, challenge him to find one single "microstub" (what a ridiculous piece of jargon – a stub is a stub) created by me personally in which I have "inflated raw numbers into prose" and in which I have asserted that a player has "retired" without a source. The "retired" thing is a typical example of Reyk's tendency to misrepresent the facts. Every biographical entry in ESPNcricinfo includes the player's first-class career span and this is only incomplete if he is, obviously, a current player. If ESPNcricinfo says the span was 1992–1994, then we know that the player retired from first-class cricket in 1994 having debuted in 1992. This does not mean he has retired from ALL cricket and the guy might still be playing for his local village club as a fifty-something leg spinner. See the difference and see how Reyk is trying to twist the facts to suit his WP:POINT?

I'll be back later. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We can only go by information based on our secondary sources and if they say that the player retired from first-class cricket in 1994, this is what we quote. Is there still such a thing as the over-50s County Championship? Perhaps the cricketer will later play in this tournament. Does this render them still "retired"? Bobo. 10:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack, the basic definition of a "micro-stub" according to the people using this term is "an article which only states known facts and statistical data based on the two main sources we have available to us, and doesn't include any nonsense point-of-view expansion". It's sad that this has become a problem. Bobo. 10:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack, when you get back can you help me out with something? Can you think of an example where the "status" of a match or group of matches has changed over time? I'm thinking of matches which within "recent-ish" times have been upgraded from non-first-class to first-class status - thereby meaning that certain cricketers, let's say, A. Smith, have become retroactively "notable". (Now that I think about it, I'm assuming this guy is an example). Bobo. 10:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you remember in the Back to the Future trilogy how Marty McFly would get irrationally angry if someone called him "chicken", causing him to do all sorts of stupid, self defeating things? Especially puzzling, because Marty was definitely not chicken. It used to be the same thing with me and being called a hypocrite. But Marty got over it eventually, and so did I. Realising that the goal is typically to get me riled up helped, of course. Now, what we had in the Perera AfD was another editor implying that I was a hypocrite for remaining a member of WP:CRIC while disagreeing with one of its directives. Completely preposterous, of course, but my response to this snark was less than ideal. I certainly wouldn't respond in the same way today, though I still think it was petty, opportunistic gotcha-ism (and from an arbitrator, no less. astonishing). Also, this extremely long, boring, and erroneous shopping list of my alleged crimes had precisely zero impact when you were trying to get User:Black Kite to block me, so I'm unsure why you think it would have any traction now. At least you've stopped trying to get me banned for such crimes as having a lower edit count than you, or leaving WP:CRIC, or asking to be left alone. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Back to the Future, I think (copyvio link removed) is important. It has nothing to do with this thread, but I think this went off the rails (when it hit 88mph - chuckle) a while back. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: please don't link to copyright violations. Fram (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going to click on it anyway. For all I knew it was a rickroll or NSFW. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the subject, are we? Bobo. 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me. If you haven't figured out by now that I cannot be baited anymore... Reyk _YO! 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, if you have to change the subject in order to try and prove a point, then that's your own choice. Bobo. 11:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Don't have the time to go through the entire conversation here, but Reyk has quite succinctly made the point I wanted to. These articles clearly fail GNG and most do not have the rudimentary information which the readers would be expecting to find in a biographical article. There is no source to even verify if we have their correct names, except for the routine coverage in statistical databases like ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive. If the scorers made a spelling mistake during the only match of the player, we'd be reproducing the same misspelling here on a grander scale. These sources do get the spelling wrong all the time especially for players from the Indian subcontinent. I remember moving Brainder Sran to Barinder Sran a few weeks before he made his international debut. Keep in mind Sran had played multiple first-class matches at the time both these sources had his spelling wrong. I found the spelling to be extremely unusual and did some Googling to confirm my suspicion that both these "reliable" sources had made the same spelling mistake, and moved the article to the spelling I found on newspaper sources (which is now reflecting in these two sources as well). There are multiple similar instances which come to mind. Now here we have hundreds of single-match player articles which are turning mere database entries into two lines worth of prose. User:BlackJack has been throwing around his WP:NEXIST argument in every discussion. If he actually READ the whole thing, he would have noticed the line at the end which says, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Surely 9 years can be considered enough time passed for these sources to surface? Dee03 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also linking recently closed AfDs in which the closing admins agreed with these points and concluded that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Amaranath
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid Saleem
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Indika
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Bandujeewa

P.S. I have nothing against the cricket project. In fact I am a member of the project and have written hundreds of cricket articles. Dee03 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

GNG is, sadly, rendered nonsense by the fact that alternative guidelines exist elsewhere which directly contradict it - including WP:N itself. "If the scorers made a spelling mistake", then we'd still be working towards secondary source material, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, as you have quite rightly noted regarding Barinder Sran. As for "whether we have the correct names", how is that different from any article on any other person? As a sidepoint, I remember having to check several different sources to get the accurate spelling of Michael Bolochoweckyj, as there were a ridiculous number of misspellings elsewhere on the interwebs... As for single-match players being turned into prose, this is because the guidelines say that single-match players are notable, and in the 13 years I have been contributing this hasn't changed. I'm not sure what people expect to see other than prose. Like Jack, I was very confused by WP:NEXIST at first! I expected something with the abbreviation of WP:NEXIST to say that "notability is based on whether the individual exists"! ;) But I'm digressing.

NCRIC is the only logical yardstick to work towards, and to do otherwise is working directly against NPOV. Bobo. 15:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point you raise regarding "Brainder" Sran. It proves my point that both Cricinfo and CricketArchive are not as infallible as we keep getting told, as well as confirming my suspicion that one source cribs wholesale from the other. So much for "independent". Copying the same errors is kind of like a trap street of bungling. As for Jack's long-winded point that a person's reported first-class span definitively determines whether they're retired or not, I say "what rot!" Consider a fringe player who made it to the firsts, perhaps as a teenager, for one match and then got dropped again. Five or ten years later he might still be toiling away in lower leagues hoping for a second call-up. It wouldn't be fair to describe this person as "retired", but that's exactly the kind of error that can be introduced when you try to turn a couple of cells in an excel spreadsheet into prose. Reyk _YO! 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that depends precisely what that first-class span is... if there was a cricketer whose first-class span was from, say, 1947 - 49, I think it's safe to say they will have retired..! As for "a fringe player who made it to the firsts, perhaps as a teenager, for one match and then got dropped again. Five or ten years later he might still be toiling away in lower leagues hoping for a second call-up", would you mind citing an example please? Bobo. 16:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Outdenting (convenience break)

Okay, let's drop this subject because it's clearly not going anywhere. There are hundreds of Test cricket players with crap articles, including dozens with zero or unsatisfactory sources. Let's get back to improving those instead of constantly having the same discussions about the same issues about the same articles which still conform to the same inclusion criteria we've worked to for the last decade. Please may I suggest, Reyk, that you work on these? If you're complaining about one set of niche articles which meet inclusion and citation criteria but are not complaining about our most basic subset of biography articles, then something is sadly amiss. After all, improving articles is much more therapeutic, right? Bobo. 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I am glad you agree that BlackJack's weird litany of complaints against me is off topic and not requiring a response. But I don't feel that I need to be actively working on one set of articles to be allowed an opinion on the poor state of others. I don't want to cricket articles because I don't think WP:CRIC is really open to collaboration given your track record of screeching relentlessly at anyone who doesn't toe the line unquestioningly. If you acknowledge that a lot of important cricket articles are rubbish, why not improve them instead of creating another bunch of terrible, unimportant ones? I've often observed that, the worse the article, the more ridiculously overblown the defense of it. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. One major cricket match. That's a very simple rule to understand. That is all the "defence" which is needed. If there are bored exclusionists out there who refuse, out of stubbornness, to understand basic, consistent, article inclusion criteria, this isn't the fault of the project. If you don't believe WP:CRIC is open to collaboration, then please don't collaborate on it any further. And don't prove yourself a hypocrite by doing otherwise... Bobo. 13:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Point of matter: we do not have any inclusion guidelines. No topic is guaranteed an article on WP just by virtue of that topic (the sole excepting being geographic places by nature of us being a gazetteer). It is all about sourcing, and that's why we have the presumption of notability to allow for a standalone article on these types of players in hopes they can be expanded in the future. It is definitely not good to think of WP:N or the GNG or SNG as inclusion guidelines, that leads to many mistakes in how to handle such articles. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources exist on all these articles, and therefore that is not an issue. If you would rather "External links" be replaced with a heading entitled "Sources" or "References", then this is easily fixed. We now have much more pressing issues to face than arguing article notability, and that's sourcing on articles which are obviously notable but have no sourcing. Bobo. 14:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of meeting the SNG (CRIN here), we just need something that meets WP:V that proves the criteria is met by a reliable source. It appears we're assuming these cricket stats sites are RSes, so while the link to said individuals are currently ELs, that should be sufficient for the V-meeting SNG to allow for the stand-alone article. Once that article is credits, the proper means to challenge the presumption at AFD is to show a valid search through possible sources to show no further coverage exists, eg the WP:BEFORE metric. That requires those seeking deletion to make a reasonable thorough search of where these players may be covered (which, for Sri Lankan cricketers, is most likely going to be local Sri Lankan newspapers, most likely; Google searching is likely not going to be sufficient). If one does not do this but still nominates articles based on lack of notability, that's a bad faith nomination. The onus is one those nominating to show they can't find sources. If they have shown an exhaustive attempt to find source and legitimately come up with none, then the onus falls to those wanting to keep to find sources, but the nominator has to do the bulk of the heavy work first before that point. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems I have seen come up especially in recent PROD debates is WP:ONESOURCE. If the person who had sent the article(s) to PROD would simply point this out quietly, then every article could have a second source added, quietly and with zero controversy. Bobo. 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me, Masem, I hadn't fully read this point and you make a good point. If "the onus is one those nominating to show they can't find sources", and if those sources are right in front of their nose, there is something wrong. Bobo. 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive my lateness, I had a life to lead... You don't want to what cricket articles? Verb please. Once again you have demonstrated an unwillingness to help with the project, which is very disappointing. As for "toeing the line", I think you should be slightly less believing that there is any kind of "line" to be toed. If the general complaint is that the cricket articles are rubbish, rather than that they don't belong, we are in the wrong place, addressing the wrong topic. Let's address the fact that we have articles to improve, or admit that we have no interest improving them. Which, after months of random attacks on articles based on the same boring WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria, are getting old. Trust me. They're getting old. I have no interest in pursuing this further. Bye. Bobo. 13:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there are "hundreds of Test cricket players with crap articles" should be more the reason to NOT have thousands of crappy single first-class appearance cricketers' articles which are nothing but WP:PERMASTUBs and orphans. The time spent on searching for sources and debating whether or not such unverifiable players are notable is better spent on improving articles of those hundreds of Test cricketers who definitely meet GNG.

In case anyone is wondering if there are literally thousands of such single first-class appearance cricketers' articles, please have a look at my sandbox. These are just the players I found whose first names and DOBs are unknown. And it's just for players of two countries. I didn't even look for those articles which do have either or both, first name and DOB, but still fail GNG, and, trust me, there are literally thousands of those. We have a serious problem here. Dee03 15:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely, though, we should be working as much towards making all these Test cricketer articles, some of which haven't been improved in as long a time as it took people (up to twelve years) to decide they didn't approve of the articles that people are, apparently these days, foursquare against. Bobo. 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This type of concern was raised years ago when someone observed there were literally 10,000s of articles on association football (soccer) players that were stubby, some created by bot from stats tables. While that latter is problematic, the main issue basically came down to a core SNG in NSPORTS, that a player that has played at least one professional game is going to be presumed notable, due to the assertion that to get to a professional level requires some career merits of note prior to being a professional (college/higher education sports teams, or notable performance in amateur/minor league teams). This has been a point of contention at NSPORT for some time, but the editors there, at least for association football, American football, and baseball, have generally show that if you give them a stubby article, they can find sources to push it more into line with the GNG. What should be done here if this is of concern for cricket (which , from my observations, is big in countries like India and that region where they do not have a strongly digitized media nor a wide amount of media, in contrast to the UK, Europe, and the US), is to randomly select 20 or so stubby articles on cricketers from across the board and see if interested editors are able to improve them. If most can, then CIRN is reasonable. If most can't, then CIRN is not reasonable and should be removed, even if it was meant to align with the main NSPORT guidance. This experiment would need some time (a few months) and make sure to be coordinated with editors that can find and work with local sources to make sure that side is met - can't just do this from Google. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sadly it was not raised strongly enough as, after all these years, there are still so many of the most essential cricket articles with these problems, let alone every single article which has been sent to AfD recently which is fully sourced as per our usual sources. Bobo. 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I have addressed a point you made above just in case it gets lost in all these other conversations! Bobo. 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem and others, to but in for a moment here - the issue with trying to develop cricket stubs is that sometimes you can and sometimes, well, you really can't. For example, I've recently worked on:

• Leonard Hamilton (cricketer) (21 FC matches in England 1890-1893) - where there was plenty that could be done, although very little of it about cricket. The nature of cricket, particularly anyone who played before about 1950, is that there are often other things that can be written about them.
• William Hargreaves (cricketer) (1 FC match in England 1893) - very little beyond matches played that could be done
• Frederick Hassan (1 FC match 1879) - very little indeed - he's one I want to test by visiting some archives in Maidstone and Canterbury at some point
• Henry Hayman (2 FC matches 1879) - a shed load that could be done, but, again, not all that much of it is about cricket
• Sid Hearn (32 FC matches 1922 - 1926) - very little indeed that I could fine, although I suspect, given the number of matches he played, that there should be more out there.

It really depends when you're working on this sort of era - and that's in England. There might be more out there - Hassan and Hearn should be a good test of that as the archives are pretty decent and if I can't find anything on them then I'd be confident that in some cases we do have a problem. It's much easier for modern players because of the ways in which news reporting has changed in the UK, although being dead often guarantees at least a Wisden obituary which really helps. I don't know how this sort of reporting would apply, however, in other parts of the world. Was there the same sort of coverage in, say, the Sri Lankan media in the 1970s as there was in the UK at the same time? I would be slightly concerned if we were to make an assumption that there was without knowing.

Anyway, that's that Ping's appreciated if there's anything anyone wants to respond to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Dee, please consider retitling those lists on your page. Those cricketers are not of "dubious notability", as you claim. They simply do not have their full names and dates available. There is a significant difference there, and to describe them as "dubious notability" is... dubious. Every single one of those articles meets WP:CRIN. If it's CRIN you have a problem with, then we're not dealing with anything to do with "dubious notability". As per tags such as {{nofootnotes}} - if people would rather these articles of "dubious notability" had footnotes instead of external links, please edit the articles to fix this. Force of habit from me, and I am willing to apologize for this. But not for making and defending articles for which it is insultingly obvious that they reach CRIN. Bobo. 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I like Masem's idea of running an experiment over a period of a few months. I think it would give a much clearer picture of how good a guideline CRIN is than spamming AfDs which seems to have been done in the last little while and only gives editors a week. I reckon those in the cricket project who agree with the current standards would be able to make a fair go of it. I once wrote most of Ken Hall (footballer) which got to GA to demonstrate WP:AFL's notability guidelines. If such an experiment were run it would great if we have an equal emphasis on all cricket-playing regions, not just Sri Lankan players from the 1980s where sources do exist but are so hard to find online and in English. Otherwise we are just amplifying our systematic bias. Jenks24 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• List of some of the open discussions in which the issue is precedence of WP:CRIN v WP:GNG
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dhanayake
  • Liyana de Silva
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujith Fernando
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenura Caldera
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Closure_of_List_of_lesser-known_Sri_Lankan_cricketers
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Are_you_happy_with_WP:CRIN.3F
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#WP:CRIN_change_proposal

• Hello Bobo -- A couple of discussions closed, but I saw no consensus. I found a few problems with team lists, just like Panadura. Other editors, including Jevansen and Eno Lirpa used their CricketArchive subscriptions to make excellent fixes. They have taken a different approach than you. They describe some players as less notable, and leave them off team lists. Rhadow (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the ping. :) Almost everything is fine then. Not gonna quibble about what we're gonna lose at this rate. What's the problem of breaking further an already broken project? I'm trying to distract myself by doing other things right now. Putting my music back together has distracted me from most real-life situations. Bobo. 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow Sorry but what do you want from me? I do not have any archive subscription. I have skimmed the all of above and it seems like a WP:LAME going nowhere fast of non consensual perennialism. I am happy to add to the debate if anyone can put some specific points to me. Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

AKMHS School, Poochatty

I need a review of this short article. My edits have been reverted by an IP. I do not want to start an edit war. There are way too many pictures, and a link to another language Wikipedia. Before I get into severely fixing the issue, I would like an opinion from other parties.. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I took the pictures out, but I guess that now makes me involved so I'll have to hush up for the rest of this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As I am involved too I can't be too harsh on this guy, however well intended he may be. It reeked of promotion. You did take out more than I had. I thinks it is a better stub now. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC for global ban for User:INeverCry

As per requirements here, I inform the community that I have proposed a global ban of User:INeverCry at m:Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

Nfitz (talk · contribs)

Nfitz was blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE by Berean Hunter at 18:31, 14 October 2017. The situation that led to the block can be seen here, and the assessment for this block was explained at 1 and 2. The subsequent discussions can all still be seen at User talk:Nfitz#October 2017. I have discussed with the blocking admin about a possible block review (see User talk:Berean Hunter#About Nfitz), and came to an agreement that a review by the community to obtain a consensus would be a reasonable idea.

So the question here is, should Nfitz be blocked, and if so, what would be the appropriate block length? Alex Shih (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Please voice your opinion here.
• Endorse block The wall-to-wall nonsense behind ANI September 2017 and User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows the editor's presence is a very strong negative for the project. As I wrote in the ANI archive, who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Nfitz has been a problematic editor for almost a decade, particularly around football-related deletion discussions where they have wasted a huge amount of editors' time over the years. The recent violations of their Wikipedia-space topic ban by editing football-related AfDs means the block was fully justified IMO. Number 57 09:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block - based on talk page. Never heard of this person before now, but they certainly don't need to be near any BLP or political article, and their feigning ignorance on BLP violations (after being warned by multiple admin beforehand) strikes me as disingenuous. That would be consistent with the block rationale, that their motives are not in line with our objectives and their presence is a distraction for good faith editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to 3 months per Alex Shih below. I don't think Nfitz deserves a NOTHERE block. They are undoubtedly time-consuming to deal with (read their talk page if you dare) and they have indisputably violated a topic ban only implemented in early September (diff, diff, diff). I think on those grounds a longish block is in order but it hasn't reached the point where they should have to come back, cap in hand, to beg the opportunity to edit again. The TBAN violations need to stop and the time-wasting needs to stop; give a decent-length block a chance to have its effect. GoldenRing (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Halfway through that interminable talk page, I've passed the fruitless arguments over what does and does not constitute a BLP violation, but got mired in what appear to be copied and pasted walls of text about IP blocks or whatever, OH YEAH those are the things that were indicative of the NOTHERE part. I find plenty of positive spirit in easily misunderstood edits like this one, but it's just not worth the fuss.

  OK I read all the way up to 18 October. Sigh. I have a proposal in case this gets voted down: Sitush, keep away from Nfitz; Nfitz, don't ping Sitush anymore. Nfitz, work on economy. Wait a while, so we know you had time to read Hemingway and channel him, though not with that same sexist bent of course. File a beautifully phrased and mercifully brief request to have talk page access restored so you can file an equally beautiful and brief unblock request, after archiving your talk page. Unlike some others I have faith in you, and I believe you are sincere in your efforts to make with Sitush, for instance, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with the amount of verbiage. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• The situation is nothing to do with me: the problems long precede any interaction between me and Nfitz, which are really minimal in the scale of things. I'd rather not have my name put in lights here for no credible reason: you need to a lot do more than read part of a single talk page, eg: where they were digging into Doug Weller some weeks back. There's a problem, it is very likely health-related per their own statements and it is a symptom with which I am particularly sympathetic because I am a fellow-traveller in that regard. They're also on record as saying they have very recently (last couple of weeks) received a diagnosis for that symptom and I know it is a treatable cause, so at some point there seems no reason why they should not be allowed to edit again. The question is just when. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Commute to 3 months per Alex Shih below. It took me a while to arrive at "commute", and I think I need to go and lie down now. My initial thought was that a WP:NOTHERE block was not appropriate for someone who has been here so long and made so many edits, and I still think Nfitz is actually here with constructive intentions - but is channeling all their energy completely wrongly. I've read that talk page (yes, all of it - though I sometimes feared my brain was liquefying and running out my ears). My overwhelming feeling for most of my reading (escalating as I read further) was "Nfitz... just... shut... UP!!!" Whoa, I've never seen anything like it - the repetition, the failure to listen, the inability to understand, the unceasing practice of writing enormous screeds where only a few words are needed, the escalation of the tiniest trivia into massive drama, and, above all, the total lack of self awareness. That all has to stop. If an indef block is the only way, then that's what it will have to be. But I'd like to try something less drastic first - a fixed-term block to make Nfitz go away and try to get things into proportion. And then a commitment to never get involved in anything that doesn't directly involve Nfitz. No attempting to be the civility police, no trying to fix things for others, no efforts to put things right re policy or other editors' behaviour, and if Nfitz honestly can't understand a piece of policy they're told they're violating, just stop the described behaviour anyway and let it go - that BLP saga was ridiculous. And then, just edit some articles, keep away from all WP: pages. And, above all, just stop talking so much. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Boing, you're certainly right in saying that Nfitz isn't really completely "NOTHERE", but that's also a question of balance, and as you know that talk page counts for a lot. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Very true, but I'm really just wondering if something like "Archive that talk page and go away for a bit, then try again" might work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, B!sZ says here exactly what I was trying to say above. Can I say "per Boing! did Zebedee" retrospectively? GoldenRing (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you just did ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block - per Dennis Brown, Johnuniq. This editor's problematic argumentation has been the subject of several ANI discussions already, he's lucky to have been indef-free this long. I do not agree that a 3-month reduction is a good idea, better to allow him to apply for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse Block w/o prejudice to a possible standard offer at some point (not less than six months) in the future. First I agree that this is not a case of NOTHERE. However after taking a look at their record, or as much as I cared to go through, I think Nfitz can be fairly described as a tendentious editor with a track record of disruptive behavior that makes me wonder why they were not indeffed quite some time ago. Oh wait. They were, after a slew of shorter blocks. But they were let off the hook. Their talk page, which I am inclined to label the example par excellence of TLDR, shows an editor with an incredible capacity for wiki-lawyering but not so much for basic good editing. As for their time at ANI, the less said the better. A virtue apparently alien to Nfitz. All in all this editor is simply more trouble than they are worth. In short, a net negative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block with an option for standard offer. The numerous threads at ANI that wasted the time of many editors including one where he was repeatedly asking for CU evidence to be made public, the deceptive unblock requests from the IPs (one of which I got sucked into), the BLP vios related to Trump and the unwillingness to accept their error soon enough, the wilful tban evasion etc all point towards this block being necessary and preventative. I still don't see an understanding of the errors other than a boilerplate "I was blocked for this so I'll avoid it" in any of the posts on the talk page or on the UTRS appeals. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to 3 months The editor made over 9500 contributions to the project. After reading his replies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz#October_2017 it seems he argued in good faith, and was misunderstood. At above given link for the reason to indef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:681:3DAE:F4A4:901D:745B:6D2E I read that the user states he did not made claims he was accused of "an ENTIRE COUNTRY". Without knowing this editor and his edits, in regards to good faith and his record, I think a 3 months block should be considered. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note that it's rather misleading to say that Nfitz has "over 9,500 contributions to the project." Strictly as an unadorned fact, it is true, but only 3,191 of those edits (34.4%) were to Mainspace -- i.e. improving the content of the encyclopedia -- while 3,029 (32.6%) are to Wikipedia space, with another 20% (1,880) to User talk. [191] Those are not good ratios, and are indicative to me of what I also have seen for myself, that Nfitz appears to be more interested in discussion and argumentation to the detriment of our primary task, improving the encyclopedia. It seems more appropriate to me to say that Nfitz has "over 3,000 edits to the encyclopedia in 12 years". Certainly we need editors who improve the encyclopedia at that kind of pace, so it's in no way a reason in and of itself for an indef block, but since an indef block has been imposed for other reasons, I don't see his number of contributions as a mitigating factor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Beyond My Ken for pointing this out. It is incredible difficult to make a judgement on an overarching conclusion. When I look at his block log it seems he was blocked in 2008 and then again once or twice in 2017, so I rather have a timed block, instead of indef. I know this from editing for a long time too. When I started I sometimes overreacted and know that you can change and be productive and good in contributions. There is no real incident pointed out above which would justify a indef to my knowledge. A three months block should serve as a wake up call. prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think their topic ban from all of Wikipedia space, issued just last month (IIRC), should have been that wake up call. As with some others commenting here, I have no objections to Nfitz applying for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on above input by Beyond My Ken i have insufficient information to take part in this survey. prokaryotes (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Indefinite per Eggishorn's reasoning below. Blocks that just expire based on some guess of when things might be different don't work well in these circumstances. When the user actually understands the block reason and is ready to correct the behaviour and return productively then that will be apparent. That could be next week, or next year, or longer. We don't know, and that's why "indefinite" exists as a block length. Arguments to "reduce to 'x' months", while understandable, miss this basic point. A 6 month block can be lifted after a day. We have this hangup about block logs and "lengths" and an illogical, communal misunderstanding of the actual meaning of "indefinite" that makes even saying this tricky. -- Begoon 17:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block with an option for standard offer, per Spaceman Spiff. Perhaps NOTHERE was not the best explanation for the block, but the full array of well documented bad behavior by this editor means that I am not at all comfortable with the prospect of their automatic return to editing in 90 days. Their TLDR wikilawyering by itself is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Indefinite does not mean forever and I would expect to see Nfitz back at some point per the standard offer. However, there seems to me to be at least as clear a desire to engage in wiki-arguments as there is to build an encyclopedia, so NOTHERE is in my mind partly true. Given the huge escalation in screeds over the last few months. I think a minimum 6 months is needed for Nfitz's sake as much as anyone else. If an appeal per the standard offer shows the necessary understanding of how we got here I would not oppose it, but I would still expect to see restrictions on non mainspace editing to remain in place for sometime after. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Nfitz seems like a generally likable person who would otherwise be a good member of the community. However it's obvious they've become a significant strain on the community. A history of making polemic statements and personal attacks, obnoxiously bothering other editors on their talk page, disruptive editing and a block in July, followed by an unhinged tirade of BLP vios in August, followed by a weeklong tantrum over the minor block that they received, immediately followed by more obnoxious behavior that eventually led to a topic ban from the WP space, which they immediately proceeded to violate. I'd say this is long overdue and we've been bending over backwards to accommodate this user's disruption for too long. This user's logged about 2,000 article edits in the past decade, and yet we're treating them as if they're some sort of uniquely-vested contributor whom we should go out of our way to tolerate. Enough. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some exaggeration in User:Swarm's comment and a bit of a black and white view. Unhinged? No tantrum. Most significantly I did not immediately violate the topic ban. There was over was over a month between the topic ban, and my accidental violation of it. During that month I count over 100 mainspace edits, in a great variety of articles. Other than my horrendous stupid mistake with those AFD edits I've been trying hard to follow the ban.

