Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310

History of Ally Prisock

Ally Prisock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could an admin please help me to figure out the fill history of this article? It was created today, but on 23 April the redirect was overwritten (by what text?). The text is found on external sites, and, indeed, is marked by 23 April. I would like to figure out where the original text is/was and, if possible, attribute it, because the article is technically a copyright violation right now, but somehow I can not understand what happened. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened. First...

• 10:35, 23 April 2019 Cetteuqap moved page Ally Prisock to Ally Prisock (2nd nomination)

Then...

• 10:45, 23 April 2019 Praxidicae moved page Ally Prisock (2nd nomination) to Ally Prisock
• 10:45, 23 April 2019 Praxidicae deleted redirect Ally Prisock by overwriting

I can't tell what happened to it after that. I've restored the "23 April 2019 Cetteuqap moved page Ally Prisock to Ally Prisock" version to the history, but can't see how the original 23 Apr version got there or where it went. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This is exactly my problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Might it need someone with OS rights to see if there are any fully-suppressed versions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Oversight nowadays is merely a super-revdel; it doesn't completely delete revisions like it used to. Unless I'm forgetting something, if a page has an oversighted edit in its history, you can always see that it's there. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I wondered if one of Praxidicae's edits might have gotten deleted, but I glanced through Special:DeletedContributions/Praxidicae and didn't see anything Prisock in the April 2019 section. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha, got it; you folks forgot to check the logs :-) Page history is at User:Cetteuqap/Ally Prisock. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks to both of you. I will see and likely merge the histories.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:BLP-revdel

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 13 § Template:BLP-revdel. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Filter_name

Could I get an admin to implement this to prevent automated runs from a bot operating on unapproved accounts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

RFPP Sweep

Could a couple of admins with some time take a look at WP:RFPP - there's 14 unanswered requests, with the oldest one being 17 hours old?

Cheers! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's down to 6. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's under control at this point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a few that have been logged for ~12 hours. If someone could take a look, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Now back to 6 hours but still requires attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to all invovled. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Citation bot unblock discussion is stalled

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.

---

• Citation bot (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Prior discussion: User talk:Citation bot/Archive_15#March_2019, Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users" and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Bot unblocks

JJMC89 (talk · contribs) blocked this bot on March 16, citing two reasons:

1. The addition of CiteSeerX links to articles in violation of WP:ELNEVER (due to copyright problems on CiteSeerX)
2. Concerns that the bot is user-activated, yet does not authenticate and log the identity of the user who activated it.

The problem with the CiteSeerX links has been fixed by Martin, the bot's operator, by blacklisting CiteSeerX within the bot. However, JJMC89 has declined to unblock the bot because they feel that the matter of authentication and logging the identity of the user that activated the bot is sufficient grounds to leave the block in place.

There has been extensive discussion. The remaining disagreement is mainly around three points:

1. Who is responsibile for the bot's edits. The bot's operator of record (Martin) and the two assistant operators, Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan, have stated that Martin, as the operator of record, is ultimately responsible for the bot's edits. This is also consistent with the bot's initial approval for automatic operation -- not as a user-directed bot. Subsequent approvals were also for automatic operation. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that the problem with CiteSeerX links was originally approached as a problem that could be best addressed by dialog with the users activating the bot rather than by the bot's operators. It is on this basis that JJMC89 believes that the bot is not in compliance with WP:BOTMULTIOP, which requires that bot operators be identified and disclosed for each edit. Thus the question hinges on whether the bot is "operated" by the users who activate it, or by the operator of record.
2. Compliance with WP:BOTCOMM. While Martin remains engaged in technical maintenance of the bot, he has stated that he "no longer regularly engage[s] in discussions on Wikipedia talk pages" and is grateful to have AManWithNoPlan take this role. While WP:BOTCOMM permits communications to be delegated, some commenters believe that Martin, as the operator of record, has an obligation to engage with the community to a greater degree.
3. Whether the bot's tasks are being performed as approved. The most recent BRFA for CitationBot was approved in 2011, and the bot has evolved considerably since then.

Discussion has stalled with JJMC89 declining to unblock, and Martin unwilling or unable to add WP:OAuth to the bot, at least in the near term. There does appear to be quite a bit of support for removing the block, including from those admins and members of the WP:BAG who have participated in the discussion, but not a clear consensus.