Yes, I've made some mistakes and screw-ups. However I've consistently shown that I can learn from my mistakes, and I've committed not to repeat them. I've apologized for the violations. I don't see what's to be gained from turning the topic ban into a block. It's not preventing damage to the encylopaedia, and seems mostly punitive.

What's the normal penalty for an accidental first-time topic ban violation after one month that did no damage? Digging through the archives it seems to be a warning - and not even (through sometimes) a 24-hour block. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Nfitz. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC))

Threaded discussion

•  Comment: There is no doubt in my mind that the account of Nfitz should remain to be blocked. The editor have admitted himself of blatant violation of his current topic ban, and considering the circumstance, an extended block would be perfectly justified. The question that I would like to ask is, is it appropriate to block an editor for WP:NOTHERE that have been with this community for 12 years and logged nearly 10,000 edits? In my discussion with the blocking admin, I have noted that there are many, many reasons to block Nfitz, but I think at the very minimum the rationale should be changed. I also disagree with mentions of standing offer, since this is not a community-based indefinite block (and if we are going to block a long-term editor indefinitely, let's make it community-based here). Nfitz is not a vandal nor sockpuppeteer, the concerns were about the incredibly frustrating time sink that continuously wasted the time of this community for the past 3 months with all the irrelevant verbose rambling. But when I think of the human behind the computer, I can sympathize with an editor that was not involved in any sanctions from 11 August 2008 to 8 August 2017. In terms of damages being done, I just don't see it on the same level with the sanction that are commonly reserved for long-term abuse. I propose a block reduction to 1–3 months, with further restrictions (suggested by the editor in his UTRS requests) implemented. Alex Shih (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Seems like a reasonable solution to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, to my non-admin eyes, reducing to 3 months seems like the exact opposite of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. An editor who, as recently as this August, had to be explicitly told that labeling people "sexual predators" based on "common knowledge" was wrong is a danger to the project. Their subsequent history has largely been one of attempted self-justifications. BLP is one of our most important policies for reasons we're all aware of. Reduction of block length due to long-term presence in the community turns this into a punitive block. To put it in the simplest terms possible, reduction of this block sends the message: "You were bad, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done." Endorsement of an indefinite block sends the message: "You keep throwing all the sand out of the sandbox, go away until you can stop wrecking the sandbox for everyone else." When they can show that they will stop kicking out the sand understand and abide by policies, they can return. I would think only a psychic can tell at this point if or when that future date will be. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just a Comment that I've spoken to Nfitz briefly by email, and in my view I see understanding of the problems and a genuine desire to avoid them in the future - and the interaction was pleasant and brief. Nfitz might choose to comment at their talk page, and if so it will be copied here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Again to note: Nfitz has shown "understanding of the problems" before, at the time of his Wikipedia topic ban, which he violated within weeks of its imposition. I don't think that anyone would deny that Nfitz seems like a well-meaning person who is probably pleasant to be around in real life. but he's also undeniably afflicted with logorrhea as far as Wikipedia commentary is concerned, as well as a predilection to get much too involved in too many controversies which he unnecessarily extends with his incessant verbosity and his inclination to support the most contrary position. That he is a net negative to the project isn't a reflection on whether he's a good person or not, it's an observation based on an evaluation of his Wikipedia editing. If I (personally) didn't think he was salvageable as an editor, I wouldn't be supporting his ability to apply for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User Talk page

I see Nfitz had talk page access revoked a week before this AN discussion was started, and it's not right that an editor should not be able to engage in a discussion about their block and their future here. I have, therefore, temporarily restored talk page access, and it can be revoked again when this discussion is closed. I've let Nfitz know by email that I have done this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Nfitz

In view of expediency, as I won't be able to fully edit for near 24 hours (so that I don't autoblock my workplace), here's some points. I assume someone will activate the tags.

• User:Number_57 discusses problems with me at AFD; but doesn't mention that this was resolved years ago and more recent complaints about my Prod removals was resolved by an agreement I made in Spring 2014 to be more discerning about my PROD removals.

• User:Dennis_Brown, I was never feigning ignorance on BLP. Don't mistake stubbornness and stupidity for cunning. But even I'm not stupid enough to feign something until I'm doing unblock requests on an indef!

• User:Sitush refers to medical issues. It's hard to assess one's own condition, it's possible that circumstances have arisen where it's more difficult to bite my tongue when I see things that bother me; and I've never had much tact. As I stated earlier, I had no intention of violating the topic ban, and after working carefully to avoid WP, I suddenly on two occasions in three 5 AM edits forgot I couldn't comment at AFD. While this initially greatly troubled me that I could be so stupid, once I realised the timing, I can only assume that sleep deprivation significantly clouded my judgement. I'm guilty as charged, but there was not intent, or even awareness (though I remember doing the edits). I was as shocked as anyone when I read Berean Hunter's post; perhaps more shocked. I appreciate Sitush's understanding at least - though I'm still not sure what this Weller incident was.

• User:Beyond My Ken made good work out of talking to User:prokaryotes including the stat that 33% of my edits were in Wiki space. But he forgot to mention that most of them are at AFD, mostly for articles in the football area, where I've been contributing for a decade, trying to rescue and reference articles for borderline notable subjects. I wasn't aware that this could be used against me!

• User SpacemanSpiff said I repeatedly asked that CU evidence be made public; I don't believe have never done that, let alone repeatedly. Is there a diff to support this - if it's what I think it may be, it was about IP information already public? Spiff also notes that the IP block requests were deceptive; how? (see below) and if I thought I was being deceptive, I'd have never edited from my own username and said that I had done the 3 requests! Also, there was no wilful tban evasion; I've explained the accidental edits a few times now. Spiff doesn't see my understanding of the errors - though I thought the BLP screwup I'd been very clear about along with the Tban error. And my admission that my ANI contributions were often poor. I'll admit I never understood the NotHere block (how is asking for an IP block to be lifted so it's easier for me to make quick minor mainspace edits and typo fixes from my mobile not here? Seems like DoublePlusHere to me.)

I'm troubled - there seems to be consensus that the block I'm currently under shouldn't have been NotHere. What is it then? What policy did I violate with the IP unblock requests that deserved an indef, with no questions asked? They weren't repetitive (despite claims to the opposite when IP talk page access was pulled). They weren't deceptive (I'd even indicated in the second one I had other ways of editing). Making minor inconsequential edits by IP is allowed. So why? Yes, I screwed up BLP, got an indef for that, sorted out the issues, and haven't repeated them. Yes, I had verbosive and excessive ANI contributions - which is why I have a topic ban. The only other issue that's come up with most editors is the tban violation; isn't a warning normally customary for a first-time accidental violation 6 weeks later? Those AFD edits were dumber than fuck - what can I say? I'm sorry.

Yes, I've made some screw-ups and I apologize for wasting anyone's time. I'll expand on that later. It's late and I need sleep, so I should stop here. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Copied from user talk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
• (Copied over some typo fixes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC))~~

• User:Beyond My Ken made good work out of talking to User:prokaryotes including the stat that 33% of my edits were in Wiki space. But he forgot to mention that most of them are at AFD, mostly for articles in the football area, where I've been contributing for a decade, trying to rescue and reference articles for borderline notable subjects. I wasn't aware that this could be used against me!
  Actually, what was "used against you" was the ratio of your non-Mainspace edits to your Mainspace edits - and I, personally, wouldn't call "rescuing articles for borderline notable [football] subjects" a particularly creditable activity, and I say that as an inclusionist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User talk:EZBELLA soft redirect

Just a general question for about User talk:EZBELLA. The page soft redirects to the user's Thai Wikipedia talk page. I was going to post a message regarding the non-free use of a file the editor added to an English Wikipedia article, but I don't understand Thai and don't really want to start posting crosswiki on Thai Wikipedia. Is it OK to ignore the redirect and still post messages on the user's English Wikipedia user talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have anb issue of a Thai-speaking editor on Thai Wikipedia, a message about it should come from a significant contributor on Thai Wikipedia, not from you. As we keep telling users here, we only deal with English Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"I was going to post a message regarding the non-free use of a file the editor added to an English Wikipedia article,"... SQL^{Query me!} 04:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: It seems you've misunderstood my question. My issue has to do with an edit made on English Wikipedia. EZBELLA inappropriately added a non-free image to an article, and I was going to post something on their user talk page explaining why the file was removed. The talk page, however, is a soft re-direct to their user talk page on Thai Wikipedia; so, I wasn't sure how to proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Follow the redirect and post it in English on the other project. If they don't understand English and/or ignore you, just remove it with a note. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: That is an option, but it seems a bit cumbersome. The file was removed and an edit sum was left, but I was just going to follow up with a post on the user's talk page. Shouldn't editors, in general, be capable of discussing issues related to English Wikipedia on English Wikipedia? It's now possible to for users to set their preferences to receive crosswiki notifications, so an editor expecting other English Wikipedia editors to post comments related to editing on English Wikipedia on their Thai Wikipedia user talk page seems a bit much.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that if an editor wishes to edit on the English Wikipedia, they should be obliged to maintain a user talk page on the English Wikipedia. What I would do is replace their talk page redirect with whatever comments I feel are necessary here on the English Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

EZBELLA posted a message on my user talk at User talk:Marchjuly#About Usertalk stating that I am welcome to post messages in English on their Thai Wikipedia user talk page. This, however, seems to be an unnecessary hoop to try and make English Wikipedia editors jump through when it would probably be easier for EZBELLA just to occasionally check their English Wikipedia user talk for posts. I edit occasionally on Japanese Wikipedia and have a separate user talk page for those edits. I also edit on Commons and have a separate user talk page for those posts. Sometimes when I have had to access another language Wikipedia, the system has automatically created a user talk page for me with welcome templates, etc. even though I have no intention of ever editing there. There may be some editors out there who might not want such a thing to happen, and thus they might not want to post a message on a Thai Wikipedia page. It's also possible that some of the templates used for user talk pages on Wikipedia may not work crosswiki, which is something I noticed happens with respect to Commons. Again, it seems the simplest solution would be to keep all discussion related to English Wikipedia on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Currently the talkpage just says you can post english message in my usertalk ,Add a topic by pressing Alt-shift- +, and doesn't say anything about doing it on the Thai wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. EZBELLA removed the redirect and added that message. So, apparently things have resolved themselves. Anyway, I appreciate all of the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have seen this a few times with editors who are perfectly understandable in English but rarely edit here - preferring to edit on their own language wiki. Its basically a work-around for our benefit not theirs - if we want to notify them of something quickly, they are unlikely to get it on their EN-WP userpage. Unless cross-wiki notifications are working significantly different to the last time I ran into this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Cross wiki notifications are working for me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bit of a backlog at WP:UAA (and a question)

Hello! WP:UAA is backlogged at the moment – there are bot reports from November 1st. By the way, is it acceptable for non-admins to remove the reports that are obvious non-issues, such as the false positives flagged by the bot? –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As usual,, people keep filling it up with BS reports; viz, just before it was cleared. There were ten reports, five of them were questionable or of low-grade issue, requiring no admin action. So on the one hand we've increased anyone involved's work load by 50%, and on the other reduced the amount of profitable work that may have been done by the same. If it happens that it is continually the same editors misreporting (i.e., misusing the page), would that earn sanctions? That is the question, Yorik. — fortunavelut luna 13:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we've all made a few bad reports to noticeboards. If it becomes a problem, ideally a polite and constructive conversation on an editor's talk page would be the first response. Something like the Counter Vandalism Unit's Academy would probably be pretty useful. Or I guess we could redirect them there and hope the CVU people don't yell at us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could, NRP. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really familiar with who files what kinds of reports at UAA. I spend much of my time at other noticeboards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to the question, I would say that false positives flagged by the bot are the only reports which could be removed. Sometimes usernames are clearly false positives and the user is well-behaved. Other times things are not always straightforwardly obvious. So I'd helpfully say that bot-reported FPs can be removed, but only if you're right to do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep it in mind, and I agree that user-reported issues are best left to admins to handle. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor making mutiple trivial categories

I like someone to look over Tokyowaterfront recent edit history, specially the creation of multiple trivial categories with only a few members (WP:SMALLCAT, as well as adding unsourced categories to articles, like here, here, and here. I have already successfully nominated a number of these categories for deletion and even asked the editor to stop making these trivial categories,[192] but the editor keeps creating more despite the results without any further discussion. —Farix (t | c) 10:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a competence issue here. However he/she has been with us since 2009 and has a clean block log. I wouldn't want to block without fully exploring all other options. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: you do not appear to have notified the editor which is a requirement when starting a discussion here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Actually, I did notify the editor. You probably missed it for all of the CfD notifications. —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I did miss that. I wonder if they will come to add anything to this discussion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this editor has ever engaged in any discussions about their edits. It is like that they stopped making these categories because this matter escalated to the Administrators' Noticeboard. But judging form their early article creations, it is highly unlikely that they know English because those articles appear to have been the result of a Google translation. —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, Tokyowaterfront has returned to making a new series of trivial categories. Many of the articles they are throwing into these categories have the thinnest of connections, such as "Call Me Maybe" in Category:Peach Girl as a way to pad things out. —Farix (t | c) 09:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page. They don't have email enabled or I would have tried that as well. Let's see if we get a response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And it seems they are going to ignore any discussion and continue on with creating these 3-4 member categories. Is a block in order under WP:IDHT? —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, they are still creating categories. Blocked for 24 hours, which seems a reasonable method to try and draw their attention to their talk page. I have left a message on the talk page in English and Google-translated Japanese. As the user's intent seems good, I don't like blocking but they aren't engaging in discussion whatsoever, so let's try this. Happy for the block to be overturned by any admin should we get some engagement from Tokyowaterfront (talk · contribs), but given the user has never once commented in any talk domain, or even written an edit summary, I am not optimistic :( fish&karate 12:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I think this was our only option at this point. And if their usual editing continues after the block expires, then we may have to extend. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is anything like last time, they will wait a week hoping that things will blow over and then go right back to what they were doing. —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: @Tokyowaterfront: @Fish and karate: And what did I say? They are back creating more trivial categories. The are also switch to using an IP to avoid scrutiny 2400:4030:90FF:DC00:341D:9DD1:1FFB:5845 (talk) —Farix (t | c) 11:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw. I have indefinitely blocked the user until he/she responds on their talk page. Note that indefinite means 'no expiry date', it does not mean 'permanent' - happy for this block to be overturned as and when the user decides to interact with other editors to address the concerns raised. fish&karate 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's got them to respond for the first time ever. Yay. fish&karate 15:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It may just be me, but the tone comes off as if they believe they don't need to engage in discussions about their editing. —Farix (t | c) 15:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve given them the option to do so and will see what happens. fish&karate 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor backlog at RfPP

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 minor backlog at RfPP that may need looking at, last untouched request was made roughly 20 hours ago. Thanks Nightfury 15:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected most -- Alexf^(talk) 15:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Impersonating an admin

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

---

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if it's okay to suggest that someone's an admin or that one has been one in the past. I've asked Czar (talk · contribs) this on their talk page and I had off-wiki contact with Salvidrim! (talk · contribs); he said that there's only a user name policy on the matter. The reason why I'm asking this, is that I ran into this user's user page, suggesting that they're a former admin. Only, they've been editing since late October (maybe they're looking for the "hoping to become an admin" template?). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this a few times recently. First step is to remove the incorrect UBX, and if they revert, start a talk page discussion. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using spurious UBX (e.g. I could claim I'm an alien) but it might be worth adding in a section to the WP:Userbox page about not impersonating admins/user rights. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case, a look at their contributions indicates they are trolling. I suppose there's a 1% chance it's quantum level incompetence instead, but really, it's just got to be trolling. I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Falsely claiming to be a former admin is dicey. But falsely claiming to be a current one has gotten people blocked in the past. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they a former admin under a different username? --Jayron32 15:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Too bad it had to go this way. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Presidential directive

Could someone familiar with rangeblocks please take a look at the last 50 edits to Presidential directive and confirm my reading that there's nothing really to be done? There is a quite persistent IPv6 vandal operating there and at a couple of related pages. As far as I can tell, they all belong to the same Indian ISP and an effective rangeblock would have to be at least /31, with a lot of collateral damage. Narrowing the ranges quickly produces not-very-useful ones; the smallest range with more than one of the addresses in it is still /49. But if someone could confirm I've read that right, I'd be grateful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's literally just the IP removing the word "may" and the article creator adding it back in - ENGVAR maybe? Malcolmxl5 semi'd it and the IPs seem to have no other disruptive edits, so that may should probably be good enough, I hope. ansh666 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, though there's related stupidity - see eg Special:Contributions/2405:205:A084:F62B:B03B:F496:B826:2E65 and the history of Executive order (United States) GoldenRing (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, this came up a while ago, and I had to a really wide range block to stop the disruption. It looks like the same person doing the doing disruptive edits. There isn't as much collateral as you'd expect. If it gets to be too much to handle I could do another range block, but page protection is probably the better solution. This person mostly goes after articles with "president" in the title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. There are a loooot of addresses with contribs in 2405:204::/31, but they seem to mostly be one-and-dones (at least the first 10 or so that I checked), minus this guy. The Special:Contribs wildcard search isn't really ideal for this...is there a range contribs tool that shows them in chronological order instead of by address and/or one that can search actual ranges like this instead of the wildcard? ansh666 07:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this feature was recently enabled. You can search by CIDR instead of wildcard now, and it returns results by date. For example, 2405:205::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2405:204::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). From there, you can narrow down the ranges based on {{rangecalc}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

:O Yay thanks for letting me know! ansh666 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nostalgia

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

---

Hey, does anyone else besides me remember that when WP:WIKIQUETTE was closed down, the claim was made that it would not result in an increase in civility complaints on the Administrators' noticeboards? How has that worked out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, right? That one redirects to WP:Etiquette currently. --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WQA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Without going back to check, what I recall is that people felt that discussions on the Wikiquette assistance page relied on the person in question being persuaded to alter their behaviour, and in practice this never happened (otherwise, the person typically would have been persuaded already, thereby obviating the need to raise the issue on the assistance page), so issues may as well be raised directly on the Administrators' noticeboard. So no, I don't remember the claim you mention, but I could have missed it being made or forgotten about it. isaacl (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I recall it pretty well, but, then, I just counted my own !vote twice in a discussion about an RfC, so senility may be upon me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Does the indefinite block for User:INeverCry have broad support?

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.

---

Folks, There's an RFC at Meta requesting a global block for User:INeverCry (INC), but the latest objection is one over procedure. For a global block to be considered, there need to be indefinte blocks on at least two Wikimedia projects (INC, via his socks, is indef blocked on six projects), but The Devil's Advocate is insisting that at least the minimum two "must have demonstrated broad support . . . through a prominent community discussion process" and asserts that the English Wikipedia block has not demonstrated that. So, sorry to have to waste your time here, but can I ask you all whether you support or oppose the indefinite block on INC on the English Wikipedia?

• Support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Patient Zero^talk 10:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support GoldenRing (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per reply below Can someone link to a discussion where he was actually indef blocked and what they have done since? Other than 'unrepentant socking'. I had a look at the meta discussion but other than referencing to something about BLP violations? Its a bit of word soup over there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  For the worst thing he has done since being blocked, see Special:Contributions/Maria Matveyevna, where with one of his socks he added around 600 BLP articles to categories like "American sex offenders" and "American people convicted of child sexual abuse", doing it in 10 minutes through some sort of automation. And then he responded with this promise to continue his attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  (ec) The process is pretty easy to follow at User talk:INeverCry, though you also need to know that INeverCry's sock, Daphne Lantier, went on a huge deletion spree at Commons between the socking being detected and an emergency desysop there a few hours later. The latest sock-fuelled spree is here, though it's almost all rev-del'd due to gross BLP violations (added random people to categories of sex offenders, mostly). GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tazerdadog (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Boing! I almost posted this last night but was going to wait to see if anyone else responded. Also; I propose the following wording to satisfy the Wikilawyers: User:INeverCry was considered banned by the English Wikipedia community in accordance with its banning policy, when User:Maria Matveyevna launched an automated attack on the English Wikipedia, and its community responded with an additional block and declined to consider unblocking any of the accounts owned by INeverCry. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support On his good days INC was a pleasure, and I liked him a lot. Those days are, unfortunately, gone and in no way excuse the current behaviour. We cannot tolerate that. -- Begoon 10:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite block for INeverCry; while we're here, also support global ban for User:The Devil's Advocate for what is clearly trolling in the guise of a concern for process. — fortunavelut luna 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support your addendum. That's not someone we should have around, anywhere. -- Begoon 11:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I too would support a global block for TDA, but let's make sure that INC is blocked before doing anything about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per Boing and GoldenRing. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support and agree with TonyBallioni --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Wholeheartedly. Why is this even a question? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support GMG^talk 13:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Redundant support, per everyone. Κσυπ Cyp   14:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yes, absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Boing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support absolutely and support TonyBallioni's proposed wording, except "operated by" instead of "owned by". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The long-game deviousness, disregard for policy and behavioral norms, ongoing abuse, and promises to continue such are not something we can or should tolerate. DMacks (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support this reaffirmation, but note that the global ban proposal at Meta currently has 57 supports and 4 opposes, so I don't think we need to spend too much more time on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Why the hell are we dancing here like TDA's puppets? The proper response to a demand by community banned TDA the we do something is "Fuck off, troll", not "Oh, ok, I'll start a discussion on en.wiki". Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  He's not banned on meta (or anywhere else), and en.wiki doesn't call the shots. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I Support tough action against INC because my Commons userpage was vandalized with an offensive comment by "Cindy Markham", a suspected sock of INC (see page history) as well as such disruptive activities on other userpages. --Muzammil (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Thincat (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Separating joint AFD

It is not clear to me why the two subjects up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nathanson should share a joint AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

every news - blogs/opinion piece[193] i could find, mentions the two together as Academics at McGill University Gnangarra 00:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

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.

---

Thread retitled from "Article commandeered".

I recently revisited the Stolen Generations article to get the references to some sources The sources were all gone, apparently removed because they related to a POV that a group do not want mentioned in the article. It appears that since my last visit to that article, it has been commandeered by a group who delete all material which provides an alternative view of the ‘story’ of the Stolen Generations. Mention of, and links to, court cases where the claims that persons were ‘stolen’ because of their race were disproved in court have been erased from the article. Material referring to public commentary on the issue by politicians and others or work by historians who have disputed the claim that children were ‘stolen’ solely because of their race has all been erased from the article also. The article now seems extremely biased to one POV.

It appears that whenever a user attempts to reinsert some of the contradictory material, it gets edited out again based on claims that the source is 'unreliable' (based only on the personal opinion(s) of those who have commandeered the page), or 'undue weight' (it’s undue weight to have any mention of alternative arguments in as controversial an issue as the Stolen Generations??).

From my knowledge of this issue, it is controversial largely because, on every occasion where a claim that a person is a member of the Stolen Generations has been subjected to some kind of independent investigation (such as by a court of law), the claim has turned out to be incorrect. The allegedly ‘stolen’ person was removed for standard ‘welfare’ reasons such as neglect, abandonment, loss/death of carers or abuse, handed over by someone who for various reasons wasn’t able to continue caring for the child, etc, etc.

I believe that this should be looked into by Administrators because the group now controlling the article simply override all other users. It seems pointless for anyone but Administrators to try to deal with this. 213.203.142.163 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this, which was posted once last month but then removed. If so: it's certainly true that Windschuttle presents an opposing view which is briefly mentioned here. If you'd like to expand that section please go right ahead, with appropriate references. If it gets reverted your next step would be to follow up on the article talkpage, as you have, and see if there's a consensus for inclusion. Either way, the issue of one single edit reverted once probably doesn't need admin tools - it's the sort of content disagreement that is best resolved by the editors at the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Look at the history of the article. It isn't one reverted edit. It is a pattern going back months, where EVERY attempt to put some of the contrary material into the article is erased, edited out and reverted. It appears that multiple users have attempted to put some balance back into the article but had everything that they put in erased. 213.203.142.163 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, there's three I can see in the last six months - the other two were on September 18 and June 5. There's also quite a long talkpage discussion already about including more of Windschuttle's views. As above, I think contributing to that conversation is the best route to achieve consensus on changes to the page. Per your original statement, if you're looking for a reference that happens to have been removed, it will still be in the article history (and is now probably one of the ones linked in this discussion). -- Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't just Windschuttle's views. It is every piece of contrary argument and evidence, the legal cases that failed, commentary from participants in the debate such as politicians and journalists. In one case the original source for a paragraph was removed and a 'citation needed' tag inserted apparently to conceal the fact that the wording of the paragraph had been changed to reverse the information that came from the original source. That paragraph now reads: "Walter Baldwin Spencer[15] reported in the 1920s that many mixed-descent children were born to Aboriginal women and white fathers; the latter worked on construction of The Ghan railway and left the women and children when the project was completed." The original source makes it clear that the Aborigines abandoned those children after the fathers departed, left them alone at early ages to starve and die in the desert and that the abandonment by the Aborigines spurred a demand for some kind of care for such children. There has been plenty of conversation about the inclusion of the contrary material between earlier users. Conversation hasn't worked. They just got stonewalled by a group that wants only one POV to prevail.213.203.142.163 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if User:Gnangarra could explain their revert referenced above, as unless the added content was obvious vandalism, a copyright violation or similar, then it appears to be a mis-use of rollback on their part. MPS1992 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Windschuttle's work "Fabrication of Aboriginal History" has been rigorously rebuffed and resoundingly discredited since it was published. The article is subject a lot of subtle IP vandalism and racial abuse, it has been on pending changes for a long time, this is nothing new. There is no abuse of rollback, there is no conspiracy, I made one revert of an unverifiable edit apparently sourced to a controversial yet discredited source about living people add to that two other cherry picked reverts from the last 6 months of some 20 odd IP edits many of which have also been reverted, voila we have practical demonstration of Fake news in the making Gnangarra 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is on the article talk page, rather than here at WP:AN. That being said, Windschuttle's contributions are classic WP:FRINGE stuff that are not taken seriously outisde of the Murdoch media commentariat, and the article should reflect that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

Exactly right. It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to publicize every contrary viewpoint; that's just false balance masquerading as impartiality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The preceding 3 comments typify why I referred this to the Administrators Noticeboard rather than try to deal with it on the talk page. Unsupported claims and personal opinion that Windschuttle has been "resoundingly discredited" and is 'fringe' are used to prevent any inclusion of material based on his work. Please note also the failure to address the fact that material based on sources other than Windschuttle is routinely excluded from the article. It is the same on the talk page where other users attempted to raise these issues. It is just diversion and avoidance of the issues. 213.203.142.163 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

read it invalidates all of your claimsdiff it is controversial largely because, on every occasion where a claim that a person is a member of the Stolen Generations has been subjected to some kind of independent investigation (such as by a court of law), the claim has turned out to be incorrect. for starting this discussion, as per WP:BLP extraordinary claims about living people need extraordinary sourcing, Windschuttle is at best described as controvercial, fringe is being generous while discredited is factual. To quote Robert Manne Windschuttle’s book is based on astonishing ideological blindness, especially to racist ways of thinking and Despite its imposing-looking 600 pages^{(volume 3 source for the material)} and its many footnotes, Windschuttle’s case is actually based on surprisingly inadequate research. and even his book reveals that he has not bothered to read even one of the 340 mainly Indigenous stolen generations oral-history testimonies held in the Australian National Library^{link added} [194] Gnangarra 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've read that report, like a lot of the material out there including the Bringing Them Home report, that committee failed to properly investigate the key issue of the evidence for the reasons for removals. Certainly some children who were removed from their Aboriginal parents for very good reasons, abuse, neglect, etc, were then placed in circumstances where they still suffered, weren't properly cared for. That does not mean that they were initially removed solely for being of Aboriginal descent. Simply blindly accepting claims that people were so removed isn't carrying out a proper independent investigation. Whenever there has been such an investigation, where witnesses were examined and cross-examined, where the original documents were called for, as in the 30 or so court cases on the issue, it has been found that the persons concerned were not removed solely for being of Aboriginal descent. As for Manne, he has been part of the debate. He has made claims about Windschuttle and about the Stolen Generations. His claims don't settle the issue as there are those who argue that Manne's claims are false. Citing a person or a book that disagrees with Windschuttle doesn't prove that the issue is settled or that Windschuttle has been proved to be wrong or 'fringe'. It just proves that some people don't like what he has to say. 85.119.40.119 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• If you cant settle an argument about the reliability of sources on an article talkpage, the place to go is seek a third opinion, usually at RSN. AN/ANI does not deal with content disputes, which is what this is. I personally think going to RSN would be a waste of time because as Gnangarra points out, Windschuttle has been heavily discredited. It probably does merit a bit more discussion in the article because Windschuttle is the most notable (and widely publicized) example of a fringe view. See WP:NFRINGE. But again, that's a content dispute that belongs at the article or somewhere else RSN/Fringe noticeboards etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree that this is a content matter. I note that there's actually discussion of this issue in the article at Stolen Generations#Historical debate over the Stolen Generations. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So Administrators shouldn't intervene when a group (a small group of people) seize control of an article and refuse to allow any sourced and properly cited material to be inserted into the article which disagrees with the POV they want to promote? Then what are Administrators good for? Calling it a content issue misses the point entirely. 85.119.40.119 (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Generally they shouldn't. Article content is defined by consensus. If the consensus is that material should not be in an article, it doesn't go in the article. This is not a case of edit-warring etc, this is where over an extended period multiple editors have come to the conclusion that certain material should not be included. You would need far more evidence than has been presented to make a case that the editing at the article is a behavioral issue requiring admin attention. 'Information that is sourced' does not mean that it will always be included in an article. Sourced information is routinely excluded from articles because it reflects a fringe or discredited viewpoint, or is WP:UNDUE. 'Properly cited' is not a guarantee of inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to expand a little on "Then what are Administrators good for?", in a content dispute such as this, admins only have the power to enforce whatever consensus emerges in discussion. So if there's a consensus to include some material, admins can use sanctions to prevent its removal, and if there's a consensus to exclude it, admins can use sanctions to prevent its inclusion - it's community consensus that decides on the include/exclude question. A common mistake is to think admins hold some sort of editorial authority, but we do not at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Ulugbeck1

Moved from WP:AN3

Ulugbeck1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings, dear colleagues! Several years ago, I started writing articles in Wikipedia. The main topic of my pages was the literary works of famous authors. In the beginning I wrote articles in the Russian Wikipedia, created 16 pages about the Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, but after a while I made a fundamental decision to FOREVER leave the Russian Wikipedia. Why? Because some Russian colleagues began to constantly reproach me for "incorrectly" writing pages about stories. At my numerous requests to show me at least once how to write "correctly", the colleagues responded with grave silence. And I made a decision to PERMANENTLY leave the Russian Wikipedia, because all my time was spent on meaningless correspondence, and not on creating new pages.

I started to work in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. My colleague HIGHLY helped me in the effort. Rumensz This is a WONDERFUL person! Our joint work was structured as follows: I wrote the Russian text, did a google translation and created a page, and my colleague Rumensz did the final literary translation and posted illustrations. During the three years of working together we have created more than two hundred pages. Boris Akunin, Conan Doyle, Ian Fleming, Wilhelm Hauf are the authors, for whose works we created the pages. And for THREE years no one has ever complained about the pages we created. NO ONE!

Soon I decided to write for the English-language Wikipedia, deciding to start working in exactly the same way. The sphere of my interests was still literature, as well as cinema. And then I found a wonderful, outstanding like-minded individual - Er nesto This is a WONDERFUL person! We started working together and created about 50 pages about Soviet and Russian films, as well as literary works. And again, we NEVER had any complaints about our style of creating pages!

But recently our colleague TheLongTone has developed an incomprehensible activity. He started fault-finding, began to reduce and modify already finished pages with some ridiculous motivations. He supposedly does not like the style in which we create pages about literary works. I consider these claims completely unfounded, and I ask you to shield us together with colleague Er_nesto from from the actions of colleague TheLongTone!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Sacred_(Akunin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria,_Maria...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Thunder_of_Victory_Rumble!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Elephant

Once Karl Marx wrote about the "capitalist division of labor." I fully support him! EVERYONE SHOULD DO THE THING WHICH HE UNDERSTANDS !!! Colleague TheLongTone, DOES NOT SPEAK and DOES NOT WRITE in Russian, who on his own page indicates that he is VERY interested in painting, can hardly adequately assess the creation of pages devoted to RUSSIAN CINEMA and LITERATURE, right? I, for example, know very little about painting, and therefore it never occurs to me to teach my colleague TheLongTone how to write pages on Wikipedia about painting. DEARLY HOPING for your wise and fair decision in this matter!

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging TheLongTone and Er nesto — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

TheLongTone's edits look entirely appropriate to me. They tried to explain to you why the edits were necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand you. Well, now I will not write pages on Akunin's works, let your colleague TheLongTone do it. He perfectly knows how to do it. Good luck!

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, see also User talk:Bonadea#Akunin. Hopefully this means that the matter is closed. --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

His Last Bow...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turkish_Gambit - Terrific briefly written, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_on_the_Leviathan - And here's how DETAILED it is written, right?

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've examined only the first article listed above, Nothing Sacred (Akunin). What I see is User:Ulugbeck1 creating the article, User:Er nesto helping with work on the plot, and then User:TheLongTone doing some valuable copy editing - the plot before TheLongTone worked on it was written in too much of a publisher/promo tone, with those ellipses and some "teaser" wording. The current article looks like an excellent result from some collaborative editing, and all those who took part should be pleased with it - and in Ulugbeck1's position, I'd be thanking TheLongTone for helping get it into such a good shape. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Ulugbeck1, I think you need to be more aware of the cooperative nature of WP output. In the articles I checked, TheLongTone seems to be doing a good job in improving and adding to the material. Why you, for example, feel the need to remove all their efforts at Let the Thunder of Victory Rumble!, is a little beyond me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Concur, this sounds like somebody does not understand that they do not 'own' articles they create. Hopefully a browse of that will resolve the issue so they can remain valuable contributitors, better-versed in how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear colleagues! With great interest I read your remarks. To my great regret, I must say that they did not convince me. So, in order.

1. I write an article in Russian and do machine translation. My colleague Er nesto is a professional translator. PROFESSIONAL, you know? He makes the final translation into English. So we created articles.

2. You talk a lot about "wrong" formulations, "bad" style and so on. I suggest, personally to you, to write two articles on the stories of Akunin - Operation Transit and The Angels Battalion. For these two stories, I have not yet written an article. OK, I'm doing everything wrong, so please, SHOW me how to do CORRECTLY. Can you do it?

3. You write that creating an article is a collective creativity! Absolutely agree with you! But in my understanding, help is ADD information. ADD. And what does the colleague TheLongTone do? It REDUCES the articles I wrote. He removes words, sentences, whole sections! And this is IMPROVEMENT??? The sculptor made a statue. Wow, says "helper", but let's cut off her left hand. Wow, how it became beautiful! Oh, let's cut off her right arm! Wow, she's even more beautiful! Are not you funny?

4. I already wrote that everyone should write about what he understands. Look, what is the sphere of interest of the colleague TheLongTone? History of aviation and painting. Once again - THE HISTORY OF AVIATION and PAINTING. And he "helps" to make me articles on Russian literature! I wonder how a person who does not speak and does not write in Russian, can understand Russian literature? I wonder if he read at least one of the works of Akunin? I think no. The gardener will help the accountant, and the singer will help the steelmaker. Wow, what a great collaboration they'll have! Are not you funny?

5. Once again. I understand perfectly well that the articles I have written are not my property. Do with them whatever you want, I absolutely do not care. But I will not write more articles on Russian literature in your wikipedia. Let the colleague TheLongTone do it. After all, you all say that he does it perfectly. I'd rather write articles on the history of aviation and about painting.

With deep respect

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing is editing. It does not have to be "add". It can be "change". It can be "reduce". And, yes, it can be "cut". Also one is not required to work within a certain "sphere of influence", and one is not required to "read one of the works of Akunin" in order to edit an article on Russian literature. I can edit it, you can edit it, TheLongTone can edit it, even Randy from Boise can edit it. That is what Wikipedia is about. We have no "do the thing that you understand" - and, by extension, "keep out from things you don't understand" - policy. And you are steadfastly refusing to listen when we try to explain it - you say that you understand the articles are "not your property", but the rest of your commentary carries a heavy implication that you do not want others to edit it, unless they do it in a specific way you approve of. And you have been told "how to do it correctly". By...following the lead of TheLongTone's edits. Which you are explicitly refusing to do.

There's a general rule of thumb that altogether too many people on Wikipedia seem to forget sometimes. If everybody else is telling you that something is X, and you alone are insisting that it is Y, there's a very good possibility that you, yourself, might be the one in the wrong. Instead, more often than not all of their toys get thrown out of the pram, which is essentially what your point "5" above amounts to.

Now, not everyone can work in a cooperative editing environment like Wikipedia. That's fine; unfortunate, but fine; that's just the way the world is. But there's a difference between gracefully recognizing this and working to resolve it - or, if it can't be resolved, to gracefully accept it - and reacting as you have throughout this discussion. You need to be willing to listen, you need to accept that you can be mistaken, and you have to understand that anybody can edit anything, expert or not, and being a "professional" does not give you any special rights or privileges, just as someone not working "within their sphere of influence" does not lose any. In this case, you need to recognise that the difference between being willing to understand these points and refusing to do so - and your comments above make abundantly clear that you aren't, or won't, understand them, even as you say that you do - is the difference between being able to resolve this issue so you can continue to help improve Wikipedia, and your being hit by a boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I took a look at some of the pages you claim to have "professionally" translated into English, and at TheLongTone's copyedits. I'm sorry to say that TheLongTone's statement of "I assume that you are not a native English speaker: if you were the plot summaries would offend you as mush as they do me" is entirely accurate, and his removals of trivia and copyediting were entirely justified. This is a good example where he made the article much more comprehensible than your "professionally translated" version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, colleague, that you have read my explanations. Allow me to object to you a little.

1. I explain to you again: FINAL translation was done not by me, but by my colleague Er nesto. I sent him your claim to the transfer, I hope he will explain everything to you.

2. Read again what you wrote - "Also one is not required to work within a certain "sphere of influence", and one is not required to "read one of the works of Akunin" in order to edit an article on Russian literature". Indeed, the carpenter can perform the work of an accountant, and the poet can mow wheat. All right! But imagine what BAD quality will be this "work". Do you, if you have a toothache, go to the plumbing and not to the dentist? I do not question the possibility of ANY person on the planet Earth to edit articles on Russian literature! But I am 1000% sure that if it is done by COMPETENT people, then only the quality of the articles will be magnificent.

3. I fully accept trade-offs. For example, when I was doing an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, I incorrectly indicated some geographical names. And with great gratitude accepted the corrections! My colleagues helped me, corrected my mistakes! Therefore, if it is a question of correcting grammatical errors, then I have no objections. But when the NON-COMPENSATE REDUCTION of information is made, then I categorically object.

4. You write "If everybody else is telling you that something is X, and you alone are insisting that it is Y, there's a very good possibility that you, yourself, might be the one in the wrong". Sorry, but in psychiatry this is called "megalomania." 6 people (you and 5 of your colleagues) said that I'm wrong. In Wikipedia, several tens of thousands of colleagues and speak on their behalf - it's a bit wrong. No, I do not call for a plebiscite on the topic "Who is right?", But just always ask everyone to speak only in their own name.))) I, for example, always say only on my own behalf. You write "there's a very good possibility that you, yourself, might be the one in the wrong". It's pretty funny. Remember, for example, Nicholas Copernicus MILLIONS of people told Copernicus - The sun revolves around the Earth. And he spat on the opinion of millions and proved that everything is the opposite. I, of course, are not Copernicus and I do not have megalomania. But I just want to explain to you that the opinion of MOST of things can be wrong.

5. I still really want to write articles for Wikipedia. But I will do it only in those areas in which incompetent people will not edit me. I hope I have such rights?)))

6. I repeat once again: if a colleague thinks that I am writing articles on Russian literature incorrectly, then let him write CORRECTLY. I will be very interested to see how he does it! And I repeat again: you have every right to do with my articles everything that is not forbidden by Wikipedia rules. I do not like this, but I respect the rules. Wikipedia is not my property and therefore I play by its rules. But if I feel that some of the rules are in conflict with my beliefs, then I prefer to say "Goodbye to articles on Russian literature!"))) For example, I will write articles on the history of aviation and painting. I hope I have such rights?)))

With deep respect

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

With every ongoing response it’s becoming more and more clear that WP is probably not for you. I looked at these plot sections, before your rather pointy chopping them out, the English is bad. Some sentences where borderline incomprehensible. You really shouldn’t be questioning other editors’ competence here. On top of that, the language was flowery and read like a publisher’s promo; something you’d read on a dust jacket or publisher’s website. Capeo (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Alright. Since last night doesn't seem to have gotten through to you, it's time to call a spade a spade. Henceforth:

1. It doesn't matter if the translation was done by you, Er nesto, or Randy from Boise. The translation as posted by you and Er nesto was terrible, grammatically.

2. Once again, you're saying that "only people who are 'competent' on a topic should edit that topic, and people who aren't 'competent' should keep away from it". You may be carefully picking words in order to claim 'but I never said that', but that is the blatant and only reasonable meaning of what you are saying here - and that viewpoint is entirely opposed to the core premise of Wikipedia.

3. You can 'categorically object', but the funny thing here is that a lot of TheLongTone's edits you are objecting to were, in fact, correcting truly atrocious grammar.

4. The opinion of "most" can, in fact, be wrong, but on Wikipedia, the majority opinion is what matters. Also I should note that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, and accusing another editor of megalomania is exactly that, so I would request you strike that comment please.

5. No, you don't "have such rights". Unless someone has earned a editing sanction through violation of Wikipedia policies, anyone can edit any article, that is the core belief of Wikipedia. You do not own articles. You cannot say 'only people I consider competent should edit these articles'.

6. You can edit any article on any subject in any way, and anybody else can edit any article on any subject in any way.

In sum, I would suggest, strongly, that at this point you drop the stick. The consensus of everyone who has commented here except you is that your (and Er nesto's, from your comments regarding your relationship and the editing history) edits were not to Wikipedia's required standards - which TheLongTone fixed for you, entirely properly and in a well-done manner, which you should have thanked him for (and had you asked him to continue to do so, collaborating with you, it could well have been a wonderful thing). Your repeated contentions to the contrary indicate that you are either refusing to listen or cannot understand why anyone could see things otherwise. And and continuing down that road is a very good way for a boomerang to come your way and the question of what you might or might not edit on en.wikipedia to become entirely moot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum that just occurred to me: in addition to the above, your suggestions of 'maybe I should go edit these subjects another editor I'm disputing with edits in, instead of the ones the dispute took place in', can very easily be taken as a declaration of intent to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your position. I remain with my opinion. I will not break any Wikipedia rules. I propose to end the useless discussion. Goodbye! Wish you all the best! Ulugbeck1 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So you decline to strike your personal attack, above? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: it's a bit muddled, but I think that Ulugbeck1 may have thought that you were calling them a megalomaniac: see I, of course, are not Copernicus and I do not have megalomania, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I took that as "unlike you", but...*shrugs helplessly* I guess this particular discussion was only gonna end in one way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Ulugbeck1: I don't know if this will help, but here are a few specific examples from this one piece of copy editing (there are still a few minor errors in the resulting revision which have since been corrected, but this diff will suffice):
  1. "...The spring of 1915." There are two errors in that. Firstly, we would not start an English sentence and paragraph with an ellipsis (at least, not when writing for an encyclopedia). Secondly, it's not even a sentence as it contains no verb.
  2. "stop active operations in the Western Front" is incorrect English. In English we would always say "on the Western Front".
  3. "bring down the entire power of the German Army against the Russians" is weak English, as the phrase "bring down" usually means to destroy, reduce, undermine or minimize, and its use here makes an ambiguous start to the sentence. The replacement omits the word "down" and is clearer.
  4. "For now it exists only in one copy" is poor English. In English, we would really not refer to, say, the number of aircraft of a particular model as "copies", and the whole "it exists only in one..." reads like a literal translation from a foreign language and is not a construct that a native English speaker would use. The replacement, "For now there is only one" is much better English.
  5. "Kaiser personally orders". "Kaiser" is a title, and it is correct to say "The Kaiser".
  6. "And the German super-spy along with his faithful assistant Timo begin to act..." doesn't actually tell us anything factual, and is just an example of the "publisher's teaser" to which a few people have referred.

Those are just a few examples of poor English in one article which have been improved, and there are plenty more. None of this copy editing has altered the meaning at all, so no familiarity with the original Russian text is in any way needed.

Part of the problem here is that you, Ulugbeck1, with your admitted weaker command of English, are not in a position to judge the quality of the final English text. And you can not simply insist that it is perfect and can not be improved simply because "Er nesto is a professional translator". He may well be one, but it is clear to me that he is not a native English speaker. If professional authority is important to you, I am a professional writer and editor in English (and a native speaker of British English) and I'm telling you that Er Nesto's English text, while good, contains errors and weaknesses and does need to be improved by copy editing.

Having said that, my authority actually carries no weight here either, and anyone else is free to copy edit my writing too (as has happened, with improved results). In fact, my professional writing always goes to an editor before publication, and he/she will often make changes and has the final say.

The bottom line is that if you wish to continue to write for the English Wikipedia (and we'd love to have you here and bringing us articles that we do not yet have), you have no choice but to accept that your work can be changed by others. If you can not accept that, then you should not be writing here. Now, what I strongly suggest you do is read everything everyone has explained again, listen to it properly, and accept it - because you are simply wrong here. (Oh, and please don't write words in all caps, as it is treated as shouting and is considered rude.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the English language a bastard? Compare "bring down the entire power of the German Army against the Russians" with "bring the entire power of the German Army down on the Russians"... GoldenRing (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a very good example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

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

This banned user runs a website called "crocels" (crocels.org/.com/.info/.ac.uk/jonathanbishop.com). He identifies as autistic, and has a history of grudges (e.g. pursuing a vendetta against a teacher for 15 years because the teacher gives conference presentations on use of IT in education using his name, which is also Jonathan Bishop - Bishop has issued frivolous legal threats for "passing-off" on this basis.

Long and ythe short of it ,he write a diatribe on his website claiming that my motivation in engaging in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 106 § Character theory (media) was some sort of spurious anti-competitive agenda on behalf of me employer, Dell, who are apparently a "competitor" of crocels. I invite you to do your own research to establish how ridiculous that claim is, and bear in mind that he makes the same claim that we deleted his crap because he is a competitor to Wikipedia.

This attack was added to the article on Dell Computer from a UK cellular IP address: [195]. It was bot-reverted, he re-inserted it the next day: [196] - and there it sat until August [197] - two months of malicious and defamatory content. It stretches credulity to believe this was not Bishop himself.

Given his long history of obsessive behaviour, of which the teacher is only one example, I believe we should blacklist these sites and potentially put crocels on the bad words list. He is unlikely to forget or move o, and to have this bullshit in the article on a Fortune 100 company for two months is embarrassing [to Wikipedia]. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting this person's websites. A "news" blog with a top-level "Trollers Guide" category is ... unlikely to be an authoritative unbiased source, let's say. As for the blurb in the article we could oversight it, otherwise there's not much we can really do about it three months after the fact. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• 33 edits over 2 months. Not sure if Guy is concerned about outing (given that he hasn't mentioned it), but if not I'd say leave well enough alone (as far as revdel goes). Primefac (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No outing concerns, I openly declare this o my user page, it's purely about stopping him from abusing Wikipedia to promote his paranoid delusions. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting. And I don't really see a problem rev-deleting a 33-edit range (especially as the most recent edit is 3 months ago), so I've done that - even if Guy isn't bothered by the outing, it's still a BLP violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Edit filter, yep, one of those too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting along with an edit filter to catch Guy's name in the main and talk spaces. Katie^talk 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

An edit filter on crocels would be fine, but historians would not be too happy if you blacklisted Guy Chapman. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting I've also left a note at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#crocels.org pointing to this discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting and edit filter - Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting and edit filter and inviting Guy to return -Roxy the dog. bark 21:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't realize Guy had left, but if that's indeed the case, I gladly add my name to the invitation to return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting and edit filter @Guy: I just updated User:JzG/HealthDanger and please see predatory publishers at WP:RSN and also at Jimbo's talk. We need you! Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting and edit filter. This conduct is inexcusable under any standard whatsoever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Note crocels.org has been added to the spam blacklist. GoldenRing (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Without going into excessive detail, being in the physical area I made some queries in 2016 when the user came up - from friends who have 'encountered' the user. What will happen is they will not stop until they have been *forced* to, usually by a court order or legal threat in response. Anything less and they just keep going - and even then they do not always drop it. The user has a number of unresolvable issues that mean they are unlikely to ever change their approach. Oh and if anyone thinks looking into it that deeply is prying - Jonathan Bishop's rationale for inserting Crocel's material into Wikipedia was in part that Crocels was reliable because it was affiliated with Swansea University - Crocels *is* Jonathan Bishop, its a self-published blog designed entirely to support and sell his 'services'. A quick email to a friend who is a lecturer at SU there confirmed the status of the affliation was far less than Mr Bishop described, and in line with the freely googleable information out there. Short of a cease-and-desist, the user is unlikely to ever give up, or drop a grudge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think that Bishop controls multiple websites (and I think there is a .com and .info for crocels). All of these should be blacklisted. Bishop has some basic experience with websites and domains, so a big hammer here is warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to assuage any fears of possible outing here, at http://news.crocels.com/ it says "Published by Crocels News, LLC. Copyright © Jonathan Bishop Limited" (and most of the "news" articles are just publicity pieces for "councillor Jonathan Bishop"). And yes, sites include crocels.com, .co.uk, .info, .eu, .net (the .net is "reserved for future use", but it's clearly him as his contact email is a crocels.net one).

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2016#Jonathan Bishop - looks like a broad list added to the revert list, but maybe should be moved to the blacklist? Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

.ac.uk too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support broad-brush blacklisting. This takes me back… One of the rare people on my list of people who should never be allowed under any circumstances to have any possibility of returning (if you really want an outing into ancient history, review the history of Special:Undelete/Jonathan Bishop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) and the two previous deletion debates linked there, and especially the trainwreck at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Friends (social network)). ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA

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.

---

Per this thread, the editor is back. This time the editor opened up an account and made 462 separate edits to one article, which could easily have been made in just a single edit.

Since then, the editor reverted all of the rollbacks made by ValarianB

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed EC status from their account and reverted their EC edits. I don't have any particular views on their block status. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Willschmut and CU blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Tom Wolfe

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.

---

• Tom Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on there? 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah never mind, seems it's been fixed. 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

RFPP is backlogged

Apologies for not jumping on this but I am going to be busy for a bit in the real world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All fine for now. fish&karate 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog at SPI

Hi, hate to be that guy, but we've got a bit of a CU backlog at WP:SPI. Some cases open since November 3rd. Thank you if you can assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, there are currently four cases endorsed for checkuser by the clerks and three of those are from today. There is always a backlog at SPI but I'm not sure that there is a "CheckUser backlog". :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Acknowledged. I was going by the band of yellow and the oldest report being from 10 days ago. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerks? I wasn't even supposed to be here today! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BukhariSaeed standard offer

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.

---

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

This user was indefed back in March for socking and eventually banned from UTRS for a year due to repeated unblock requests. They are now requesting the standard offer, having posted this to their user talk page:

It's been a long time since I was blocked. I was communicated by the admin who blocked me that I could ask for revoking of this block after six months. During this period, I've learned the main reason the block on me i.e. sockpuppetry. I assure everyone that I will not resort to this in future. I also assure positive and constructive edits as well as a friendly approach for all my fellow Wikipedians. Bukhari (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, a 'crat from the Urdu Wikipedia has left a kind of character reference for them.

I request the input of the community as to whether this editor should be unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support: From reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba, I see a relatively young editor panicking to "save" their article. The sockings were painfully obvious, the main issue back then in my opinion was feigning ignorance. This no longer appears to be an issue based on this unblock request (written in intelligible English, which would address the WP:CIR concern six months ago). There weren't any issues of incivility or POV pushing, so I think it's safe to lift this community ban now as long as they steer clear of the original topic/article for the time being. Alex Shih (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Withdrawing support based on diffs provided by KrakatoaKatie and Rschen7754. Alex Shih (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I would probably feel better about the whole thing if User:Hindustanilanguage could give us an indication of why the block log on ur.wiki looks fairly long and fairly recent. I'm afraid machine translation here is probably less than useless given the awkward English it spits out. GMG^talk 18:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: Thanks for asking this. There was a dispute over a comment made by this user on the WhatsApp Urdu Wikipedia User Group. This concerns the word "Saaen" used reverentially in Sindhi but offensive in Punjabi. An admin blocked the user. My view and that of other admin is 1) the incident doesn't pertain to Wikipedia directly; as such a block could could be placed in the WhatsApp Group and not Urdu Wikipedia. 2) when a word has two different meanings, it's better to ask the user what he actually means. Assuming good faith should be the guiding principle. --Muzammil (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. No objections here. GMG^talk 19:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed Has a CU confirmed that there is no evidence of recent socking? The user was renamed from Hammadsaeed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I see several instances of  Technically indistinguishable anon edits in September. These edits share a similar focus on Sufism, so I'm fairly certain these is BukhariSaeed. They share the same user agent with BukhariSaeed and they are the only edits on that range with that user agent. Katie^talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. I do NOT have ANY faith in the competence User:Hindustanilanguage's -- the Urdu 'crat-- AT ALL. Check out the history of his User talk page for my recent dealings with him. As this involves rev-deleted material, I'm not saying more publicly, though I am willing to provide details privately. Jpgordon (talk · contribs) could also provide some back up here. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I regret that my good intentions are grossly misinterpreted. I've interviewed and as well as helped a number of Wikimedians from different languages such as Sindhi, Punjabi, Telugu, Turkish, Wikidata, Ido, Esperanto, Doteli, Maithili, Esperanto, Sanskrit, English, Hindi and Urdu backgrounds. I've helped a number of Wikipedians. I sensed a problematic situation with Calton and wanted to help him as well. Regrettably, however, Calton will now use every available opportunity to tag me as "incompetent", without realizing that the discussion here and elsewhere does not pertain to me but some another user who needs a review in an independent and unbiased manner. :) --Muzammil (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, you WERE incompetent then and your continued failure to recognize the obvious even after it's been pointed out makes you incompetent now. (Editors are advised to check the edit history of his talk page for further details.) --Calton | Talk 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how Hindustanilanguage/Muzammil making a mistake means that BukhariSaeed/Hammadsaeed should be denied the standard offer, unless they were collaborating together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support- If he edits constructively. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Inclined to support. We all deserve a second chance and people can change a lot in six months. Otherwise I think WP:ROPE applies. Sro23 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on CU evidence, BukhariSaeed has evaded his block within the last six months. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment to the above: I would like to quote the CU Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments for the past six months --Muzammil (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC): "I don't get the same interpretation out of that comment; I think he was just saying he disagrees with the revert. Nothing in that comment proves sockpuppetry. Closing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The comment from BU Rob13 that you quote is about one specific IP address reported in October, and it explicitly discusses behavioural evidence, in particular about the meaning of a comment made at a different Wiki (also in October). In contrast, what has been reported in this thread is CU evidence from this Wiki, from September. --bonadea contributions talk 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bonadea, for the clarification. I will greatly appreciate if you or some of our other friends disclose the CU evidence link as unblocking or otherwise for the user is largely dependent on it. --Muzammil (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, My understanding is that you have already stated in your comment above everything that you can publicly disclose on this. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, pings don't work unless you sign your posts at the same time with four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, remembering to sign is a good thing. Fixing: @KrakatoaKatie: Tazerdadog (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I'll reiterate that in my opinion, based on the technical and behavioral evidence, he has been evading his block. Katie^talk 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per both cu evidence, and because I'm still not sure they "get it". Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton, and per this nonsense [198][199] crosswiki. They seem way too overeager while still showing no understanding of what they have done wrong. --Rschen7754 05:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the block evasion disqualifies from WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per CU. GMG^talk 14:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic behaviour over a KIA soldier article

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

---

• Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AbdulQahaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Admins, AbdulQahaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some issue with the word killed for a soldier who was KIA in article Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The editor insists that using the word killed is offensive to Muslims and is currently edit warring. He was replaced two instances of the word killed in the article. One he replace with the word commanded here ([200]) when there is no reference of the fact that the person in question was the commander of the operation since he was a Captain. Second, he removed it again in another paragraph ([201]) and replaced it with shahadat. Subsequently, he replaced this with a quote "Capt Asfandyar embraced shahadat while fighting valiantly and leading his troops from the front" and the sentence "Captain Asfandyar was among the casualities" here ([202]). I tried to have discussion with the editor here (User_talk:Adamgerber80 since the editor did not discuss this on the article talk page even after being told to do so). But the editor first argued how only someone ISIS would object to the word shaheed then changed the argument that it is a concept non-muslims do not understand and is not insinuating that my edits are motivated by my Nationality and that using the word killed is offensive to the Muslim faith. I personally do not see how this could be offensive as the word has been used in other Pakistani articles as well (Rashid_Minhas,Nishan-e-Haider). As a result of this edit warring behavior, I filed a report on the Edit-war Notice board. I was redirected here by MSGJ as this seemed a better venue for this discussion. I had also added a COI template on the page which was removed by the editor([203]). The editor claims to have no COI over the article but I suspect otherwise. This is because their entire edit history on Wikipedia (about a year with 110 odd edits) have been about the same person (Asfandyar Bukhari) across different pages(Tamgha-i-Jurat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Attock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),2015 Camp Badaber attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),List of people from Attock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), PAF Camp Badaber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Cadet College Hasan Abdal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The editors only image uploads are related to the article and have been subsequently deleted for copy-right violations. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour over a KIA soldier article Hi admins, The word "killed" is used as a propaganda tool by terrorists like isis and ttp for muslims soldiers who lost their lives against them. The quran forbids to use word "killed" for muslims who die fighting for a righteous cause. That is why terrorists use word'killed" for opponent muslim soldiers to imply that those fighting them arent muslims. i used word "commanded" based on news reports and the DG ISPR's direct quote which i also have included in the article. I have only edited articles related to one person because in Pakistan that officer embodies our long and painful war against extremist terrorism. I have read his biography and he is the only soldier of the pakistani war on terror on whom a book has been written. that is why i possess much knowledge about him and i thought that wikipedia being the world's largest encyclopedia must have information regarding this Pak army officer who represents our nation's bravery and sacrifice. the user Ademberger80 edited the article and cut more than half of it on valid grounds. had i wanted an edit war i would unreasonably contested him on those points but i didnt. in contrast to it the said user seems bent on including a word in the article which i have repeatedly told him is considered offensive by muslims and pakistanis in this case. the case of rashid minhas is different because he wasnt fighting a war and also wasnt a combatant against those terrorists who claim to be muslim. the word shahadat only is mentioned in a direct quote and killed has been replaced by casuality which is also a neutral word in my opinion.AbdulQahaar (talk)

Maybe this would be an issue in Arabic or Urdu or Farsi, but in English, "killed X" merely means "caused X to die" (without any comment on the righteousness of the cause), and phrases like "embraced shahadat" are meaningless in English. Shahadat tells me that this translates to "martyrdom"; in something like this, where the opponents obviously won't consider it martyrdom, the use of this term doesn't adhere to our policy on presenting a neutral point of view. Finally, please don't replace simple English phrases with foreign terminology that will be meaningless to most readers. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend Just for reference, I did convey to the user that using martyr was not allowed on Wikipedia per its POV policy. In reply, the user got into technicalities claiming that the policy only censures (using their words here) the use of the word martyr and not Shaheed or Shadadat and was thus okay to include them. He further claimed that these are Islamic concepts which a non Muslim(indicating me) cannot understand. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In which case, he has even less reason to use the term, since he knows that the term is meaningless to the typical reader of the English Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AbdulQahaar, I know you may not easily understand because of cultural differences, but in primarily English speaking countries, being killed in action (KIA) is a term of respect, and implies that the person died honorably in pursuit of an honorable mission while doing their duty to the greatest extent possible. In English, there is normally only a distinction between KIA and MIA (missing in action) and both are normally honorable terms. At our funerals for our soldiers, we describe them as "killed in action" and we celebrate that they made the ultimate sacrifice. It is not a term of derision. It is a term of honor. I hope that you can understand the cultural differences here. GMG^talk 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out that for a person to be a casualty does not necessarily require the death of the person. Per Nyttend, in English "kill" is but a word with no real specific meaning beyond "an action that results in the death of another being". I would say that you would have a case if this was the Arabic Wikipedia where shahadat would have cultural significance, but not on the English Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "casualties" includes the wounded and the missing, as well as the dead. One can also "kill" animals, plants, anything else living (even viruses can be killed); it need not be humans or other beings. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nor does the word "kill" have any indication on the morality of an action. It's perfectly okay to refer to the police killing a terrorist after he killed other people - what the police did is good, and what the terrorist did is bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually here in the Western world we consider trials good and police taking the law into their own hands bad. While it is bad, they are allowed significant latitude but in the United States may not shoot someone who is on the ground (for example) even if the suspect has "killed other people." Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Another point is that Wikipedia is not guided by religious rules, and so whatever the quran forbids is of no relevance here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Now the article doesnt have any non-neutral wording and it isnt offending anyone as well. Cant we just move on from this because i think the present compromise on the said article is ok for everybody. it has been made clear what casuality means in the article (that the person in question lost his life). words martyrdom and shahadat have been removed except for one direct quote by a responsible official with reference. i think this should be good enough for everyone regarding wikipedia policy. as we have found a neutral and non offensive replacement for killed why should we insist on including it when it can do no good. As i said earlier you guys might not know this but word killed has been used as a propaganda tool by terrorists in this regard. (abdulQahaar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulQahaar (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Killed" is factual. We don't need to try to kiss up to terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AbdulQahaar The very fact that there is an issue is why we are here. You have removed the word killed and made the article less clear for the average reader of English Wikipedia. The word killed in action must be mentioned in the lead since the person's notability arises from that. He is not known for having commanded the operation (for which there is no source). Second, in the description of his death you have replaced the word killed again with this quote which talks about Shahadat. This quote is not relevant here and the language should be much simple for the average reader. This now seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The word killed in considered neutral and has no negative connotation attached to it. Removing the words martyr and shahadat is not compromise on your part, it is following the rules laid down. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Killed" is *not* an offensive word, not in the English language or in the English-speaking world - and "Killed in action" is the accepted and correct phrase to use. We will not accept people trying to force religious censorship on the way we English speakers speak our own language and making writing in English less clear. I have reverted you, and if you try to enforce your religious censorship again you are likely to be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering whether AbdulQahaar is just NOTHERE? All of their edits, covering the last four months, appear to be very unencyclopedic hagiography (or whatever the equivalent term would be in Islam) of Asfandyar Bukhari. They are very, very insistent on the use of POV terms like 'martyrdom', 'shahadat' and 'exit the temporary world for his heavenly abode' (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff as a sample), not to mention adding references to facebook (diff) and some other fairly bizarre bits and bobs (eg this). This goes back to the end of June and they're clearly not getting the message. GoldenRing (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing Another indication is the editor who had the same discussion in August 2016 with Toddy1. I am quoting him directly here "I dont know why you are so intent on making a change that will offend a lot and please none. if you are still steadfast upon erasing the word martyr then please remove it from all other hundreds of similar wikipedia articles(in which the word martyr or martyrdom is mentioned other than in quotation eg articles about catholic martyrs, revolutionary martyrs,Sikh gurus, gallantry award recipients of many countries eg India etc). then I will also change it on this article." (Talk:Asfandyar_Bukhari) and quoting him again "I had this discussion from a wikipedia editor before and he understood my point. I hope you also do so. Also please edit the many pages about Indians in which sources arent cited or the word martyr is used. Charity begins at home." (User_talk:Adamgerber80). Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The "I dont know why you are so intent" quotation is from a post by User:AbdulQahaar at Talk:Asfandyar Bukhari. I am not sure where the other quotation is from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• One of the sources used in the article is Dawn (newspaper), a Pakistani English-language newspaper, and its headline reads "Army captain among 29 killed in TTP..." (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• It's been about a week and AbdulQahaar has not yet responded. I propose we close this discussion with a final warning to the editor not to disruptively edit in the future which could attract some form of temporary/indefinite or topic ban the editor to prevent further POV edits on the same/related articles. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock 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.

---

Could 2606:6000:5057:F700::/64 be blocked? Judging by the contribs, it's been used solely by a single person for vandalism over the past year. Thanks, Simplexity22 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a few seconds. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Create ဵ

Could someone create ဵ as a redirect to Burmese alphabet? I'm away from my own computer, so not using an admin-enabled account. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done WP:AGF , Google search says it is "MYANMAR VOWEL SIGN E ABOVE" - not sure if this is a good redirect, any admin that has more knowledge on this character set is welcome to revert/change. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Myanmar = Burma. fish&karate 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I am changing it to Burmese script. The article Burmese alphabet is about the variant of the Burmese script used to write the Burmese language. By this standard, the diacritic ဵ - used in Mon but not Burmese - is part of the Burmese script but not the Burmese alphabet. Kahastok talk 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Close 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.

---

Could someone close and enact the two sections at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_violations please? I began these to attempt to save one particular editor from ending up blocked and I suspect that will be the end result if these are not enacted soon. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello all,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence

I would like to propose community sanctions on the Catalan independence topic. These could either be a 1RR restriction on all articles and other pages related to Catalan independence, or a fuller range of remedies, such as those found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ETA: I've created a proposed sanctions page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence, based on the ZG page mentioned above, since this seems to be getting a good deal of community support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support full range of general sanctions 1RR is a blunt tool, and while I think it is a good rule in general, giving uninvolved admins more leeway to deal with the issues surrounding this topic is a good thing, and could prevent editors who might otherwise be blocked and get turned off from Wikipedia leaving. It would not prevent 1RR from being imposed, and would allow more flexibility, which I consider a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, if it was not clear, I would obviously include 1RR as an option within these and would expect it would utilized. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • SarekOfVulcan, it might also be worth spelling out in the proposed sanctions that any uninvolved admin can place page specific sanctions (such as 1RR). I think there is general support for that here, but my reading of the draft would have it apply only to editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Question - SarekOfVulcan Can you point us to examples of disruption to the point that warrants some community sanctions? I would support it (given what I assume is nationalistic and POV editing issues), but I personally am unaware of disruptions surrounding it. Edit: I just saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes_on_Catalonia.2C_please... I'll review that first. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reviewing the ANI post and the pages linked therein. Reminds me of the Crimea stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my suggestion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support full range of general sanctions, with much credence given to 1RR This is as an indefinite emergency procedure to stem the flow of the potential problems ahead, which do include POV editing. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per (Not) Dave above. This is going to be a contentious area for the immediate time being, and we need to be sure that the articles we have stay NPOV as possible. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as it's going to be quite awhile before the waters settle. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Would prefer if these were time limited to something on the order of a year, and reconsideration at that point. But that's just because I'm not a fan of the creep of special rules that make it even more difficult for newer to moderately experienced users to figure out what the standards are and where. GMG^talk 20:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'd prefer not to time-limit this, because we don't know how it's going to play out. I don't think there'd be much of an issue revoking them in the future, once they aren't needed -- WP:SANCTIONS lists obsolete sanctions as well, and the first one I checked needed only about 4 people supporting, and nobody opposing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but it also seems just as likely we get something like WP:GS/BI, which fails to get consensus to revoke, and is still hanging around even though it hasn't been enforced in five years. Anyway, it's probably not worth arguing about. I'm still supporting. GMG^talk 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This is a very high profile sensitive issue which effects users in Catalonia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support although I'd like to see them time-limited with a renewal discussion in six months to a year, to avoid creating another situation like Ancient Egyptian race controversy in which the sanctions are still in place a decade after the editwar in question because nobody's ever bothered to ask that they be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on a time limit. This is very likely to be a contentious subject for some time to come, likely years. Obsolete sanctions don't usually cause much harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If the subject is still contentious and causes problems in six months, it shouldn't be a problem to renew the sanctions by then. But given that removing unlimited yet unneeded sanctions has proven difficult in the past, it's best that we get a consensus on their end date now, as not having sanctions is the natural status to which we should aspire. Having lingering unneeded sanctions is a recipy for arbitrary enforcement, which should worry us deeply. Diego (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Will be very helpful. --Lingveno (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A very good idea. Although not sure how it fits with User:Floquenbeam's anarchic WP:AN/Honeypot proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. It's a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I was alerted to this proposal at a discussion on my talk after I raised the protection on Catalonia from semi to full.

As far as I can see, full protection on that page is working well, and it seems that several related pages are doing fine with semi-protection. Have I missed some outbreak of drama elsewhere?

Unless there is evidence of some problem which is not being addressed by various levels of protection, then this proposal for sanctions is pre-emptive, which is what I oppose.

I agree that there is a non-trivial risk of things getting here. However, I think it's important that we give the community a chance to conduct itself well, rather than rushing directly to sanctions without clear evidence that the community is struggling.

If there really is a consensus to proceed with these pre-emptive sanctions, then please time-limit them to a few months, per Iridescent's suggestion. We don't need another set of zombie sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What about good edits that the full protection is locking out? Not everybody finds their way to the talk page. Also, "risk of something happening" is no worse a reason to impose a sanction than as a reason for fully protecting an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus We don't fully protect an article because of a "risk of something happening". We fully protect to stop an ongoing edit war; it is a responsive measure, not a pre-emption. I want the same principle to be applied to sanctions: impose them only when other measures, fail, and apply them for a limited period.

Full protection may lose us a few good edits. However, I'm not persuaded that there will be much value lost, because a highly-scrutinised, contentious topic like this has many eyes on it anyway, not all of which will be deterred. Plus, full protection does drive at least some editors to the talk page, which is a Very Good Thing™; consensus-building complex topics is exactly what we want to encourage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Weak support because it's clear we're going to need to do something, but not full support because I cannot get behind broad-based indefinite sanctions, which will in all likelihood be effectively permanent. This should be revisited, not merely in terms of whether they're still necessary (some form of sanctions probably will be necessary for many years), but also in terms of effectiveness and unintended consequences of specific aspects of the sanctions, and whether the scope can be narrowed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • General sancations require a person (the admin imposing them on a page) to use their discretion, so its not like these are automatic and imposed against editors without thought. I agree with Iri above that we don't want an ancient Egyptian race thing where we still have discretionary sancations a decade later, but the fact that these will likely be needed for years is a good reason not to set a time table for expiry now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Two points in response: First, while you're correct that an admin needs to use his or her independent discretion as to whether the sanctions should result in an action, I believe the existence of sanctions can risk chilling legitimate discussion. I have, for example, seen AC/DS warnings used for apparent intimidation purposes in the past. Basically I'm concerned about more sophisticated POV pushing editors using sanctions to squeeze out less sophisticated newbie editors. Second, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting an auto-expiration date, but something more along the lines of a point at which the community will revisit and reevaluate the sanctions and determine whether they're still necessary. As I say, I do believe some degree of sanction will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but the whole zombie sanctions thing makes me concerned. I really want to see necessity and effectiveness reevaluated because, at a certain point when they're not necessary or are ineffective, I suspect the community will just be so used to their presence that we'll presume they're still necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Pages of notable Catalan figures are targets of vandalism and politically biased edits. --DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the idea. I don't handle this kind of area much at all, so I don't know what kind of implementation would be best. Support a time limit of a year (although I'm open to other time periods), because this ought to be able to sunset if it gets to the point of being forgotten about. (GreenMeansGo makes a good point about British Isles; I expect that requesting reauthorisation at a big community board would have been less likely to succeed.) If the area's still a problem, it will likely be reauthorised before expiration. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both a 1RR restriction and general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, under the general principle of giving admins the tools they need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• weak oppose such measures can only be a proxy for potential outlets of dissatisfaction from both sides and I see it difficult to "police" and reliably identify. Immediate targets will be articles on Catalonia, Spain, Spanish history, etc. but this will proliferate as "steam" in the political debate remains. We will probably see valdalism to articles of Spanish companies, politicians, living and historical people. etc etc. I fear that sanctions will be readily imposed for edits to high profile articles (such as the Catalonia or Spain main articles), while vandalism to more obscure articles may remain unsanctioned. We see similar tendencies with articles in the China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea complex _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Jake Brockman: Are you implying, therefore, that the sanctions will cause lower profile articles to be ignored, in the sense that dubious edits will go unseen with those articles? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: That's sort of my thinking. Sanctions would appear arbitrary if they cannot be (properly) enforced across the spectrum for all potential violations as violations at the fringes will just be part of daily vandalism fighting. This is just a concern because the complex of topics is so vast. I believe Nicotine has heightened sanctions, where I think this would work as the complex of related articles is a lot narrower. Sanctions should IMO always have the effect to a) capture without (too much) discrimination and b) have some kind of learning or lighthouse effect. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• After thinking about this for quite a while, I think I'm actually much more ambivalent than I was at first consideration. There are some good points raised above, and as was pointed out on the ANI thread, we haven't actually tried ECP yet, which seems entirely too simple of a solution on the face of it to not at least try before we look to institute a complicated, and potentially indefinite bureaucratic solution. GMG^talk 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose without aforementioned time limitation. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• No one can really know how long the Catalonian crisis is going to last, so I think it makes more sense to leave things open-ended for now, and when it becomes apparent to an editor or editors that the worst of it has passed, a proposal to end the discretionary sanctions can be made. The community will either agree with that or not. Putting a time limit on them just opens up the possibility of an unnecessary repeat of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, per other similar contentious subject areas (Palestine, ISIS, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2RR I think a 2RR rule is in order, to prevent heated disruptions. 1RR seems over the top, because there could eventually participations which are new to Wp and are not used to 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• General comment. Some editors in this discussion appear to assume some or all of these priciples: a) sanctions should be applied as a preventive measure; b) sanctions come at little cost; c) sanctions should be open-ended by default; d) political controversy is sufficient of itself to justify sanctions.

However, I contest all those assumptions.

a) we don't pre-emptively protect pages, or pre-emptively restrict users. On the contrary, for example, today's featured article is unprotected, even tho we know that it definitely will be vandalised. We encourage potential editors to learn and to try, and we accept a degree of disruption as a price worth paying for encouraging participation.
Here we have a topic which we know will attract new editors keen to contribute ... so why is there a rush to restrict them unless we are sure that restriction is needed?

b) sanctions have a chilling effect on new editors. We know that potential new editors are deterred by a (partly true) perception that en.wp has become a bureaucratic maze of rules and jargon. Sanctions escalate that fear by accompanying the rules and jargon with the en.wp equivalent of martial law: stern warnings and summary punishment. I know we are all keen to avoid the disruption of POV-pushing edit wars, but scaring off newbies from the topic-du-jour is also something to avoid if possible. We try to encourage newbies, rather than bite them. We warn before sanctioning, and give a lot more leeway to inappropriate good-faith edits than to intentional disruption. We readily forgive editors who repent of misconduct. So when newbies come to contribute on Catalonia, shouldn't we do as much as is possible in the circumstances to avoid deterring them?

c) the presumption of open-endedness to avoid a repeat discussion is bizarre. Protection policy for individual articles is based on entirely the opposite presumption: we try to apply the lowest level of protection for the shortest possible time, and when that expires we watch what happens before reinstating protection. Countless pages are routinely reviewed in this way, with no great drama. Yet here we have some editors insisting that it is too burdensome to apply similar caution when sanctioning a whole topic area. That's perverse. Surely all sanctioned topics should go through a similar process of periodic review on an exponential backoff timer, with a default presumption of a trial period of re-opening before we eventually adopt indefinite restrictions?

d) there are plenty of deeply controversial topics where we survive without general sanctions. AFAICS there are no topic-specific sanctions on long-term POV-magnets such as homosexuality, vaccine, Islam, Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum (organisation), Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, or Black Lives Matter. If such bitter controversies as Black Lives Matter — which is on the front line of one the US's most bitter faultlines — can settle down with only semi-protection, why do some editors assume that this long-running clash of Iberian nationalisms has suddenly turned into a permanently unmanageable POV-warzone? Why not wait and see? And if sanctions do seem needed right now, why apply them for a short trial period, keeping open the possibility that like BLM this may be a controversy with brief and intermittent flashpoints which can be handled through much lighter and more transient measures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support a 1 year DS, extendable if in next October (or even late September) the need still seems to exist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support general sanctions, including the ability to place 1RR, for 1 year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Move to close

As this hasn't attracted comments in 5 days and has been opened over a week with what appears to be some sort of consensus, I'd move that an uninvolved admin close this proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to do so, would there be a lot of bureaucratic steps to follow? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, you just close this discussion and, if there are sanctions imposed as a result, make an appropriate entry in the table at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. It would probably be best to place notices at the village pump, interested wikiprojects and some of the main articles, though that would be a courtesy rather than a requirement, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence page I created as a sample, it needs to be tweaked with diffs in a couple of places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Something else to consider here re: using that page is whether there is also a consensus for 1RR, which is not explicitly mentioned on the draft general sanctions page (not suggesting one way or another on how to close on that point. Just noting it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors is already in there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So it does. I misread it earlier. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, would you hypothetically speaking be interested in closing? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, the fact that we had an international crisis and a laundry list of variously protected articles when this discussion started, and we've now reached the point where semi protection on Catalonia seems to be working just fine, just mucks this entire discussion up completely to my mind, and is probably a good example of why discussions like these shouldn't be opened hours after breaking news. GMG^talk 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Point taken, Green, but considering the exact same thing is going to happen at some point down the line, it would be good to have the protection mechanism in place in advance. After all, Catalonia still wants independence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reaching a bit to say that we can predict with intuition alone, situations where there will be enough disruption in the future to warrant, what are at this point, probably purely preemptive discretionary sanctions. That's part of why I tried requesting at least a downgrade to ECP while the discussion was ongoing, to prevent things from solidifying out of adrenaline, and no one caring enough later to come back and reassess the situation. I think if this discussion had been opened today, instead of two weeks ago, it would have gone down a very different line of questioning and argument.

At the very least, I think we all probably deserve a slap on the wrist for authorizing the use of force 72 hours after a crisis, because there's no way that could ever go badly. GMG^talk 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • I think GMG is absolutely right, and the sanctions supported above are no longer needed. They should have probably been in place for the last week of October / early November, but right now it is not clear that editing restrictions will be particularly helpful in the next couple of weeks. There is no reason to believe that this will become an Israel/Palestine type conflict. —Kusma (t·c) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, 1RR is always a good practice anyway, so authorizing it when we know that this situation is unstable is not bad, nor is authorizing the placement of sanctions knowing that at some point in the near future, there is likely to be drama here again. This would give us much more flexibility in dealing with future situations like we already have in the discretionary sanctions system for other topics that are unstable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course 1RR is always a good practice, but we usually don't always enforce it. Sanctions are for topics where there is both ongoing disruption across a large set of articles, and where milder measures such as protecting a few articles has proven insufficient.

None of those criteria apply here. The disruption was small, localised and short-lived. Even the head article Catalonia has now been doing fine under semi-protection for the last 10½ days, since Callanecc applied it at 05:58, 4 November 2017, after full protection had expired the previous day.

It seems to me that some admins are basing their judgements on the nature of the topic, which seems to me to be a sadly POV approach. Some admins presume that a topic involving an independence movement or a clash of nationalisms is inherently worthy of sanctions, regardless of whether there is actual disruption. They seem to presume that editors working on such topics are inherently less able than others to work collaboratively than those who edit in other topic areas, but that is demonstrably not the case. As Kusma noted above there is no reason to believe this will become another Israel/Palestine type conflict, so no need for special measures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

BHG, for me, it was more a question of the dozen or more interrelated/POVforking articles that were being affected in the same way. It seemed to me that community sanctions would be more effective than arguing the same points in multiple locations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: it was a short-lived spat which settled down very quickly. Despite the continued drama in the real world, editors seem to have found ways of developing en.wp's coverage without drama. Whatever you thought the merits were of your original proposal, surely it is now time to withdraw it as moot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not sure it's settled down quite yet - see RFPP today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean... that's just disruptive editing by drive-by IPs. That's not the kind of thing we would use DS for anyway, and isn't the kind of thing that would be effective even if we tried. It's just one of the 10k members of CAT:SEMI. GMG^talk 19:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GMG. The remedy for drive-by IPs is semi-protection. Community sanctions are useless against drive-by IPs, and I'm surprised that SarekOfVulcan pointed to that RFPP as evidence in support of them :(

It reinforces my impression that some editors are approaching this as a type of topic which should be sanctioned, rather than examining whether the conduct of established editors requires sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the thread seems to be reviving a bit... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Admin AuburnPilot - sysop flag move 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.

---

• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A discussion is open at the bureaucrats' noticeboard regarding moving admin access from one account that has a lost 2FA authentication to another for admin AubernPilot. Community comments are welcome at WP:BN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Paid editor, resolutely trying to get paid, including using OTRS to solicit people looking for 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.

---

I think it is time for an indefinite block of User:KDS4444.

User:KDS4444 was formerly an OTRS worker, but this privilege was removed on 21 October.

KDS4444 was trying to get people to pay him when they asked for help at OTRS. See this page in User:Sphilbrick's userspace, which is anonymized but includes exchange with <redacted>, which did lead to an article. The agent disclosed that it was paid editing. KDS4444 created the <redacted> article, and disclosed that it was edited for pay.

Reviewing that OTRS list, this one is especially egregious: an exchange with <redacted> who is asking about Wikipedia's trademark policy. Here the agent asks for $300, even though <redacted> hadn't asked for an article. <Redacted> asks whether it was an automated response. The agent persists with the misunderstanding, until finally realizing it was a trademark question.

There are also issues with his paid editing efforts as well - for instance directly creating Stewart Levenson even though he acknowledged in the subsequent SNOW AfD that it was terrible and should not have been moved to mainspace. He is trying a second time with Draft:Stewart Levenson and if you review the Talk page, you will see he is bludgeoning that page, trying to convince two independent editors (and the reviewer who declined the draft) that the topic is indeed notable, taking up volunteer time so that he can be paid.

He has complained several times that disclosing paid editing is not worth it, playing the martyr (eg diff, diff, and recently created Conso International Corporation which looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing, and from which KDS444 recently removed a "notability" tag, placed by a NPPer here.

Today, they moved a draft of another paid article that had been at AfC to mainspace, with an edit note Article has been ready for publication for weeks, have now removed from AfC queue.

From my perspective, it is clear that getting paid is more important to KDS444 than being a good citizen. I am proposing a community ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot comment on the suppressed page contents, but I can confirm just one salient fact: "KDS4444's OTRS access was revoked, by the decision of OTRS administrators, after KDS4444 was found to be using OTRS access to the system to solicit customers for payment to edit articles". - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The diffs alone are pretty discouraging but if the OTRS conduct is also true (which I cannot verify), I think there is no question that KDS4444 is not here to improve the project but only to make profit off it. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, temporary interruption: What are summaries of OTRS tickets, naming real people, doing publicly published on-wiki? I could very easily be wrong - SPhilbrick has always seemed to know what he's doing - but I'm suppressing this page until someone assures me that this is OK, and the people who wrote to OTRS - and who's names are visible - either OK'd having their names published, or don't have the right to privacy I thought they had. Discussion can of course continue, but maybe discuss the deleted OTRS page on a subthread or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Floq I had the same concern and emailed a few people about it back when I first saw it a few weeks ago. Given that a) I too assume that Sphilbrick knows what they doing; b) it was still there and c) nothing has happened and d) KDS444's escalating bad behavior, I have just put the cards on the table for the community to act. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your concern, Floq, you've got a point there. I'm not an OTRS rules expert, but according to meta:Access to nonpublic information policy, non-public OTRS information may be released when "community members needs to stop damage to the Wikimedia Sites". What was released here does in fact look like damage to Wikipedia as well as to the OTRS "customer" side. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I can tell, the damage was NOT (or was not always) being caused by the people whose names were published. A lot of these were apparently unsolicited offers from KDS4444. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite right to have suppressed that. It should never have been posted on-wiki. The identities of who submit tickets should never be disclosed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have seen some of the background but was astounded to see User talk:Doc James#"Well known long term paid editor" where KDS4444 demonstrates the alarming degree of disconnect involved. No greater example of WP:NOTHERE exists than someone who cannot immediately see that an OTRS agent should not accept cash let alone solicit payment. Johnuniq (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support and I was actually going to oppose it initially: the whining is annoying, but we have plenty of editors who whine about things, so its not that big of a deal for me, and OTRS is a meta issue, and it has been addressed. However, this move today combined with the concerns that Jytdog has brought forth make me convinced that KDS4444 is not here actually to comply with our COI guideline and PAID policy, but to try to find every possible way around them in order to make money and advocate for his clients. That is unacceptable and has reached the level of disruption that a community ban is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been reflecting on the OTRS thing since I first learned about what KDS444 was doing there. OTRS is run through meta but it was started by WP editors (I believe that Guy was one of the initiators) and I believe that it is mostly staffed by WP editors and most of the concerns are about WP articles. So even though OTRS is run through meta and his privileges were already removed there, the abuse of OTRS is something that should be addressed here; I feel strongly about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The OTRS abuse is a meta issue, and has been addressed there. What is an en.wiki issue is that he used global rights (which OTRS technically is even though it confers no actual on-wiki technical abilities) to solicit money in private for paid promotional editing on the English Wikipedia. If he had solicited money from a company to factually correct their existing article, while I'd think it was scummy, I'd be content to leave that as an OTRS issue since it technically would not have violated any local en.wiki policy. The difference is that he actively sought to use global rights to violate en.wiki policy (NOTSPAM), and even after it had been explained to him how the COI process must work, decided that he was too good for it today and went ahead and directly published an article without receiving review. All of that combined is enough for me to be fine with a site ban because it is clear he is only here to promote clients and WikiLawyer about why he should be able to do that. It makes his presence on this site a net-negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, absolutely. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". This user is very determined not to understand that the Wikipedia community is not overjoyed with people profiting form the volunteer efforts of others. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. It's clear, based on the information above, that he is only interested in money. Additionally, this is problematic. Nihlus 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose' KDS4444 has made over 17,000 edits and created more than 150 pages (almost all as a volunteer) over 9 years of editing. The editor has never been blocked. Before trying a site ban I'd much rather see us try a lesser step and see if it works. In particular, I'm perfectly ok if KDS4444 is banned from moving drafts into mainspace (he should have known better on that one), and from directly editing pages for which he is being paid in mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And over 9 years they have not learnt how to handle confidential information despite being an OTRS member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

They weren't the one who publicly posted the confidential information here, including identities of people who submitted OTRS tickets. As far as I am aware,the accusations against KDS4444 are not related to a lack of confidentiality, but to inappropriate responses to OTRS requests.

KDS4444 should be banned from OTRS, and has been, for using it the way they did, and that should be a consideration in actions here. But I don't think we should jump straight to a site ban for the OTRS actions, and the on-wiki actions don't seem anywhere near sufficient to warrant a site ban without trying something else first. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not. I do not believe that the user is complying with the terms of use. The OTRS issue is not separate fomr this. The OTRS issue is a violation of the terms of use, right there. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Without any evidence that there have been other paid edits, and given KDS4444's openness about being a paid editor, I see no reason to believe that there are undisclosed paid edits. Do you have anything to show that this has occured? If there is sufficient evidence of undisclosed paid edits, I'd certainly rethink my position, but none have been raised to date.

OTRS is a problem for meta. Given that we aren't supposed to even know the contents of those emails based on the privacy policy, I'm surprised that we can even discuss it in such detail here. That said, from what has been said I am completely opposed to KDS4444's actions on OTRS. If people feel that it is a concern for us then I'm ok with that. But personally I don't like this jump straight to a full site ban for a problem that occurred elsewhere, without anything else been tried here first or sufficient on-wiki actions to justify it. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Bilby, a huge amount has been done about it. So much so that it has become a time sink for many of us. It's even spawned RFCs by Doc James which you are well aw:are of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing looking at issues raised by KDS4444's editing, and addressing KDS4444's editing with sanctions less than a site ban. Generally I'd expect some direct attempts to sanction an editor before moving to a site ban. Has a partial ban been tried? The block log is empty, so I assume nothing has been tried there.

I would fully support a partial ban before moving to a site ban, but I can't, in good conscious, support jumping to a site ban based on the small number of on-wiki issues being shown here without at least trying a partial ban first. The OTRS issue is different, and I'm open to a community decision that we can site ban someone for actions committed on OTRS, but personally I'd rather see that managed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support - The editor's behavior is completely unconscionable. He soils the entire project by being allowed to continue editing here. I'm not sure why the WMF hasn't globally banned him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block here. OTRS access already removed. Jonathunder (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- long-running and entrenched issue; volunteer time is best spent elsewhere rather than having to deal with promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Probably should have happened earlier. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like requesting a siteban for someone who's been a functionary, but this is exceptional — as far as abuse of the system is concerned, there aren't many things worse than using your advanced user rights to try to make money. The solicitation itself is an issue for Meta, but related actions here are an issue for us. I won't say "go away and never come back", but this kind of thing warrants "go away and never come back unless you can persuade the community to change its mind", and that's only going to happen with a lot of evidence for usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per basically everyone upthread. What a waste of volunteer time, just so he can make a little cash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "I have advanced user rights on Wikipedia, I can get your article on there for $____" should result in an automatic ban, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Can we get a clear statement from an OTRS agent about whether it is accurate that KDS actually said something similar to the above characterization by The Bushranger? I don't want to jump on this without having all the facts, but if something like that was said, that is incompatible with continued editing of the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  The most I feel comfortable saying at this point is that they have not used that exact phrasing ("I have advanced rights") or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Echo Pfac.I do not recall about KDS using the exact phrasing, in his solicitations.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  It may not be exact words, but it's the clear implication, from how this is presented. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I rather fear I started the ball rolling here without mentioning names. No one has tried more to reason with KDS more than I and Jytdog but it has had little effect. Our conditions are lax in even permitting disclosed paid editing (under the assumption that it will prevent it going underground), but some take this to mean that they can make a deliberate career of it. KDS's main issue is that he is fiercly trying to avoid refunding his clients' money as becomes particularly evident in his persistence to get Stewart Levenson published (although the actual rejection of this article is a lack of notability as clearly set forth by Voceditenore) at Draft talk:Stewart Levenson. My objection to paid editing of any kind (except WIR) is that it is freeloading on the voluntary work of the editors who contribute content and maintain the quality of it. It practically always involves promotion of some kind, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We all know the OP has a bone to pick with anyone who ever recieved/s a cent ever for any edit done on Wikipedia. KDS, be more concerned with being a good "citizen" than getting paid. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • L3X1, I consider this oppose along with the edit summary to be bordering on a personal attack on Jytdog. Jytdog in fact has probably done the most of any editor we have to strike a balance between neutrality and COI/paid editing. They are one of the few editors who actually is willing to work with COI editors in reviewing their requests instead of simply reverting them. Jytdog also in the past has proposed things such as a Guild of paid editors for those paid editors who do follow our policies and guidelines (a proposal I strongly opposed, and still do). While you are free to oppose this sanction and to disagree with Jytdog's views on COI/paid editing, your characterization of them here is not true. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry it came across that way, but based off all the evidence I have seen that "balance" involves making paid editors wish they had a less stressful hobby. I believe article creation for profit and advocacy editing can be a problem, but I think they should be attacked/resolved in a manner that doesn't to me look like borderlin harrassment. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for striking your comment. I do not consider requiring that KDS4444 comply with our policies to be harassment, and I agree with what he was told by Doc James yesterday: You disclosing does not give you a free ride to add promotional material to Wikipedia and use advanced privileges to try to get further money. KDS has not tried to follow our rules on the English Wikipedia. Full stop. He has tried to use the global terms of use a bludgeon to force us to accept articles that are clearly in violation of our local policies and guidelines, and has abused a global right (OTRS) on en.wiki to violate our policies for his personal income. That is why we are talking about site banning him: he has violated local policies while trying to hold us hostage to the bare minimum requirements for even being able to hit the save button. That is disruption that is worthy of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we proposing an infinite block/ban or a limited with auto unblock and the standard conditions. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The English Wikipedia does not have infinite sanctions. Site bans are indefinite, but even Betacommand is having his appeal considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • That was what I was implying. Beta's been trying to get unblocked for 5 years. The last one had multiple proposals of various levels attended by a multitude of editors, and even though the appeal is still under consideration, he is still blocked from en.wiki. DrStrauss (the guy, not the account) probably has a good chance of getting an account unblocked (or a new account with Arbcom's approval) because the level of his disruption is limited to deceit and socking. Indulge my crystal ball for a moment: the problem is that when the 6 months roll up, a good number of editors won't be bothered to support KDS's return. "Prove that you've repented" "How will we know that you aren't still taking payment" "unblock=might be trouble, blocked=no trouble" Comments like that and energetic opposition can sink a appeal either by numbers or by preventing consensus. And if KDS is site banned, wouldn't that mean he can't participate in any wiki-project? News, commons, fr.wiki, meta, media etc, right? At least Beta and Strauss can try to show penitence, a sitebanAn indef block will IMO be a damnatio ad beastias for KDS. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Just thought I would chime in here. This discussion, on the English Wikipedia's AN has absolutely no bearing on any other projects. This is not meta. This is not a global ban discussion. Site ban != global ban. They are free to prove that they can follow rules on other projects to their heart's content. --Majora (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I'll strick those parts then. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The user is not here to write a decent encyclopedia. They are here to make money for themselves by adding promotional content about their clients. There comes a point when enough is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Trust has vanished due to the egregious OTRS misconduct. It was also an act of defiance of community norms to move a paid biography of an artist of very dubious notability from draft space to mainspace, bypassing AFC which was established, at least in part, to allow ethical, regulated editing by paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Accepting payments for the creation of promotional "articles" and abusing positions of community trust to solicit said services are both completely incompatible with being here to help us build a volunteer curated encyclopedia. MER-C 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Actively soliciting for paid work using OTRS is simply appalling behaviour (and yes, it is an en.wiki problem if it is soliciting for paid work on en.wiki). That, coupled with things like moving his own paid drafts (especially of dubious notability) into main space, show that KDS4444's prime motivation is self-enrichment and not building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to admit that I share my friend Kudpung's distaste for most paid editing, but I do recognize it is allowed under disclosure rules, and also that there is a spectrum of paid editing which at one end covers altruistic work like the WIR programme (and things like simple factual updates by company employees seem fine to me too), but what we're looking at here is firmly at the parasite end of the spectrum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the OTRS issue, this alone should warrant community ban - don't use/abuse English Wikipedia publishing, or fellow English Wikipedia editors in disagreements with a client - either to prove something to the client or to waste the time of other editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself. Everyone has to make a living, and if you can generate an income by editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with its policies, far be it from me to tell you not to. On the other hand, if you're editing in a manner consistent with policy, you're very unlikely to come to the attention of even the most zealous of the paid editing opponents, and if you're attracting such attention, you're doing something wrong. Clearly something is very wrong here, and using OTRS to solicit for paid work is abhorrent; OTRS access is a position of great trust and you are essentially speaking "for Wikipedia". Add to that the deliberate creation of an inappropriate article to prove a point to a client and clearly the bottom line is more important than writing proper, neutral encyclopaedia articles. And for that reason, support: not for paid editing, but for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - if the community decides he should be indefinitely banned, fine, just wondering whether desysopping and editing restrictions would resolve the issue but retain a good editor with 17,000+ edits to en.wiki.fish&karate 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Fish and karate, KDS is not an admin, nor do they (currently) have any advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, my bad - I assumed he would be with OTRS access. Never assume! Above comment amended appropriately. fish&karate 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Editor895

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.

---

Editor895 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When an editor is inactive since 2013 (zero edits) but then suddenly shows up to defend an article repeatedly recreated by a sockfarm - see their deleted contribution, Sabrina Ho, and Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng - should we assume they are part of the sockfarm? I would already block them indef (as I did with their colleague created the article), but I have slight doubts since they seem to have good contributions before 2013. More opinions appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd consult the CheckUser who acted at User talk:MacauMan888. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Let us ping them for safety: @DoRD:. However, we may as well decide that a duck test suffices.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth noting that User:333vip333 (who created the Sabrina Ho (何超盈) article that User:Editor895 defended) has been dormant since 2014 until today, when they also added this puffery to another article. A bunch of paid sock farm sleepers is what this is looking like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Now indeffed by Primefac, making the topic redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac found me on IRC before I saw this. They all appear to be the same, but I wouldn't be surprised if more socks appear out of the woodwork. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to check, DoRD, are you confirming a CU match between Editor895, 333vip333, and the rest of the socks at User talk:MacauMan888? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they're almost certainly the same (same ISP, same geolocation, same device) as the accounts noted at User talk:MacauMan888. Primefac and I also noticed Angrylala, cu-blocked on zhwiki for promoting Ho, who may also be connected to these somehow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked that one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: The recent edits to user talk pages make 333vip333, Editor895, and Editor43043  Confirmed to the larger group. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And now somebody is trying to break in my password.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours, eh? Primefac (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Unless they have a quantum computer, they are not likely to succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, this is IP 216.25.187.3, not sure whether they are associated with this sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the geolocation, I doubt that it's related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Appeal by Δ (BetaCommand)

The community is invited to comment on the appeal lodged by Δ at Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment.

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd opinion

I'm editing in my sleep and have need of a 2nd opinion onmy talk page. Please see User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail and User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail_continued. Perhaps someone uninvolved can help this user. I will be off line till Tuesday. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've commented there. I think all admins involved are being a bit more rigid that the situation requires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Serious sock/vandal issues

Upon the advice of The Bushranger who has spent a great deal of time trying to keep this particular sock farm under control, I am advising AN about the relentless disruption and a sock that simply will not give up.

Here are the IP addresses we’ve been dealing with today alone:

• 63.143.240.94
• 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66
• 2600:1017:B42E:45B4:B4B3:C34B:1771:55A1
• 75.99.95.250
• BLPN
• BLPN

More information follows because over the course of the past 2 or 3 days, the sock has been relentless:

• See: User_talk:Infamia
• Article that provoked the PAs and relentless sock behavior: Pardon of Joe Arpaio Also see the TP history for more IP addresses.
• More PAs on the TPs of David Eppstein, Oshwah and MrX.

List of other IDs in sock farm:

• The Evil Sourceror (talk · contribs)

15:35, 9 November 2017 - created 06:08, 10 November 2017 - indef'd

• Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:02, 11 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• Edit Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:03, 11 November 2017 - created 00:39, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Peacebroker (talk · contribs)

18:21, 11 November 2017 - created 08:04, 12 November 2017 - blocked for 48 20:13, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Infamia (talk · contribs)

20:51, 12 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C (talk · contribs)

21:26, 14 November 2017 - firat used 21:41, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 209.140.35.48 (talk · contribs)

21:46, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:46, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:8992:FEEE:349A:99BA (talk · contribs)

21:49, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:50, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• Son of Supervoter (talk · contribs)

20:36, 15 November 2017 - first used 20:38, 15 November 2017 - indef'd

There are more, and the disruption continues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These sock puppet accounts and IP-hopping edits are Kingshowman. Apart from playing whack-a-mole with the IPs as we see them, semi protecting the pages that he's targeting will at least stop the disruption on them. Of course, he could (and obviously would) just move the disruption to another page. Those are your realistic options... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the named accounts are recent socks of Kingshowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Plase see most recent SPI. Dr. K. 21:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a page semi-protected ASAP (update: protected)

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.

---

• Nathan Peterman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resolved

I know this is already at RfPP, but there has been MASSIVE amounts of vandalism on this article, which is related to him throwing five interceptions today. Could an admin please semi-protect this article? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Abdulsidahmed2016

Abdulsidahmed2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created multiple very-questionable new pages (Special:Permalink/811783745) about British soap-opera actors recently, most recently a page where the only content was Rory Douglas-Speed was born (DD MMMM YYYY), and also playing Joel Dexter in a Role of Hollyoaks on Channel 4 soap opera since 2016. Some amount of coaching or administrative action may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki vandals/spammers?

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

---

I'm sometimes minimally active on the German Wikipedia, and I happened to notice an IP that is spamming semi-legible opinions both there and here. Apparently, it's a sock of a well-known and blocked user on the German Wikipedia. I've slapped a 36 hour block on the IP to stop further disruption, but do we have a general policy on such cases? How independent are the different language editions with respect to administrative action and/or user behaviour evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the typical ways we respond to cross-wiki abuse is to ask the stewards for a global lock, which prevents a user from logging into a particular account on all Wikimedia wikis, or a global block, which only affects IP addresses. Aside from these, I believe local administrators on a specific wiki can and do take into consideration actions of a user on a different wiki when considering whether to take administrative action against a user, as such actions have the potential to also affect the local wiki. However, just because a user is blocked on one wiki does not automatically mean they should be blocked on another wiki. I would look at it case-by-case. (In this case, the IP hasn't edited the German Wikipedia for several hours, so it's probably a stale matter at this point.) Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Mz7, my understanding is that cross-wiki behavior is supplementary evidence; it is not by itself enough to enact a local sanction, but when a user is creating problems locally, then it can be brought in as evidence to support a necessary block. If someone is blocked on another Wiki, and has done nothing wrong here, however, we don't block them locally. The key is nothing wrong here. If they're doing the same behavior, ban away... --Jayron32 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Request (Winkelvi's request for editing restriction to be lifted)

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.

---

Am requesting my 0RR restriction be lifted based on the 25 March 2017 decision found here [204]. Thank you for your consideration. -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature is baffling and difficult to navigate. Please change it so that other editors know that you are Winkelvi. Please tell us how your behavior and approach to editing have changed since the incidents that led to your three month block and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Overall, my behavior and approach to editing has changed in that I now rarely edit for fear of being blocked should an administrator view a change I have made to existing content in an article in such a way that it constitutes a violation of the 0RR restriction. Other than that, I go to article talk pages more frequently than I have before, and often first, to get the opinions of others before making changes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems, then, that the 0RR restriction is accomplishing its goal of motivating you to edit carefully, so I see no reason to lift that restriction at this time. What about your baffling signature, which I consider somewhat deceptive? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not meant to be deceptive. And I guess I strongly resent the implication that I intended it that way. My previous signature was 'WV' for quite a while. This is just a more creative looking version of exactly that, nothing more.

Back to my request: would you mind if other admins were to comment? I was thinking of others such as Drmies, Floquenbeam, Bbb23, NeilN, Nyttend, Diannaa, Black Kite, Boing! said Zebedee, Bishonen, BethNaught, Ritchie333 who were all admins when the restriction was put into place, had a hand in the decision, and commented re: the lift of the block. Further, something I would like to point out in regard to your comments, Cullen, is that the restriction has accomplished its goal to cause me to edit more carefully, however, it is also causing me to pretty much not edit at all (the reason why stated above). I thought the idea is for editors to edit, not be afraid to edit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that you have made 282 edits in recent months, so you remain an active editor. When you were editing at a higher volume, you repeatedly got into trouble, and ended up blocked several times and sanctioned. I believe that the current restrictions are best for you and for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my editing statistics, the overwhelming majority of those "edits" have been to article talk pages, not editing articles. Is that truly considered improving the encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not seeing much reason for lifting the ban. 0RR being too onerous might be grounds for downgrading to 1RR. Emphasis on "might". The fear of some roving admin interpreting an innocent edit as technically being a revert and blocking for it is not persuasive to me, and strikes me as more a generalized claim of persecution... which is not generally a positive sign. That is not to say claims of persecution are grounds for upholding a restriction, but groundless or nonspecific ones tend to be associated with poor outcomes in my experience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm not feeling persecuted nor do I have some irrational fear of being indeffed. That said, please see my talk page and the discussion under "Admins only, please" - I'm not fabricating anything to gain sympathy, I was told an indefinite block for changing content could happen. In that discussion, it was established by an admin that there could be some admins who would see a replacement of content with different wording to be a reversion of content. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that discussion is correct in what is generally considered to be a revert. As I said, you might have a case for requesting 1RR instead of 0RR on that basis. Or a clarification that for 0RR purposes "revert" does not include edits that happen to restore content that was removed more than a week ago; or edits that would normally be counted as the initial step in the BRD cycle instead of the revert.

My take on the expansive definition of "revert" is that it exists to prevent gaming of 3RR (or similar restrictions) by combining reverts with other edits, or by making partial reverts. So maybe this is an issue that ought to be talked about more in the context of a policy discussion, if 0RR really does make editing impossible in practice when combined with that expansive definition. But I don't see it as a freestanding reason to eliminate your restriction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm perfectly fine with a 1RR restriction for six months, a year, indefinite. Several other editors were as well, including a decent number of administrators at the time the restriction was imposed. Except in the case of blatant vandalism, I don't see myself using even 1RR because of what I've learned since the block, the discussion, and then the restriction was imposed. 0RR, however, is pretty ridiculously restrictive without any change to the 0RR policy (which is vague, at best). This was also noted in the discussion at my talk page (which I linked to above). I really would like to get back to editing without living in fear that one move seen by one admin (or an editing complaining to an admin) could end my editing career in Wikipedia forever. It's not enjoyable or in anyway enticing to edit when you can't edit without that fear. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I see my name has been mentioned, but my only comment at this time is that you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Question: If the lambda is changed to a 'v', would that suffice. As I've already stated, my signature was 'WV' for quite some time and no one ever complained. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, just make the whole thing link to your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realize it wasn't. That must have happened when I updated the appearance of the signature. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record: I'm working on fixing my signature. Like I said just above, I didn't realize until it was just pointed out to me that hoving over my signature wasn't showing who I am. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does show when one manages to micro-hover over the tiny envelope, but why not just sign with Winkelvi? Do your friends call you Psi Lambda, or Trident Wavelength or why can't it be your actual user name? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Sluzzelin. I pointed out your signature problems twice and you blew off my concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I have changed it back to the same similar signature from months ago, with everything intact as it should be coding-wise, just with the greek letters as they have been since I changed them a while back. Again, I had no intention of being deceptive and did not realize that one could not hover over my signature and see who I am. Hovering over my own signature is not something I do and it never occurred to me that I should check to make sure that capability was intact. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia. Many have done it for a long time and continue to do so without complaint or any kind of suspicion directed toward them. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No suspicions or complaints expressed from my side (whom, admittedly, you haven't addressed). Just was curious about why you would wish to do it. The answer appears to be that others are doing it too. That's fine. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no slight toward you intended. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I said that your signature was "baffling and difficult to navigate" and that was completely true at the time I wrote it. Signature idiosyncrasies can easily be ignored if editors are not otherwise disruptive. You have been consistently disruptive in the past, although I hope that you have changed. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"You have been consistently disruptive in the past" This subjective comment from you is evidence of what I suspected from your first response to my request. And all of it is exactly why I would like other admins, who were admins at the time of my three month block by Coffee and the accompanying 0RR restriction was implemented - who also commented on same, to offer their opinions now. It would seem that even though I thought you and I had let bygones be bygones (according to your comment at my talk page found here [205]), you are allowing our negative interactions of long ago cloud your administrative judgement now. That's hardly fair or objective with the encyclopedia in mind first -- something administrators are supposed to be. At least, that's how it's coming off from my perspective. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I will allow other editors to comment on your request, and if anyone else thinks I have been unfair in describing your past behavior, then I will listen carefully to what they have to say. To repeat: I hope that you have changed, by which I mean your editing behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's occurred three of four times recently that editors posting on AN and AN/I have sought to have a specific audience -- and preferably only a specific audience -- comment on their requests, something which I find exceedingly odd. Everyone here is a volunteer, everyone edits when they can or want to edit, and they check whatever pages they want to check. That means that the response to a noticeboard request is always going to be semi-random, and vary greatly from moment to moment. The attempt to skew that response, presumably in favor of the editor filing the request, feels to me like a version of WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, that's not what I'm looking for at all. But, because I had a feeling from the tone of Cullen's initial response that he was not going to be objective, that's why I stated I would like to hear from admins who are actually familiar with the history and had more than a couple months of experience as an administrator. I have no problem with striking the admin names above, as I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to canvass here (I'm not - if I really were, I would have pinged them). My point was that these are the admins who were "there" - and if you take the time to look into the responses to each one during the AN/I as well as the discussion(s) about the block/restriction on my talk page, there was a mixed bag of what they all felt about the situation. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: (ec) I would note the part of Winkelvi's editing restriction which states:

  There is also general consensus for an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction, appealable in six months after the block expires if no talk page bludgeoning has occurred. (emphasis added)

  In looking at Winkelvi's edits to talk pages ([206], [207], and [208]) I note multiple edits to many of the talk pages he edited, especially in the case of article talk pages. I have not examined these edits in detail, but I think it's necessary for anyone responding to this request to do so, as the lack of talk page bludgeoning is a necessary element in an appeal being accepted. In other words, if Winkelvi is still bludgeoning on talk pages (and I do not prejudge whether he is or not), he is actually not allowed to file an appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note re: BMK's comments above: An important part of the condition re: bludgeoning has been left out above:

  "An uninvolved admin or community consensus will decide if talk page bludgeoning has occurred and Winkelvi must be warned and given a chance to stop before the matter is brought to an admin or noticeboard."

No such warning has ever been given since the restriction was imposed, no complaints about bludgeoning in my case have been brought to my attention, or anyone's that I've been made aware of. Conclusion: there has been no violation of WP:BLUDGEON as described by the caveat/condition in the restriction and block decision. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what was written, confusing two different parts of the sanction. You cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned under the terms of the editing restriction unless you been warned against bludgeoning first, but if someone was to examine your editing right now and determine that you've been bludgeoning on talk pages, your appeal would be groundless. You would not be hit with any additional penalties, but your appeal would be moot. You happen to have filed an appeal before any warning was issued (if one was warranted), but any bludgeoning which had occurred without being noticed would still invalidate the appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your interpretation. I would disagree even if the restriction wasn't imposed on me. NeilN was pretty specific in what would be acceptable behavior from the community regarding the block, restriction and appeal. Context here is important. Look at what followed the comments I included above (that you left out). It's clear that these were warnings not so much for me but for the community when it came to what would be tolerated and what would not in regard to the sanctions. As I'm sure you are aware, there are community veterans know how to game the system, find loopholes, and essentially make the lives of blocked and sanctioned editors hell on earth. I have enemies. This was a way to keep those enemies from trying to push the envelope. The clarification regarding how a complaint over bludgeoning was to be reported was a guideline for those who would want to make such a complaint. When you consider that engaging in bludgeoning would be a disqualifying factor in me appealing the 0RR restriction in the future and how those who also would seek to poke the bear (the next warning/caveat/guideline for behavior) could try to goad me into bludgeoning, the context of the guideline is clear: in order for bludgeoning to be a valid form of disqualification for appeal, a complaint and subsequent warning would have had to already taken place. Let's use some common sense here, too: I can't know that I'm disqualified from appealing if I've never had the required warning and opportunity to stop. Which I haven't. Regardless, I've not engaged in bludgeoning on any talk pages since the sanctions, so your point is moot anyway. Even so, it would probably be good to have NeilN weigh in here since he is the one who closed that discussion and set the conditions at the time of the close. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment those editing on an iphone (for example) can't hover over a signature. "Consistently disruptive" is a pretty accurate assessment. 0RR is pretty generous considering past behavior. Is the 0RR really just for talk page bludgening? Seems like it's for edit warring a lot. I don't recall a rule at AN that says only invited admins can comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have edited the header to be more specific. I also agree that the signature is both deceptive (trying to maintain that the drastic change was not intended to hide further undermines Winkelvi's already problematic credibility) and prevents access and transparency. For access reasons and for transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be his screenname clearly spelled out. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Two admins asked me to fix it not because of the initials (my signature was the initials 'WV' at the time of the sanctions and for at least a year or more before that) but because - unbeknownst to me - hovering over it did not show who I am. I have since remedied that and have changed it back to the colors of the signature at the time of the restriction(s) and three month block. But truthfully, I'm failing to see what my signature has to do with anything or why it's being tied into this request and my 0RR restriction. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To repeat: The signatures (both the one that this thread started out under, and the one now) are deceptive (trying to maintain that the changes were not intended to hide further undermines your already problematic credibility) and prevents access (as noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. For transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be your screenname clearly spelled out, for both access reasons (noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Opinion: I'm not seeing any comprehension at all of why the editing restriction was put into place, or admission that the user understands why their editing was a problem; therefore I don't see any reason for changing the editing restriction. If the only reason the editor says they have edited differently is because of "fear", then they still do not understand the issues at hand that led to the restriction. Until such an understanding and admission is at hand, and a description of how they plan to remedy the problem, I see no reason to lift the restriction since it has, as Cullen stated, accomplished its intended purpose. Even if the editor were to convey understanding and a new plan, I don't see a way to lifting the restriction completely, given the way this request started out; the only concession that would seem appropriate would maybe be changing it to 1RR, but again, I think it's too late for that since there's been no understanding or rehabilitation other than low editing out of "fear of being indef blocked". Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In spite of what Softlavender has stated above, I absolutely understand why the restriction was put into place: I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with others to the best of my ability is. If that's a "plan", it's the only one I have. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not what you said here and here, and it appears that this confession was only made under duress (i.e., after I brought it to light). A request for removal of an editing restriction should start out with a clear statement of understanding and admission and learning. The fact that it didn't and one is only at hand now is rather puzzling, and seems to smack of more insincerity. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make a "confession", I made a statement. You stated I didn't understand why I had a 0RR restriction, I immediately responded and showed that's not the case. Sure, in a perfect world and with a perfect person making the request, a request such as this should start out the way you say it should. I didn't do that and have rectified the omission. I take great offense to you now saying I'm lying and that I'm intentionally trying to be deceptive (with my signature) Why are you exercising zero good faith? None of this suspicion and being told I'm dishonest is deserved or appropriate. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your actions speak for themselves, as does your previously stated description of and rationale behind your current behavior and approach to editing: [209]. Cullen gave you an opportunity to display understanding, and you displayed none. The complete overhaul(s) of your signature and the timing speak for themselves as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing the restriction to 1RR per ROPE and because there are better things to do than sit here arguing about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The pointless obduracy over such a trivial matter as changing his confusing signature is enough to convince me that restrictions should remain in force. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support 1RR because I actually understand where Winkelvi is coming from. I think it's entirely reasonable that, with the expansive definition of "revert", Winkelvi edits mainspace at his peril. Given revert rules tend to be enforced without regard to intent, Winkelvi could easily find himself blocked for inadvertently "reverting" an edit by adding content that had been removed weeks or even months earlier. Even if that specific scenario is somewhat unlikely, I believe it's significant enough to chill Winkelvi's participation. And, that Winkelvi actually sought out the opinions of others as to the dimensions of 0RR rather than just doing whatever he wants is a positive sign to me. The signature thing... I'm not thrilled about that, but I don't think it's as nefarious as is being suggested. I remember a case from a couple years ago where someone had gone silent after an unblock, blanked his user talk page, and got a username change, and went right back to what had gotten him blocked before... now that was nefarious. This is just silly. At worst, the sig thing is concerning with respect to candor. Well, I'm willing to look past that for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Winkelvi has not satisfied the appeal prerequisite of no talk page bludgeoning: [210]. I would be willing to overlook this single example if were not for the fact that he only made 53 article talk page edits. As a practical matter, there is almost zero chance of Winkelvi being blocked for violating the 0RR restriction because he changed a wrong word, altered current sentence structure, or corrected a date, jot or period out of place, provided that it's not an obvious reversal of the last edit. For the record, I supported a 1RR restriction in the March discussion.- MrX 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't seem to me that Winkelvi has adequately demonstrated collaborative editing in the nearly eight months since his editing restriction. As seen by his edit counts, he seems to have instead virtually stopped editing [211], a behavior we call "waiting out" an editing restriction. Meanwhile even so he has continued his battleground approach on usertalk pages [212] and ANI [213], and article talk as noted by MrX above [214]. I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my last set of comments in this thread unless someone asks me a direct question. I wasn't going to comment further, but I just don't think it's wise or right to let Softlavender's comments be left without advocating for myself:

First my signature was a problem for you. You accused me of intentional deception via the signature. When I pointed out that the problem had been corrected, you still didn't like the signature and basically demanded it be changed back to what it was when my block was imposed in March. Then, you stated I didn't express an understanding of why the 0RR restriction was imposed in my original request and said the restriction shouldn't be lifted based on that. When I did give a very reasonable and adequate (admittedly necessary) response to your complaint, you didn't like it that the comments weren't in the original request and accused me again of being dishonest. Now you are accusing me of more dishonesty by intentionally "waiting out" the restriction. You further say I should edit for six months collaboratively before the restriction can be reconsidered again, even though that's not what NeilN imposed conditionally when he closed the discussion, and not what everyone seemed to be in agreement with. Remember, you accepted accolade after accolade as well as barnstars from editors on your talk page for your intervention in that AN/I discussion and, in so doing, took credit for what the final decision ended up being. You were fine with the conditions and final decision at the time, but are not fine with the conditions and final decision now. Not to mention you think I should edit more in the next six months to prove being worthy of the 0RR lifted. How does that work, exactly? 50 edits? 500? How does one force someone to edit Wikipedia for a six month period of time? According to policy, editing is not compulsory: "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature has been noted as problematical and deceptive by many people, and you did not change it back to the way it was before the editing restriction; it was still bizarre symbols. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, I am stating facts. I "took credit" for nothing, "accepted" nothing. Trying to point fingers at others isn't going to work for you. You have indeed engaged in talkpage bludgeoning, as noted previously: [215], [216], and moreover, in further battleground behavior at ANI: [217]. As I stated above, I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR per my general opposition to the use of 0RR, because it leaves editors vulnerable to gaming the definition of a revert, which WV has indicated makes them afraid to edit, and I believe them. Further I support WV's use of Greek characters in their signature, given that they've fixed the other issues with userspace links, the rest is just picking on them. It's not "deceptive" at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR That would still meet WP's protective needs. Be aware of WP:ROPE and that you will be under close scrutiny. Also fix the signature. A signature that irritates other editors is not a thing you need in your life. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - 0RR is bamboo under the fingernails. 1RR is far more palatable and allows an editor to develop collaborative skills while helping to keep the worst disruption at bay. It doesn't prevent tag teams for doing the dirty but it does help keep GF editors out of the quicksand. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Upwards of 99% of Wikipedia editors somehow manage not to spend much of their time at the center of heated controversy. Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF. One can't disconnect themselves from their past at Wikipedia or anywhere else in this world, even after they have truly found Jesus. In my opinion, what we're seeing here is but one example of the downside of bending over backward to be "fair" toward problematic editors, and I wonder whether Winkelvi will ever stop consuming vastly more than his share of community time in debates about his behavior. As seen in this thread, he has yet to learn an essential fact of Wikipedia editing, which is the meaning of "don't bludgeon": One can't "win" debates by picking apart every comment made by every opponent, as if there were only one correct way to see things; if only things were so simple. (If I didn't write this, I would expect Winkelvi to pick apart my strictly inaccurate use of "every" twice in the preceding sentence, pointing out the few opponent comments that he didn't pick apart, thereby proving to all that I'm full of shit.)
  If Winkelvi wants 1RR only for reverting clear vandalism, I wonder whether the project might do ok if those reverts were left to others—even if that means leaving them for some time in lower-traffic articles. For repeated vandalism by one user, he has the same access to WP:AIV as everybody else. And I'm not buying the fear argument either. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree very much with your observations here (and I've just had a Talk: comment demonstrating just this). But I would still support giving them just a bit more leeway, to 1RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And you did so, a few comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF." I trust that's not how you really meant to convey your thoughts. Every editor should be treated with fairness and AGF. I agree Winkelvi has exhausted everyone's GF, and it would not be unfair to continue the editing restriction. Moriori (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: I put the project's interest before that of any editor including myself, and there is no case to be made that it's in the project's interest to spend all these hundreds of editor hours to accommodate one editor's demands for fair treatment. I was treated unfairly in the only block of my career, strictly speaking, but I didn't make a federal case of it. Rather, I chalked it up to the inevitable limitations of messy self-governance, part of the price that we all pay for that, and I dropped the issue after a day or two and without a block appeal. In contrast, some editors have no qualms about exploiting every last inch of the community's goodwill, while persistently abusing the project in return for that goodwill, and I strongly object to that. No, I conveyed my thoughts quite accurately. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fully agree with Softlavender's blunt but fully accurate assessment. Winkelvi has substantially downgraded their contributions in recent months; call it what you want, but it is just a "waiting out" tactic. I have no idea why some editors here want to encourage that behavior by lowering his restriction to 1RR. I would like to see six months of collaborative editing -- something worthy of an award -- before granting any leniency on their editing restriction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree with this assessment more. The worry Winkelvi has voiced is a realistic one, and Winkelvi's seeking input and first requesting clarification rather than leaping headlong into behavior on the edge of acceptability in order to gradually test the bounds of the restriction is an excellent sign. That his approach, particularly with the signature change, comes off as argumentative is not helpful, but in light of the panic this request seems to have engendered, I would consider it truly paradoxical were Winkelvi to fail to defend himself. Winkelvi is not sitebanned or mainspace banned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't term a consistent period of collaborative editing as being on the "edge of acceptability". And I am fully aware there is no site or mainspace ban. I never hinted at one. Virtually discontinuing editing and still displaying battleground behavior here, at their talk page, and elsewhere are not indicators of an editor who has learned from their past behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only has there no clear reason to lift the restriction been established- at least, not one that demonstrates how such a move would benefit the encyclopaedia- but this complete time-sink above regarding their signiture illustrates that the same WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exists, the principal that if one can do something, then one should. So if one can get away with having a misleading signature, one should? --->phenomonally unhelpful. And, for the record, WV's comment here, in response to Cullen, that "having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia" is a distraction. Per WP:SIG#Custom si: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page and A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users, regardless of what others' sigs may or may not be doing. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - Oh lord... about 90% of this discussion was entirely unnecessary. I would hardly call the signature "deceptive" - not least because deception is an intent to trick or fool people - as anyone familiar with Winkelvi should have been able to identify them on sight. The shadow and envelope logo have always been present in his signature, psi looks similar to w and lamba looks like an upside down v, you know, WV. Furthermore, WV is not Winkelvi so why has nobody pulled him up on this in the... how many years has he been here? No, now that they've changed it to a slightly less obvious WV it's a problem. Mountain ... mole hill. <rant>And then on top of all that, who the fuck could psi-lambda over here possibly have been deceiving when they linked the AN/I that had the /0RR/ imposed in the first place in their request? What? Joe "Psi-Lambda" Bloggs just waltzed on over here to request that /somebody else's 0RR/ restriction be lifted for them? Huh???</rant> That said, Winkelvi's responses haven't been... optimal. Rather than just immediately going back and changing their signature to their old deceptive signature, so they could deceive us with their old deception, they decided to defend their choice to deceive us with a new deception signature so that we couldn't possibly identify their deception. Or alternatively place the slightest imposition on an editor to... oh I don't know... look at the diff and let the neurons do the rest? (I am bearing in mind that their sig did indeed make it exceptionally difficult for someone to navigate to their talk page and that this should, and was, rectified soon after it was pointed out).</rant... again... I get annoyed at people who start shit over trivial matters> All of that said, however, the non-sig based criticisms are reasonable enough. Winkelvi hasn't been engaging in much productive work, though if the 0RR restriction is effecting that (not affecting it) then it might be reasonable to loosen the ropes slightly to 1RR and I'm not impressed with their conduct at Talk:Bruce Harrell, but, that's probably more true of their "opponent" who came in with the knife out with little reason. In all, I see no reason to remove the restriction, but, I'm fine with loosening it to allow Winkelvi (WV / Psi-Lambda / Deceptive) to edit in peace. Now Imma move along. Μρ ρνδδυδε (ταλκ) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. While WinkElvi has been quiet, I don't see that as an indication of changed behaviour. His edit-warring has diminished the contributions the rest of us would have made otherwise, and a short leash on his editing is quite proper. BTW, I find his new signature baffling, as it uses unfamiliar symbols that require a specific "decoding" to make the connection. I suspect he is trying to evade the associations many of us have with his previous signature, which suggests he does not acknowledge the reasons why he has been restricted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Adding the following as I feel it's important for those considering my request to read (I stated all this below, but I think it's not being seen as it's buried in the discussion).

I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan forward in regard to this request other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block in March 2017. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting the work of others just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with editors to the best of my ability is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that Winkelvi has modified their signature back to an easily navigable and recognizable version. Their kind holiday greetings to various editors popped up on my watchlist, along with the modified signature. Thank you, Winkelvi, for responding to community concerns. I now support changing the 0RR to a 1RR restriction instead, with the stated understanding among all that behavior by Winkelvi that the community finds disruptive will result in new sanctions. I truly hope that never happens. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I see the holiday greetings as a deliberate ploy to contact and get in the good graces of a passel of administrators, which is his normal ploy when confronted by a block or an editing restriction -- we've seen it over and over: his numerous pings to friendly admins during the previous block, and so on. He didn't send out Thanksgiving or even Christmas greetings last year or any previous year, so why today? Plus many if not half of the people he sent the Happy Thanksgiving message to are not Americans. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think that the greetings may be a response to a New Year's greeting I sent to Winkelvi on December 31, 2015, which I sent to many editors that day but customized to Winkelvi as an "olive branch". As for who received Winkelvi's greetings, holiday greetings are a nice thing. I happen to be Jewish and am not offended when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, though I may respond with "Happy Hanukkah!" I doubt if many editors will be offended by an American Thanksgiving greeting. I think that Winkelvi is trying to send the message that their initial response was a mistake. Wikipedians often tell people, "when you are in a hole, do not dig deeper". It looks to me that Winkelvi is trying to climb out of that hole. Let's assume good faith, and give it a try. 1RR is, after all, a pretty strong restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you, Cullen. Changing his signature back is one thing, contacting a group of admins out of the blue, like pinging a group of friendly admins when he is blocked, is quite another. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Principled, thoughtful disagreements are fine, Softlavender, and I agree with much but not all of what you have said in this conversation. I interpreted the original post as a request for complete removal of reversion restrictions, and I could not support that. That had now been clarified, and we are now discussing 1RR. Winkelvi has now clarified that 1RR is what they seek. I objected to the signature and despite some complaining and input from others, now that issue has been resolved. If Winkelvi had come here with a well formulated plan requesting 1RR, and a clean signature, I would have been inclined to support. They have made clarifications and corrections, so now I support 1RR. This person has editing privileges and is not blocked or banned. They have been reminded quite forcefully of community concerns, and have acknowledged those concerns. I think we should give Winkelvi a chance at 1RR at this point. It will either end well, or it won't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Those holiday greetings. Twenty one of them. ~ Fifteen of them to admins. A slight anomaly? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 07:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? He's not canvassing. There's no rule against being friendly, even if you're doing it in the hopes of impressing someone. If anything, I think it's a positive sign given reviewing this request is supposed to involve evaluating Winkelvi's character and maturity. I happen to think it's an adult, mature thing to do to wish people well during the holidays. Far better than the bludgeoning behavior that's been claimed as Winkelvi's hallmark elsewhere in this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR I'm not familiar with the original case, but I can't imagine any reason not to change a 0RR to 1RR after many months of no violations. Some of the oppose votes raise WP:CIR concerns, but none that suggest that 0RR is beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: Perhaps you'd care to look a little deeper. The reason you can't imagine is the combination of this consensus and the continued bludgeoning documented by multiple experienced and objective editors in this thread. Including, in my opinion as I expressed in my !vote, bludgeoning in this thread. I see no significant change in the discussion style.
  Lest I commit bludgeoning myself, I'll now withdraw from this discussion, unless somebody pings me for some bizarre reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at that, 0RR seems to be a compromise between 1RR and indef. I think that after 6 months of "good behavior", going to 1RR (with a healthy reminder of the WP:ROPE principal) seems reasonable. The closing statement probably needs to include another stern reminder against edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• There hasn't been six months of good behavior; there has been six months of almost no editing coupled with a number of battleground/bludgeoning incidents, including [218], [219], [220]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• 27 main-space edits since March is not at all encouraging; I wouldn't blame the closing admin for discounting my vote in light of that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the fact that he's really not been editing makes the claim that he feels unable to edit in mainspace without risking a block more credible. I think it can go either way. What I find disturbing about the claims that "he's just waiting it out!" is that it almost presupposes that the purpose of 0RR is punishment, and that by doing something other than editing mainspace, he's not felt the effects of his punishment adequately. The idea that Winkelvi should have to "learn something" first is essentially endorsing the idea that the restriction is supposed to be punitive, which it is not. He's behaved himself as well as should be expected. We don't require perfection. We just require that the restriction is no longer necessary to meet the goal of preventing disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: So it's your position that this thread can override the condition set forth in that consensus. I disagree, as that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part. But hey, it's only reasoning. Take care. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I absolutely feel this thread can over-ride anything from the previous consensus at WP:ANI. Quite frankly, if he's going to do something new that justifies an indef block, we should let him get on with doing it. If he's not, his edits are OK and 0RR is excessively annoying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've never seen anything convincing policywise that says a closer can impose arbitrary, complex, and extremely subjective conditions on appealing or requesting the loosening of a sanction. The typical requirement for requesting a sanction to be lifted is something modeled after the standard offer. But the standard offer is merely that: the standard offer. Exceptions abound, both in the sense that some restricted editors may be ineligible for a SO request, and that it may be reasonable to request early relief.
  So, to take your point above: ... that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part. I agree entirely: Because consensus can change, and the usual participants at AN/ANI do not have exclusive and perpetual jurisdiction over community sanctions, long-term prospective restrictions are at best considered guidelines that the community may waive with or without reason. Imposing them in a close is poor judgment because they give the community a false sense of security. This is the, admittedly frustrating, double-edge of WP:NOTBURO... and the degree of bureaucracy imposed with the sanction here borders on byzantine. But even then, I think Winkelvi has done as well as should be expected given how onerous 0RR is when the "partial revert" rule is applied mechanically. Let him edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, and I think the new signature is fine so long as it's clearly linked. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR. I see no need to continue with 0RR now, and 1RR is usually an effective limit without being so distrusting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR With the condition that any admin is free to revert it to 0RR. Frankly WV has, as SL says above, just waited out the restriction, but I am willing to extend the rope. Let me be clear on this: I don't think they are capable of not edit warring, so raising it to 1rr is the fastest way for him to combust again. Per my comments at the original block/0RR discussion, "He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'" - 0RR has functionally caused him to stop editing because he cant edit war, and thus has been working in restricting the disruption to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, 0RR is effectively an editing ban due to the risk of just about any of the restricted editor's contributions being construed as a revert if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so. fish&karate 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR I have had my issues with WV in the past and I concur with the opinions that WV is a difficult person to edit with. I have also been the victim of WV's stalking and editing to prove points. That being said, it might be time to give WV some rope and hope for the best. 0RR is for many a basic block from editing and I do sympathize with the editing on eggshells with this hanging over one's head. I support the 1RR with the same condition as OID, that any admin can revert back to 0RR if it is warranted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, pretty much exactly as per OID, except I think that if it's violated the recourse should be straight into a block rather than back to 0RR. Any loosening of conditions should be not only subject to a time constraint but also to an edit count constraint (which people will be able to pretty easily tell if it is being gamed). While I'm not optimistic that a lesson has been learned and internalized, in the interests of WP:AGF I don't think extending a short length of WP:ROPE is out of line. PGWG (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, based just on the contents of this section (without knowing anything about ψλ). And recommend (in general) giving warnings before blocking, in case of any plausibly-accidental violations. Κσυπ Cyp   17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - The opposes all raise valid concerns however lets be honest this 0rr is a gag and it's great short term however I don't agree with it being an indef thing - Everyone deserves atleasr 1rr! - Obviously you shouldn't edit war but you also shouldn't be gagged indef. –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

IP unblock?

Hi, can you please unblock 107.77.224.0122 for account creation? It's a public range that I'm running an editathon on right now. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

hi! relatedly - can we lift the account restriction on 64.251.121.244 -- this is the other ip? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• 107.77.224.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 64.251.121.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)

Primefac (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: I removed the account creation restriction on 107.77.224.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) earlier after your message on my talkpage, but I don't know about the other IP. Graham87 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: gave you some temporary flags as well in case you need to create these on behalf of your attendees. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: As above - I can't see any blocks effecting the 64. ip. What's the block message please? SQL^{Query me!} 23:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the 2017 ArbCom elections are now open

Self-nominations for the 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 12 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Zwinky

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

---

Could an Admin please delete Draft:Zwinky, which has been tagged since 12 November. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

...which is less than a week ago. G13 deletions, while "speedy", require some discretion on the part of the reviewing admin, as drafts that could potentially be kept should be delayed instead of deleted. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon the snark. I don't think G13 speedies are necessarily the most vital speedy to be concerned about, even if it has been sitting around for six days. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the page; it might have been salvageable but this REFUND indicates that no one is likely to ever work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help... I think... JMHamo (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been a weird day. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

How can I discuss the way administrators mishandle copyright on this site?

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 watched in horror the way people are bullied and targeted here on wikipedia if they speak out.

But I think this is an important enough issue to bring up.

I am interested in the best way to discuss how administrators mishandle copyright, particularly fair use?

Where can this be done? Thank you in advance. Moscowamerican (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You could start by giving examples in the form of Diffs. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

hi. Roxy the dog. thanks for responding. please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to focus on one person or persons at all. I was recommended this page by someone before and I saw that this page is very very popular. I just would like to discuss the issues and get all peoples opinions, etc. I saw a page like this once, but I don't recall what it was called. Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it to do with application of WP:NFCC? If you are not comfortable, you can mention a few general examples, but it will be helpful to be ready with diffs (as Roxy have mentioned) to present if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Without diffs as examples, we wont be able to assess your issue. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I know quite a bit about copyright and I think we generally get it right on enwiki. Lately, we've been doing a better job than Commons, in my opinion. Examples would be helpful. If individual files have been mishandled, we should correct that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am fairly sure this relates to User_talk:Moscowamerican#October 2017 given the follow up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If the info posted above is correct, and this is the issue MA is worried about, I'd say that Diannaa is right on point. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion, started by an openly declared sockpuppet of Moscowamerican. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• In practice we are very strict on text copyright (probably moreso than we are on files to be honest.) This is because while Wikipedia is an educational project that can reasonably claim fair use for text, our license allows people to reuse the text for commercial purposes (and we want to keep it that way.) Our mission is to be the free encyclopedia, and copyrighted text goes against that. I endorse Diannaa's actions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • thank you User:TonyBallioni for your comments, again, this is not about any editor, this is about policy in general. I think I need Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Moscowamerican (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind our non-free policy is required by the Foundation. We're supposed to be a free content work and use non-free images sparingly. That's why it is perhaps seemingly harsh on what is kept or not. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment- how would I search for fair use discussions before? Moscowamerican (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict)No, because you'd be wasting everyone's time as nothing would change (at best you'd get a no consensus to change result. Likely it'd snow close against you), and our copyright policy has legal implications, so it's really best not voted on without consulting legal counsel. If you want to create a wiki that has a more liberal view on allowing copyrighted text under the claim of fair use than we do, and want to do so without the de facto protection against being sued that the WMF and volunteers like Diannaa provide, you are free to fork Wikipedia into a new wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) There's an extensive searchable archive at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. And you don't need a request for comment to simply ask about this. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état move discussion

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

---

Hi. Please can an uninvolved admin take a look at the move discussion, ideally to close it as soon as? As this is a high-profile news story linked from the main page, I don't think readers should be drawn away from the topic to a move request. IMO, I think it's a snow close, and for transparency, I did vote/comment in said move request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

TfD issue

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

---

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 15#Template:Authority control has been closed; please would an uninvolved admin now review and close the discussion that has been stared below the closed section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Working Primefac (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Primefac.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Nominations

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.

---

How to I submit a page for my mother. She was a famous female Opera Conductor and Educator. Her obit was a feature in The NY Times and several other large papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredericContino (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is read WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG to learn what our notability guidelines are for musicians and generally, and then -- being as unbiased and neutral as possible about your mother -- determine that she qualifies under those guidelines. If you think she does, then read WP:Your first article for tips on how to create an article in Draftspace, which, when it is finished, you would submit to be "published" in Mainspace. But do, please, make sure she is actually notable according to our guidelines, because if she's not, after all the work you will put into writing an article, it's likely to not be accepted or be deleted for lack of notability. You might also want to ask your question on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Music and see what they say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

BMK, it appears she has an entry in Grove's. I expect we can fit her in. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, there you go! Write away! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

News obituaries in major papers like the NYT are a very solid indicator of notability, in my opinion: only people who are actually of a good deal of long-term importance get news obituaries, if nothing else because the size of the newspaper and of its reader base doesn't admit them to spend space on staff-written obituaries except for the most important people, and flash-in-the-pan people, e.g. victims of a crime, will have their deaths mentioned but won't get an obituary. Plus, the obituary itself (unlike a news report about the person) is a secondary source, since it covers the life from a detached perspective rather than reporting what's going on or what's just gone on as an ordinary news report does. SarekOfVulcan, how did you figure out who this was? Is there only one female opera conductor and educator in Grove who was named Contino? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. :) I figured if it wasn't her, we should be writing the article anyway. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start - see Fiora Contino. fish&karate 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Tell me if I may update or edit how an user presents non-English Wikipedia related information on ENWP?

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 an user was an admin on an non-English WP but is no longer, may he or she present the info here on ENWP as if he or she is an non-English WP admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsquare (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. We don't care who anyone is at all. Anyone can discuss anything at anytime for any reason here. We don't care if you are or are not an admin. If you've got something to bring up, do so. You could be an admin, you could be anyone. Just say what you need to say. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone is not admin but at the talk page states they are admin, we usually edit the talk page. I think the question is whether we would similarly edit the talk page if someone incorrectly states they are admin on a different project. (My guess is we do not care).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you not ask this question at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_12#If_an_user_is_no_longer_an_administrative_user_--_bureaucrat.2C_steward.2C_administrator_et_cetera_--_on_project_not_English_Wikipedia.2C_shall_description_on_user_pages_be_editing_accordingly.? Either way you are an admin here and that is the main thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a definitive answer than at last time when I asked. I value Iridescent's idea that off-wiki experiences gives a non-admin a particular authority. A non-ENWP user can claim to be non ENWP admin on ENWP user page as many wikimedia projects have flourished in more than a decade of this online phenomenon called wikipedia. As a user is now difficult to be a WP admin, does carrying the stigma of an admin earn the user an image that readers can look upon? Although JW on a mailing list post claimed that

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

do we admin need to stamp out the aura whenever it is seen? --- Ktsquare (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on contributions, not contributors; re-displaying these personal attacks will result in a block.

I think you should look back at your Rfa Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktsquare, and then compare it to more recent ones to see how times have changed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) I was really wondering how a person who clearly cannot write a coherent sentence in English became an admin - then I saw the date of their getting the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) EoW, thank you for your suggestion for comparison between recent and past requests for adminship. May you delineate or direct me precisely to where I can understand in detail what a request for adminship have changed drastically? However, I do not see the reason of redirecting a question about editing a user page to the difficulty of becoming an admin. -- Ktsquare (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my question: how did a person who cannot write a proper sentence in English become an admin? Is not communication a necessary quality for admins to have? Does not the possibility of misunderstanding expand greatly when the admin involved cannot properly express themselves in English? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) BYK, I am stepping away from this discussion because it is no longer answering the original question. Bye --- Ktsquare (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "BMK". Just to note, according to their log page [221], Ktsquare performed no admin actions between 13 January 2008 and 16 August 2017. In fact, in the 12 years they've been an admin, they've made only 50 admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) @Ktsquare: You obviously don't need the admin bit, you rarely ever use it. The honorable thing would be to turn it in, don;t you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

Gsfelipe94 on my talk page.

User has claimed I "fell from the sky declaring my opinion superior to others" (a fabrication).

User has claimed I am "messing around."

User's post on my talk page is incredibly aggressive.

I have no intention of humoring it with a reply (knowing myself, I would misbehave as well, admittedly). I merely request an administrator or other authority to step in and give him a proper warning template on his page to let him know that his behavior isn't assuming good faith and is quite abhorrent. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here. Good faith reverting edits over and over again does not fit. "Incredibly agressive" is way overreacted btw. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)@JohnnyFiveHole:, you are a relatively new user and you got involved into a content dispute. This dispute has to be resolved somehow, and trying to resolve it in edit summaries is usually not the best idea. Gsfelipe94 went to your talk page to resolve it, and might have not chosen the best approach, but you need to discuss with them anyway. The article talk page seems to be the best venue for such discussion, and I strongly recommend you to go there, open a new topic, and discuss the changes, at the same time trying to stay cool.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This, coupled with the attacks against me on my page (instead of on *what I did*) such as "You've never updated mma articles before, so you can't just fall from the sky saying that your opinions are the ones that matter" and "I'm not going to engage in a worthless edit war because of you." (both unprovoked) are inarguably personal attacks. I appreciate your biased perspective (I'm not a "new user" - I've been around since 2010), but I implore you to see things through a clearer lens. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, but have in mind that a non-biased perspective can srtraightforwardly lead to your block for edit-warring and the absence of minimal good faith. Especially since you have already got a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing personal attacks here. That's not the best way to phrase it, to be sure, but the second of those is unquestionably not a personal attack and the first is hyperbole, not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, really? A sentence that amounts to "You'll probably fail, because you always do everything wrong" is pretty much a textbook example of an abusive comment. The actual NPA policy (which everyone should probably re-read periodically, so we can get away from the telephone game and actually agree on what the policy says) says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in the original). The policy does not say "You can say anything mean, disparaging, and insulting you want, as long as it's not formulated in the pattern of <You> are a <bad word> and doesn't make us read a bunch of overtly racist garbage". It's obvious to me that Gsfelipe94's comment here would be identified by most people as "insulting or disparaging" if they heard it in the real world, and, as it was directed specifically and personally to a particular person, that makes it a personal attack under the actual definition given in the actual policy.

Perhaps more importantly, there's nothing WP:CIVIL about any of those comments, and that's a policy, too. Johnny still has less than 100 edits. He's exactly the kind of person that WP:BITE was written about. We screwed up. We can and should treat him, and other new good-faith editors, better than this. Let's try to do better next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Roysandytei

User:Roysandytei, who is an active editor from Ghana, has been blocked, because he was believed to be a sockpuppet of a sock farm. However first checkusering in countries with a very limited amount of providers includes a lot of false positives. Secondly he was blocked because he was writing about African popular culture. But if you look at his articles like Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (Ghana) you will see that there is hardly any resemblance. Roysandytei is an active member of the Wikimedia User Group Ghana and he needs his account back. He has an upcoming Education Program appointment with the dean of the Ghana School of Law for explaining Wikipedia to him and a Wikimedian in Residence position has been approved for him. What proof do you need for unblocking him? --Gereon K. (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The block was made by a checkuser following a sockpuppet investigation. I would suggest that you first discuss this with the checkuser (User:There'sNoTime)) concerned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime has not edited since 1st of November... --Gereon K. (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He edited yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, please see this discussion. I'm awaiting another checkuser to review my findings -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime has email activated, unsurprisingly. This might be a good time to use it, Gereon K.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That being said, per the above request, I have unblocked Roysandytei pending a second checkuser review. There's no need for them to remain blocked while we wait -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection for the articles on Net neutrality due to the current developments in the U.S.

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

---

The articles related to the Net neutrality subject can be vandalized or edited with political statement because of the proposal to repeal the current rules in the US. I suggest the articles to be protected in some form to avoid constant edits. This is an example of one such edit

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim has protected that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Mentoring and removal of permissions 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.

---

User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (Dysklyver for short) has been on enwiki since 2014, but has become really active in July 2017. Issues with their editing include:

• On 13 November User:Legoktm asked them to stop posting to the #wikimedia-tech channel on IRC because " I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from helping people in that channel - as far as I can tell all of the advice you gave to people in the past 24 hours was entirely wrong". Dysklyver completely misunderstood that simple request.

• Their rollback right was removed in September 2017 by User:KrakatoaKatie with the support of User:Alex Shih.

• AfC issues: User:DGG said here: "Looking at some of your comments to in your talk page archive, it is clear that you must learn to be more polite to contributors, even when you are absolutely right. And you are not always right. As an extreme example, you declined an article because of a reason that amounts to a denial of the fundamental policy NOT CENSORED, saying "WP is read by children". Considering the poor judgment shown in the recent series of deletion nomination, I think it is necessary to withdraw at least temporarily your right to review New Pages." They concluded the discussion with "In my opinion, the best way we can judge if you are reading to return to afc and nNPP, if relevant, is through good fairly detailed comments at AfD and appropriate nominations for deletion. ." That discussion has an interesting list of the most recent AfD nominations they made, and the results.

• Deletions.

Starting deletion discussions without knowing, understanding, or applying our policies and guidelines. They were asked to refrain from starting nominations or to familiarize themselves with BEFORE by User:Primefac (30 September "Per the close of this AFD, I kindly ask that you read WP:BEFORE and not nominate any more pages for deletion until you have thoroughly read and understood it.", User:Premeditated Chaos, User:GreenMeansGo ("WP:BEFORE is not a suggestion; it is a requirement, and your nominations show a general if not complete lack thereof. You may consider this a warning if you like."), me here, and User:Edwardx.

They promised to stop nominating articles for deletion after this on 19 October 2017: "Out of respect for your concerns I will not nominate any more AfD's until all these have closed, and then 25 weeks, and give you notice of any articles I would normally AfD, CSD or PROD rather than tagging them myself."; they didn't keep the second part of that promise though.

On 2 November, they were instructed that G5 deletions only applied when the creation was made after the sockmaster was blocked. "ok thanks, it was not clear to me the exact G5 procedure, but your comments here and on IRC have helped clear it up." is again promising. However, only yesterday they nominated a bunch of pages for G5 just to get them declined for not meeting the G5 rules...

Early november, they started Prodding articles with dubious rationales. This was discussed at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Arbcom candidacy. The first such Prod after they promised to stop nominating articles for deletion was Carabao (band)[222]. After discussion, their position still was "" I still can't verify practically anything in the article to multiple reliable sources, this is my default stance to things which remains unsourced, not necessarily representing an issue." If someone is unable to verify these things, despite the subject having e.g. their own full lemma in the "Historical Dictionary of Thailand"[223]", then the problem is with the editor, not the subject of the article.

• Sourcing.

Looking at his article creations, I came across Lesquite Quoit, created on 13 November. One of the sources used was this page, which you should probably read first to fully understand the issues. When I asked them "Or do you think that e.g. a source like this has a place on enwiki and should be reinserted in your article?" they replied "perhaps you have something against druids?" which at first I thought was facetious, but soon turned out to be a completely serious response. User:Doug Weller also tried to talk sense with them about this, but to no avail. Their latest reply about this issue, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions: "[...] how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids." "I will draw your attention to WP:RS, specifically WP:BIASED which says Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So really now my point should be clear, quoting druids on a matter of concern to druids, regardless of whether you actually know how to use dowsing rods (trust me, its just like using a protractor on a star chart, you point a metal rod at something in the sky, and make note of the angle to the object) which was the method used by this druid to determine that a 10 ton stone points at the constellation of Libra on 14th of July at 6:11am (every year). I am not "trolling" this is obvious stuff, although you clearly have no concept of druids." My response "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published. Any source that published this would disqualify itself as a reliable source straightaway." was read as "So in short, you do have an issue with druids." as if rejecting that source was some form of religious persecution and bigotry.

I have gone on for way too long (original version), so a quick recap: an editor who has been asked for quite a while, by many different editors, to famiiarize themselves with our policies and guidelines again and again (WP:BEFORE, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, ...) but shows no indication that they have yet grasped the essential points in these policies, is continuing to disrupt enwiki by frivolous nominations. They seem to be unable to do a good search for sources, and when they have sources they are unable to recognise completely unreliable ones even after this has been pointed out to them. Such an editor should not hold any advanced permissions (new page reviewer, autopatrolled, ...) and probably needs both a mentor (if someone is willing) and a topic ban from anything to do with deletion. Fram (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Statement by User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver.

Most of Fram's statement seems reasonable. Immense oversimplifications, partial misquoting, stripping of context and missing key points, but essentially correct.

I have only been actively editing since August, not July.

Fram clearly detests druids, but I don't necessarily hold this as an issue, since I am not one.

I can't understand why CSD even exists, it seems impossible to get it right.

Regarding the main debate over my competency. It not so much that I haven’t grasped the key points, more that I have a diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices to that held by Fram. I cannot tell for sure if his views are representative of the majority opinion given that numerous people agree with me and vice-versa. For example, my view on notability can be summed up " requiring the presence or availability of enough independent reliable sources to write a short stub " And Fram continually makes reference to how "important" something is, so is clearly part of the "notability = well known" group, which I am not. Otherwise I think everything is self-explanatory from things I have written on my talk page and ArbCom page, as I have already answered all of Frams points in full several times, elsewhere. but if anyone needs clarification on something specific then do ask (and ping me). Thanks. Dysklyver 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looking at recent articles, this, this, and this contain fairly basic errors in formatting/tagging, and this is still missing projects after two weeks. Those are exactly the kinds of things that NPP can help clean up in fairly short order most of the time. As to NPP itself, it certainly doesn't require perfection, but it does require you to probably be right most of the time, and be pretty exceptionally receptive to feedback when you're not. One way or the other, it does require a thorough understanding of CSD, PROD, and AfD, and when we have several others suggesting a TBAN from AfD, probably only unimplemented because of a voluntary break, then it's probably a good indication that a user isn't yet ready to be a reviewer.

Having said that, I'm generally of the opinion that the more rights we can pass out to competent editors the better, even if they're only occasionally used. In all fairness, CSD can be confusing at first blush, and for many, three or four active months simply isn't going to be enough time to get the hang of it, because it's a system that's designed to be expedient and not intuitive. The same is true of a lot of things on Wikipedia. No prejudice against restoring rights after a suitable period of time and demonstration of further experience, with a very pointed recommendation to Dysklyver to do less arguing and more listening, especially when multiple people are telling you the same thing. GMG^talk 11:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fram’s proposal re: removal of rights, and if it wasn’t clear there, support s topic can involving anything involving deletion, broadly construed. I like Dysklyver as a person, but there are serious CIR issues here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The 'diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices [sic]' is irrelevant. If one ain't on the same page as everyone else, that's gonna cause problems. With full respect to Dysklyver. My name is not dave (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so we are agreed on the user-rights issue, can we move onto clarifying the issue of a topic ban, I believe Fram thinks I should be banned from nominating articles for deletion by any method, this does not seem unreasonable. Especially given that I have already voluntarily agreed to not make AfD nominations. Dysklyver 13:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of rights -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • On reflection, this can be sorted without the removal of rights. Hopefully a better outcome can be decided on. I personally think if someone can't be trusted with all these rights we're looking at a slightly bigger issue -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see a compelling reason for a topic ban to extend to AfD participation. If anything, continued participation in AfD (as a participant, and not a nominator) is probably what is needed in order to learn. If you look at AfD stats prior to 19 October, which is the day this discussion occurred, we've got a 54% accuracy. That was it seems the height of the problem with AfD. If you look at the 54 AfDs participated in from 20 October onward, we have around a 90% accuracy, which obviously is perfectly acceptable for any user. GMG^talk 14:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with allowing them to participate in AfDs, but not to tag. Their CSD log is also somewhat troublesome, and I think Fram has had issues with them and PRODs in the past. Allow participation in AfDs as a participant but preventing tagging or nomination of articles would let him learn about our deletion process while still preventing disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec)I can live with a topic ban on any deletion nominations, while allowing participation in discussions at XfD. My concern was that after having many problematic AfD nominations, he moved on to problematic CSD and Prod nominations. I didn't really check AfD participation. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights per WP:CIR, and I must question the Arbcom run here too. Patient Zero^talk 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Any discussion about the Arbcon candidature should be made at the Arbcon election pages not here. Nthep (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support there's a bit of "he's a witch, burn him! take away all his privileges!" going on here. As far as the individual proposals are concerned.
  • I thought he was already TBAN-ed from deletion proposals, and support making it official. If he feels a page needs to be deleted, he can post on IRC, add it to his watchlist, or ignore it and move on.
  • Fram and GMG explain very well why autopatrolled should be removed.
  • No opinion on new-page-reviewer, but it is very difficult to do that job without being able to propose deleting pages.
  • No reason to remove ECP is given, and I don't know of any myself.

Overall, I would support these being indef, with the clause that while he can't appeal them for 6 months, an admin can file an appeal earlier if they feel it justified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some points: I should probably point out that my previous voluntary TBAN was from AfD nominations (explicit to AfD only) and that this is really whether it should be extended to cover PROD and CSD tags. I have already found it hard to do proper NPR with no recourse to AfD, using the other methods instead, to the detriment of my record. If TBANed from making PROD and CSD also, it would effectively stop me from doing NPR regardless of the right being removed or not. Additionally I should point out that I have only been autopatrolled for a few days, after some people mentioned I should get it, and I have not created any pages since getting it, so it will not affect me or my editing regardless of the outcome here. I had not realized anyone was considering removing ECP, and to do so would seem... odd? I don't think I have even edited an ECP page, and I have no immediate plans to add to the Donald Trump article, so its not really relevant, I think we can assume its a non-issue. Dysklyver 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - We need editors to understand that they should listen to people. Also, they do not have a good understanding of what a reliable source is, after being told. Thus, to make them understand this, and to prevent further going-against-consensus-behaviour, I support this. I do think, although, that a clause needs to be included whereby after this editor has been mentored for, say, 2 months, there can be a discussion opened to override this if an editor believes Dysklyver will not repeat the behaviour that got them restricted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think the IRC issue is related to their editing, but I do think that it shows a pattern of lack of understanding and competence. I haven't looked into the other issues Fram mentioned, but they don't surprise me at all. Legoktm (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I've been following this saga from the beginning, and I want it to be clear literally every person who has dispensed sage advice to this user has been promptly ignored. He started off as a promising novice editor, and each PERM he gained, he quickly lost it, often quite spectacularly. I'm not here to pile on what has already been said, but in IRC, every person in there told him not to do ArbCom so he did, we all told him to stop doing G5's (on wiki and off), he continued after his promises not to. It's obvious to me that a TBAN needs to happen, but I have lost hope in him being mentored to contribute positively, he simply won't take advice. He publicly claimed that he knows better than Doc James, for crying out cornflakes. I suggest maybe tacking on a 72-hr kick to get the point across, not to be overly punitive, but to give him a moment to reassess how he wants to contribute without creating more work for many of us in the meantime. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - but only because I absolutely despise Druids. Except for all the good ones. Support topic ban & rights removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Suppose-I have been out of touch with this particular issue as I have not frequented IRC and administrative pages due to my recent work ,when I first saw this mess I was utterly confused and my reactions ranged from WTF ,seriously etc. That being said after I had looked through the relevant pages I believe that this discussion was justified,Yet I am in favor of some last resort preventative measure instead of outright punitive action out of frustration against the editor:
  • I urge A Den Jentyl Ettien Dysklyver to voluntarily withdraw his candidacy to the ArbCom
  • NPR, Afc-rights should be removed temporarily per WP:CIR followed by mentoring if anybody is willing
  • autopatrolled- may be kept as long as they sticks to creating articles only about Cornwall town's, EXC can stay as they have not misused that right
  • TBAN-from nominating anything for any sort of Deletion ,that being said they can comment in any deletion debate as that can provide slow learning experience on notability
  • Review- of their behavior after 6 months to decide if any punitive action is necessary

I believe the current provisions are too harsh as they are punitive rather than preventative and could have been fueled by the frustration at not being able to get the point across to the user.-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 05:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm willing to mentor, as voluntary mentor (again) ir involuntary. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not going to support any sanctions at the moment (but I'm not opposing either), but instead just want to offer a few comments and recommendations.

  Firstly, there's the use of this as a source. Firstly, it's a personal blog, and we know that for sure because it says so at the About page - "This blog is about the experiences of two people learning modern druidry and ancient dowsing techniques". WP:UGC clearly says "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs...". Then there's the page used as a source itself, which is a report of some guy's dowsing and allegedly uncovering all kinds of "energies" at an ancient site. I'm staggered if anyone can think that's a reliable source, and even more astonished that objections to its use are put down to "Fram clearly detests druids".

  Next there's "I can't understand why CSD even exists, it seems impossible to get it right", and I can sympathise because CSD can indeed be hard to understand - I regularly decline inapplicable CSD requests even from experienced editors, and I also see admins sometimes accepting problematic ones. But when you don't understand how to do something, the obvious answer it to not to it. The same goes for deletions in general.

  My recommendations to User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver are:

  1) Withdraw from the ArbCom election, please. Nobody with your very short experience, making these kinds of mistakes, and being recommended for topic bans and mentorship has any chance whatsoever of succeeding - and withdrawing could bring some doubters around by showing that you can listen to sensible advice when it is offered.

  2) Do not nominate any articles for deletion, via any of the three deletions processes (CSD, PROD, AFD) for a minimum of six months. But do spend some of that time taking part in existing AFD discussions as a way to learn about these tricky processes.

  3) Don't directly create any new articles, don't patrol new articles or new changes, and don't mark any new articles as reviewed. If you want to create any new articles, use WP:AFC, where more experienced editors will review your work. Again I'd suggest for at least six months, until you really have a proper understanding of Wikipedia's definitions of notability and reliable sources.

  4) If you can find someone who's willing, get a mentor to help you learn your way around. (During an edit conflict, I see Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ has already kindly offered).

  5) (Update per below) Do no GA reviewing until you have a lot more experience here - I suggest at least not until you get one of your own articles successfully past a GA review.

  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per this muck up. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reply by Dysklyver. there are some things here that are acceptable, others that are somehow getting said but have little connection with reality, despte only being here a short time, I have been very controversial, there isn't anyone commenting here that I would call uninvolved and therefore various other perceived punishments seem to be seeping in. the arbcom thing is seeping in too. no matter.
  There is, for example: nothing wrong with my articles; I have not even used EXC/ECP; I am already banned from making AfD nominations; I already decided GA was not for me after being effectively banned from it already; I already got removed from AfC (by Doc James, as a potential Indian paid editor); I already had a mentor regarding NPR - which did not help much at all it seems; and:
  I maintain that Druids are reliable for matters concerning druids, for those interested, Fram explained how even if I found a proper journal with that article in it, it would still be unreliable, by saying {{That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published.}} and Doug Weller went down a similar route on my talk page with a source that is peer-reviewed (and cited). If the argument was about the website that would be fine, but I can get that article (or something very similar) from somewhere that is not a blog, and it is therefore a direct issue with the druids themselves, Fram is aware of this and therefore has not bothered arguing the site (other than not defining the argument). Hence my comments. Dysklyver 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  It's not specifically about druids, it's about dowsing, which is considered pseudoscience. Sources based on dowsing or making assumptions based on any other pseudoscience are not considered reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  "I can get that article (or something very similar) from somewhere that is not a blog, and it is therefore a direct issue with the druids themselves" No, you can't, not from a reliable source like a peer reviewed journal. The source you are discussing with Doug Weller is totally different. Sources about someone measuring the male and female energy, then "measuring" where the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic (or reality even). That you are still defending that source and pretend that it could just as well come from a peer-reviewed journal just means that you are not fit to judge sources (and thus should stay away from anything that requires this, whether it is deletions, drafts, GA reviews, ...); that you claim that my rejection of that source is some form of religious or cultural discrimination is offensive. A crank site is a crank site, no matter the background of the author. I indeed said "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published.", and I doubt you will find anyone here disagreeing with that but you. As for "There is, for example: nothing wrong with my articles"; apart from the sourcing and other issues that have been mentioned, I note that three of your 85 creations have been deleted. Fram (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• When the request for autopatrolled user right was accepted on 16 November, Lesquite Quoit was the most recent article created by Dysklyver, and the druid reference was the most recent edit there by Dysklyver, on 13 November. DGG's talk page comment was three weeks before the patroller right was restored. It could be that the rights were granted by mistake, or it could be a difference of opinion on when these permissions should be granted, and I can't see any evidence that this has been discussed with the administrators. Recent AFD participation has not been problematic. Speedy deletion has been less accurate, but is often misunderstood even by experienced editors and that includes administrators - at least one page in the log was deleted when it didn't meet the criterion and at least one was mistakenly declined. Peter James (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

Statement by Dysklyver.

Much of this is still directly related to the druids, astronomical observations can be measured to the millisecond with a simple telescope but given the tools used a margin of error of a minute is perfectly reasonable. You say: "the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic" yet fail to see that the stones alignment is a precise calculation you can repliacte with either ancient or modern methods, and the realignemnt has obvilusly caused by the stone falling over, which I am sure was mentioned, so your oversight is all the more irritating as a result.

Fram's comments have three main points.

1. Fram thinks dowsing rods and anyone using them are pseudoscience which itself is reasonable, but missing the point of everything I have said.

2. Fram thinks that star alignments themselves are pseudoscience and has convinced Doug Weller of this.

3. Fram thinks I am somehow accusing him of being offensive to people he has described as "unreliable pseudoscience", "perverse and illogical", "crank" and "utterly wacky". Whilst degrading their entire culture and history with every comment and implication.

There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination, Fram needs to get a grip on the issue, that source is easily discredited (as it is a blog - duh), if he had simply said that at any point I would have agreed with him, but he didn't. Instead Fram chose to go down a different route of attacking me, and attacking my cultural background, there was no need to go wholesale down the road of insulting my cultural roots as you have done, or your rather counterproductive route of expanding the issue to being beyond that of the source itself, to cover the issue of the subject, and the Druids themselves. After Doug Weller noticed your highly public debate with me on ArbCom, he read what you wrote, and then actually claimed a double blind peer reviewed article published in a reliable journal by a known expert with multiple citations was "unusable", If any proof of the effectiveness of your argument is needed.

I claim that you are aware of my nationalist tendencies related to Cornwall, and could see from my record that I am in the habit of supporting minority positions, and have deliberately argued this issue to reinforce your otherwise reasonable concerns with my 60% success rate at deletion in order to restrict my editing in areas otherwise unconnected to deletion.

The articles I created, which were subsequently deleted, were detailed to the person who granted me autopatrolled, who actually made comments on a possible improvement to the lesquite Quiot article related to making a new navbar for scheduled monuments, this was a comprehensive review of of my article creation, which I maintain is very good.

I don't doubt that it would be sensible if I stopped making deletion requests I should also stop NPR reviewing, and given that my 60% success rate and multiple errors on the criteria for deletion, it does not seem unreasonable to indefinitely topic ban from making deletion requests. However it is manifestly unfair, and a clever manipulation, to imply that my failings in the area of deletion policy extend to my articles, the only one of which was deleted for notability (out of 85) was a request that had major COI issues.

The timing of this is undoubtedly connected to my ArbCom candidacy rather than any perceived issue which would otherwise be of significance, the issue with AfD was resolved some time ago and me standing up in a public forum has got Fram flogging the dead horse, although I don't doubt it has had the desired effect, there is not much I can do about that now.

so taking all of this into account, and as I am considerate enough to make things easier for you people by stating what I would reasonably accept without arguing to much. I therefore propose the following:

• What this will not affect

Dysklyver will retain all other editing privileges not mentioned here. Including but not limited to Extendedconfirmed status, permission to create articles directly to mainspace.

Dysklyver will not be obligated to withdraw from the ArbCom election.

• Dysklyver 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'll reply to the newer proposal below, but first I must respond to...

  "...astronomical observations can be measured to the millisecond with a simple telescope but given the tools used a margin of error of a minute is perfectly reasonable. You say: "the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic" yet fail to see that the stones alignment is a precise calculation you can repliacte with either ancient or modern methods, and the realignemnt has obvilusly caused by the stone falling over, which I am sure was mentioned, so your oversight is all the more irritating as a result [...] There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination..."

The problem is not whether the angle of the stone can be measure accurately, because it obviously can. The problem is the claim that it aligned itself on a specific date, and to identify what it aligned with you need to know that date. The author determined that date by using his dowsing rod and 'asking' (I'm not sure whether he asked the stone or the 'energies' around it, but it doesn't really matter), and only when he had that date could he find out what was in the sky in that direction from which the stone is allegedly getting its energy. That dowsing part is absolutely pseudoscience, and it most definitely can not be reproduced by any scientific method - there is no scientific method that can determine an accurate time for when the stone fell to its current position. In fact, the whole alignment to an energy source in the sky is total pseudoscience, and again there is nothing scientific to support it. If that is "religious and cultural discrimination", then yes, Wikipedia does so discriminate - it discriminates in favour of the modern scientific method and against ancient superstitions and pseudoscience. It still astonishes me that Dysklyver cannot understand this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that D. doesn't even say that he will accept his own suggested sanctions, instead he says "[A]s I am considerate enough to make things easier for you people by stating what I would reasonably accept without arguing to [sic] much. I therefore propose the following..." [emphasis added]. In other words, he would even argue about his own suggested sanctions, but not too much. Perhaps the possibility of deliberate trolling ought to be more seriously considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting a solution

I've read through this thread, with an eye on closing it, and suggestions for what sort of sanctions are all a bit over the place. Some people support removal of all advanced rights and a complete ban of activities, others want something less, others want a closer review of activity. In conclusion, I would put Dysklyver on general probation. That means he can be blocked by any uninvolved admin for any length of time for any further disruption as described above (the list by Boing! said Zebedee is a good place to start). I think this will satisfy the concerns of most editors who have already commented here. Thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The image Dysklyver called "neutral"

On a personal note, I don't think this has been brought up anywhere (because I resolved it quietly), but while wanting to counteract systemic bias and write more women biographies is an acceptable stance to take on the project, advertising it with a picture of Wikipe-tan in a bikini is probably not what the Women in Red project is about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think some insight into the possibility of our being trolled by D. is inherent in his response to being questioned about why he used the image in question.

This image itself is neutral, it is a CGI image of Wikipedias unoffical mascot on a beach. the only reason people think its offensive is because they are automatically stigmatizing the image due to deep rooted bias against women, in this case sexualised systemic bias against women, which is worse. There is nothing inherently sexual about that image, and anyone who is truly neutral would not see it as offensive, therefore the image itself is a representation of the issue of systemic bias. Which is why its there, it is supposed to make people think. [224]

This is, in short, bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Change above to uninvolved admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• You know what, I was thinking last night and today about a future thread if all went to pot with Dysklyver, and there were some motion to indef him, where I would have written, "Well, even if there isn't a job contract for editing Wikipedia, Dysklyver has managed to create one, with a one-year probationary period, which he has not passed." In short, Ritchie has conceived exactly what I was thinking. Good idea. My name is not dave (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• I also support your idea, Ritchie. And yes, the use of an image of a woman in a bikini to promote Women in Red is rather odd, and could be seen as offensive. Thanks for removing it. Patient Zero^talk 13:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• I prefer this to sanctions proposed above, and a firm support from me. Some of the concerns that have been raised are that this is a CIR issue that might go beyond deletion. This both gives Dysklyver a chance to work to show that he understands the encyclopedia, while giving the community flexibility in dealing with it more than a simple topic ban would do. Pinging all those who have commented on the previous sanctions@Fram, GreenMeansGo, Drewmutt, Force Radical, Beyond My Ken, Zppix, Boing! said Zebedee, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Peter James:. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thinking again after Fram mentioned it below, I support both. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support with involuntary mentoring Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ritchie's point -- about the proposed sanctions being all over the place -- is a good one, and his solution is better than the one I was working up to, which was a timed block -- which I believe I would have trouble justifying well enough to get passed, but which just seems somehow "right" in my gut. Ritchie's solution is an intermediate step, one in which Dykslyver will play an important part by their choice of actions. I would also join in with Zppix and !vote for involuntary mentoring as well, but, frankly, given D's intransigent attitude, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good. It's not that D. is ignorant, or incapable of learning (I don't think), but instead the core of the problem is that he seems to have chosen this particular path, and simply needs to decide to go another way. The change has to come from within, and cannot be forced on him, at least in my evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• May I make one additional suggestion: would it be useful to limit Dysklyver to editing from a single account? I'm aware that there have not bee any allegations of sockpuppetry, but his own mention in the boxed sanction suggestion above of "all his alternative accounts" makes me nervous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken, looking at the list I don't see it as really an issue; the alt accounts are just his former usernames and an unused bot account which he intended to use in his ill-fated attempt to get bot approval. Since AGF tells us we believe his story that the vandal accounts are owing to his having been a practicing attorney for three years but still so poor he lives in a shared apartment with only one laptop computer shared among the household a shared computer which his roommate used to create VOAs, I assume both that he'll take better care of his computer in future, and that Steve A. McDonald is aware that if there's any more shit from this particular useragent there's a nice shiny hardblock headed the way of both their IP and their shared cookie file. I don't really see the need to spell "no sockpuppetry" out formally, since it's already covered by the existing policy. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK, makes sense, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Except... one shared laptop? C'mon, pull the other one. Do they share one cellphone as well? OK, OK, AGF, sure, but that's one hinky story.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: He's deleted his user page per U1, but you (and any other admin) might want to go back to earlier deleted revisions from August 2017 backwards - it may shed more light on this "practising attorney for three years" stuff Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken Actually, I've struck part of that; the actual offical story is He thought it would be funny to 'interfere' and created several 'troll' accounts (User:I Love Oshwah & User:Dysklever is gaaay while I was not there. (using one of my computers which I had lent to him), although useragent checks show that Steve and ADJEAD were using the same computer.

  @Ritchie333 Hmmm, interesting. There is some definite yanking of chains going on here. (Context to save other admins going through diff-by-diff.) ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose although I don't doubt the intention behind it (and I won't be too concerned if this gets approved anyway). Seeing his latest reply here[225], I thnk we have either a troll or a major competence issue which will not be resolved by waiting some time. A claim like "Fram thinks I am somehow accusing him of being offensive to people he has described as "unreliable pseudoscience", "perverse and illogical", "crank" and "utterly wacky". Whilst degrading their entire culture and history with every comment and implication." is so filled with problems that it's hard to decide which is the most typical of WP:CIR problems. For starters, when you write a comment and notice that something in it is not correct before it is even published, you don't strike it out, you simply leave it out. Second and more important, when someone is describing one source, one webpage, as being "utterly wacky" and so on, then they are not "degrading an entire culture and history".

Being described as "There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination" is a severe personal attack completely loose from my actual comments, "Instead Fram chose to go down a different route of attacking me, and attacking my cultural background, there was no need to go wholesale down the road of insulting my cultural roots as you have done, or your rather counterproductive route of expanding the issue to being beyond that of the source itself, to cover the issue of the subject, and the Druids themselves."; I have not insulted your cultural roots or attacked your cultural background. I have not made a comment about druids, despite your continuous efforts to turn this into some anti-druidal witchhunt by me. I don't care whether a source filled with pseudoscientific baloney is written by a druid, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, a Jedi, or a Pastafari: it has no place on enwiki. "Fram thinks that star alignments themselves are pseudoscience and has convinced Doug Weller of this." Can you perhaps provide a quote or diff for this, as I have never made such a statement as far as I am aware. Star alignments are not necessarily pseudoscience, and that many prehistoric monuments are aligned astronomically (e.g. towards sunrise on 21 July or so) is well-known. What is pseudoscience is dowsing to find star alignments. No page which proclaims "Lesquite Quoit is aligned with the constellation of Libra currently. Yet, originally this could not have been the case, because the capstone had clearly fallen since its original construction, so… had it re-aligned itself? Indeed it had!" can make any claim to being scientific or acceptable for enwiki. If that is somehow offensive to you and your cultural background, then enwiki simply isn't the place for you. Fram (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Fram: Since you "won't be too concerned if this gets approved anyway", do you think you could see your way clear to changing your "Oppose" to something that makes it clear that you frefer your own sanction suggestion, but that this is acceptable as a second choice? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Fram's proposals (in my view) is essentially WP:BEANS. All Dysklyver needs to do is find something not covered on the above list (say, frivolous ITN/C nominations), and then say "ah haaa, I'm not topic banned from that!" I think there's an agreement that there is a general problem, so we need a general sanction to resolve it. Otherwise we'll be back here again arguing about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Ritchie. This is essentially a final warning that any CIR issues in any area may lead to a block in the future. The general nature of the probation is why I prefer it to a simple topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Then why not a combination? A topic ban as proposed and supported above (e.g. from deletion nominations in general, plus from article reviewing in general) + a general probation? Avoid the known problem areas, and if new areas led to similar problems anyway, block. Fram (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support--More than anything, what I utterly dislike in D is his stubbornness in beliefs and executions that are horribly misplaced and the chances to get a honest reply in the lines of: Yeah.I fucked up! without a lengthy exchange/expenditure of words is herculean. IMO, that is very problematic for healthy collaboration in the long run.Coupled with it, lies a borderline IDHT behaviour and an ignorance of the Law of Holes.Overall, while I am not sure that Ritchie's proposal has got the bases covered, it's sensible enough and is clearly D's best bet by miles; one that would potentialy make or break his wiki-career.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And, can any wiki-historian kindly mention any past case(if any), where the conditions were so dire, that it turned out that an election-commisioner"was proposing sanctions for a running candidate?Winged Blades ^Godric 15:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric, that's not as uncommon a situation as you'd think, as quite a few people either run because they've been editing particularly tendentiously and hope that a reasonable support level will vindicate their position, or are outright trolling for attention. I can think of at least one occasion (as I was a candidate in the same election) in which a candidate was indefinitely community banned during the election yet their candidacy was still allowed to continue. (For the record, he got 49 supports, which AFAIK is still our benchmark for estimating the size of the WP:HTD vote.) ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support (2nd choice) A majority of UK water engineers still use dowsing rods ;) - saying that, I support either Fram's original suggest with the above option as second choice. My opinion is that we are collectively being trolled however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Although I don't think we are being deliberately trolled, the belief of it is certainly strong in my mind, and shows more the mere incorrigibility of the user. My name is not dave (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - We are looking at massive WP:CIR issues here. Honestly, I’m not so sure I would support anything less than a block at this point. I guess I would be somewhat willing to try out a topic ban, but as it can be seen from the info provided above, these issues are not just with deletions. I’m not sure it would be effective if any way. As someone who has tried to guide him and point him in the right direction in a few areas (mainly in IRC), I struggle to believe any improvements will be made. Nihlus 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• General comment - Ritchie333 I understand you're trying to strike a balance here to get some kind of workable solution. And after all my years on Wikipedia, nothing should surprise me. I only noticed this thread because the user has nominated himself for the Dec 2017 ArbCom elections. He has multiple accounts and conveniently lists them, just so we know he isn't hiding anything. There are numerous issues going on here. How is it that this user never got an outright indef block? Look at all the time and editor efforts, in this thread alone, put into trying to corral this editor. I think I am, as the British phrase it, gobsmacked. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Support-Only the messy Business of the sources is left to be cleared up-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I'm moving away from my original thoughts about specific topic bans, as we're really looking at a generic competence problem here rather than specific weaknesses, so I'm going to tentatively support Ritchie333's general probation proposal. And even if not formally banned from the topic areas already suggested, Dysklyver really should largely keep away from them - and tread very carefully if he ventures close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(As an aside, when I first looked at this I thought people were supporting Dysklyver's massively over-lawyered proposal above! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC))

Actually, although I can support a simple probation, I'd prefer to go with Fram's suggestion - of a topic ban from initiating deletions and from article reviewing, in addition to a general probation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ambivalent - First, this was much too much to read before coffee, but I'm getting there. I think I probably fall somewhere along the same lines as Fram, with an oppose that's not really an oppose and a support that's more like indifference. I'm not sure this would avoid a thread at AN or ANI if it comes to it, because the list of people who are involved is getting quite long at this point. If it results in a block, I think this is probably more likely to end up in one that feels comparatively punitive from the perspective of Dysklyver, and less likely to end up being a learning opportunity in the end. (Although we are certainly reaching a point where the opportunity cost of learning is becoming prohibitively high.) At the same time, while the strength of a TBAN is it's clarity, the weakness is it's specificity, and it does provide opportunities to either productively or unproductively contribute in areas that are not covered.

I suppose I probably fall on the side of both. Not really either/or, but probably both. There are definitely areas where the editor is effectively TBANNED by the probation proposal anyway, and any at all questionable actions in those areas would result in a pretty swift block, which makes the TBAN de facto in effect. At the same time, there has probably been sufficient problems at this point, where if the TBAN was enacted in isolation, but those problems pretty immediately spilled over into other areas, that the community would probably look at this as a probationary-type consensus/don't-put-any-more-straws-on-that-camel's-back-please, that a sort of probation would also already pretty much de facto be in effect. So I don't see a compelling reason not to pull the trigger on both, hope that this is recognized as really getting to be bending over backwards to avoid an outright block, and hope that that results in a fundamental attitude change, which is what is fundamentally needed.

For whatever it's worth, defending Wikipe-tan's modesty probably seems slightly too much like a sort of benevolent sexism, not necessarily in a way that comes off as offensive so much as it comes off as unnecessarily distracting. And that's all I'll say about that. GMG^talk 17:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I wasn't pinged and just noticed the claim thnat I "actually claimed a double blind peer reviewed article published in a reliable journal by a known expert with multiple citations was "unusable", If any proof of the effectiveness of your argument is needed." What I actually said is "Silva is only a tutor, and his paper published in a journal run by grad students " to provide authors with experience in publishing articles early in their careers." Peer reviewed, yes, but not cited in any other academic papers so far as I can see on Google scholar. Doug Weller talk 6:48 pm, 22 November 2017, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)" For some reason Google Scholar didn't show me any cites. I see now that on his talk page he says "cited 10 times in international journals" - I note that one of these[226] is a dissertation "submitted in partial fulfilment of M.A". Hardly an international journal. I used to assign and mark similar M.A. dissertations (not in that subject) and I can assure everyone it's useless as a reference. The next one[227] is also an MA dissertation (described as such here). I hope [https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/26155/1/A%20Astrof%C3%ADsica%20na%20Ajuda%20%C3%A0%20Arqueologia.%20A%20Possibilidade%20de%20uma%20Representa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Rupestre%20de%20um%20Cometa.pdf is similar as it uses Wikipedia as a source. However, my first search obviously failed and I apologise for that. A search I just did only turns up 4 articles, one the same as the one that uses Wikipedia, another I can't access, and two from the "Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry".[228] Again, I apologise, but I am concerned that he thinks that he thinks those are all reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Reading the above yet again, another point on sources. He writes above "I maintain that Druids are reliable for matters concerning druids". Elsewhere he wrote that "I will obviously point out that the dolmen itself was a pagan burial site, so modern practitioners of the same faith are therefore a natural source (not that I mind you removing it) which is why I used it in the first place." Again, this shows that he doesn't understand WP:RS or the mainstream view of Druidism (or else he does and disagrees). My response was ". We have no records of the Druids, no evidence that they made anything, and certainly not calculations since we have no artefacts we can be sure they made. They weren't fringe. We have little idea of their beliefs and that only indirectly, and Neo-Druidism correctly states that "the modern Druidic movement has no direct connection to them, despite contrary claims made by some modern Druids." They are not reliable sources for neolithic monuments, which in any case are pre-Druid." Doug Weller talk 19:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Umm...what is this doing here, which D created? My name is not dave (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I assume an ill-thought-out attempt at comedy rather than anything malicious. I wouldn't say it's actually speedyable as it it's incompetence rather than vandalism, but if you MFD it I imagine it will quietly disappear. ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ну вот! My name is not dave (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It's provenance, such as it is, lies in Floquenbeam's comment here, I believe. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The line here might be a fine one, but IMO that crosses it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do Druids do human sacrifice? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have accepted to have involuntary mentorship services via Zppix. Dysklyver 20:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment and support It was under Zppix's tutelage that got us here, no dig against Zppix, just demonstrating Dysklyver's unwillingness to be mentored. The fact that we're even using the term "involuntary mentorship" is of concern to me. I agree with the above that we're likely getting trolled, and it's gotten to the point where I feel it's intentional. As much as I want to say "oppose, this doesn't go far enough", I feel probation is a descent compromise.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support probation. Does it apply to topic bans (as suggested by the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions page) or just to blocks? I wouldn't support a topic ban now but this should be an option. Peter James (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support probation, mentorship, topic bans, or whatever else it takes for Dysklyver to realize that he is editing on thin ice. Jonathunder (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support probation. I wouldn't have chimed in, but after I had the "lob a grenade and run away" image-page-link he'd created moved into my userspace for essayification today, he added this to it, which raised my eyebrows with what it implies about how he views the Wikipedia administrative process... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would support something that works, but I'm not convinced we've arrived at that. Trolling seems to target the situation here. Please read Arb election candidate statement, if you have not done so. Anybody can claim to be anything, but then he follows here by offering his own detailed plan on what his sanctions should be. In his own way, being in charge of how this is going. Whatever else is happening, I'm not convinced it's a matter of competence, for this editor is able to formulate his statements too well for it to be lacking in that area. Being played? I fail to see what probation or mentorship would achieve. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Another statement from Dykslyver

• I have been refraining from replying to each comment here, despite the fact I could argue against most the comments made, since one of the main complaints is that I spend to much time arguing. It is difficult to collate the numerous ideas in this second thread, it was hard enough summarizing the ideas in the last one (see yellow box above). Everyone is writing support, and then some new take on the sanctions so I am going to do another of my detailed plans on my sanctions. For the interest of getting an agreement I will include several versions, based on comments made. Maybe will help. Dysklyver

Extended content

It is not possible for me to include every variation that has been thought of, therefore by all means make your own. Dysklyver 15:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite block

Per the list of plans above and since this hasn't been officially proposed as of yet, here we go, I propose that: A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is indefinitely blocked by consensus of the English Wikipedia community. This may be appealed after 6 months by a request at WP:AN.

• Support "nuclear option"/plan A/indef okay, the list of plans above have gotten me to the point where I think we're being trolled. Since this is a self-suggested indef, I have no problem supporting that option. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef-- Blame my lack of AGF. But, enough IS enough. The aforesaid list of plans and his latest exploits at his t/p regarding preserving the edits of a banned user has got into definite trolling territory. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Winged Blades of Godric, I IARed and made this a formal proposal after you already !voted. I didn't think you would mind, but pinging you as a courtesy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No qualms:)Winged Blades ^Godric 16:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This is the only solution I believe will have any impact whatsoever. If nothing has been done by now, I don’t see how improvements will be made in the future. I suggest he work on another project to perhaps demonstrate WP:CLUE that is severely lacking. He can return after the standard 6 months to possibly appeal. However, I highly recommend he avoid wasting any more of the community’s time. Nihlus 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately nothing Diksylyver has said or done in the course of these proceedings persuades me they actualy understand the issues. In fact, they have proceeded to rush headlong towards doing precisely the same thing. TonyB. suggests- above- that this may be a sign of trolling; indeed. But if not trolling, then it is a competence issue, and both of these are as disruptive as each other. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I was waiting for someone to have the nerve to propose this. It's a yes from me. I was even thinking site ban, but this should be good enough. My name is not dave (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support yes this is a good idea. Dysklyver 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Similarly to My name is not dave; I was waiting to support an indef block for WP:CIR issues which normally a discussion is enough to resolve, but clearly WP:IDONTHEARTHAT issues are at play here too in their response to Carrite's question about the odd choice of image for the Women in Red project. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment--That the party has agreed to the proposal under disc., can any sysop bring the hammer down on the nail?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - WTF is going on when the subject endorses his own indef block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It might be that they are under the impression that by agreeing to their own block, it would make it very slightly in the nature of a 'self-requested' one, and thus easier to overturn... — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 16:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - this goes well beyond what I was thinking, but if he supports his own block, it's pointless to disagree. Jonathunder (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Given the obvious fact that most the people here would like me to be blocked forever, it seems only fair to agree to this, and take six months out and see if I a successful in appealing the block at that point. I am therefore supporting my own block because we don't have unlimited time here, in the interests of procedure this should be closed before ArbCom voting starts. If I drag this out it is only going to be awkward for everyone. It is not because I am quitting Wikipedia or think badly of anyone here, I just want this over with, its unpleasant and I want to do something useful rather than arguing over my mistakes in ever expanding circles of recrimination. We aren’t even discussing my mistakes now, just me as a person. I just want this closed as soon as possible, even if it means accepting an indef block. Thank you. Dysklyver 16:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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