The bot does valuable work and I am listing here to try to find some sort of way forward. UninvitedCompany 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Much of that thread is technically over my head, but this might be a good place to point out that there needs to be a consensus to maintain a block, not a consensus to lift a block. If there is, after further discussion, still no consensus, I believe the default must be to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Striking per Gallobter's comment below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • While adding OAUTH to the bot is clearly desirable, it's not a trivial task and no one currently has the bandwidth to implement this. Frankly, it would be more productive to spend development time fixing bugs in Citation bot than adding OATH, in my personal opinion. Insisting that we need to know who activated Citation bot for each edit is a bit pedantic punctilious, IMO, as Citation bot used to just run across all articles all the time (in the old days). And just like then, Martin (as the operator) was the person ultimately responsible for the edits. I'm not necessarily up-to-date on all the bot guidelines and policies, and I agree that it's unfortunate that this venerable old bot doesn't really have a dedicated full-time maintainer, but it seems like the bot does more good than harm, so I would support unblocking it. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't fault Martin for setting boundaries on how much time/effort/energy they want to contribute to the project. When the other issues with the bot are fixed, I think any stipulation that Martin increase their engagement with the community as part of an unblock would be unfair. Rivselis (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Rivselis: You may think it unfair, but in that case your disagreement is with BOTPOL. While I sympathise (deeply!) with Martin's desire to avoid controversy and the often really toxic discussions that are beginning to be the norm on the project (CIVIL? collaborative? consensus? Bueller?), that desire is simply not compatible with operating a bot on Wikipedia (what, nobody remembers a certain bot "enforcing" NFCC and how that turned out?). This is not an issue of an operator being busy IRL and having limited bandwidth or long response times. They have been asked four times, over four months (five now) to confirm whether they are in fact still the bot's operator, and to address WP:BOTACC, second para, and WP:BOTCOMM. There has been no response, beyond removing the question with the edit summary Archive aggressive comments. They have received this question on their own talk page, on the bot's talk page, on the BOT noticeboard, and now here (UnivitedCompany notified them of this thread). They edit elsewhere on the project, they are just refusing to respond to a simple, neutrally phrased, question about how they view their adherence to policy. At the time it was first asked I would have been inclined to accept any responsive answer—even one I disagreed with—but after five months of refusing to answer it I am forced to consider it willful disregard of BOTPOL (not necessarily in bad faith, but the result is the same). Instead of an answer from the bot's operator to this straightforward question, I've gotten increasingly hostile insistence from others that this is an entirely unreasonable question to ask a bot operator. I asked JJMC89 to address a similar question about WP:ADMINACCT in their RfA and nobody seemed to object to the question at the time. Granted RfA can be a quagmire of toxicity at its worst, but, really, asking admins about ADMINACCT, and bot operators about BOTCOM, really shouldn't be taken as hostile unless it's at a level that involves curse words or something. --Xover (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue really here is whether the bot task should continue (no point unblocking if the bot doesn't make any edits), and bots need consensus to do a task. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Stricken. Still true for humans tho! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hi there, xaoflux here, these are the relevant points I'm seeing:
  1. Is this bot making "bad edits", that is: edits that if they were individually made by any other editor would be considered unacceptable? If so, the operator needs to fix this or stop operating entirely. It is cetainly possible that the edits would not have been considered "bad" in the past, but as the project has evolved they are now.
  2. Is there an operator that is responsive and taking responsibility for their bot's edits? If not, it should stop operating.
  3. Is the bot making edits that are not approved under a BRFA Task? If so, the operator should cease these edit and seek a BRFA.
  4. Any of the above items that result in "stop", where the bot won't stop can certainly be enforced with a block until the operator says they are resolved.
  5. Have the community's needs signifigantly changed since this bot's tasks were approved, such that one or more tasks should no longer be performed, or not performed in the way they are now? (This is the 'what is needed in the edit summary line') If so, a thread should be opened at WP:BOTN to seek de-approval of the task(s).
     1. If this is the ONLY issue, unless it is so agregious, blocking shouldn't be needed.

— xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Concerning 1), there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. 2) The operator is Smith609. AManWithNoPlan is currently the main/active maintainer, and they are very responsive/active in addressing bugs. Concerning 3) not that I know of. But the bot is approved for general citation cleanup, so that's pretty wide reaching. Concerning 5) the needs of the community have changes yes, but mostly in that CitationBot is expected to do more than ever and be of use to less 'experty' users. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. Citation bot is currently excluded from 546 articles, which is high compared to other bots excluded from articles: more than 4 times the next highest excluded bot and more than 15 times the average exclusions per excluded bot. That number is ~3.5 times what it was a year ago, which seems to have been steady for a couple years until sometime after Q3 2018. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful that statistic is. I spot-checked a few pages that Citation Bot is excluded from, and found that in many cases, Citation Bot had never edited the page in question. It seems that a number of aircraft-related articles in particular have the bot blanket excluded, and there's no edit summary or comment in the article source explaining why. In other cases, it's excluded due to the CiteSeerX issue - so if that issue is solved, we can't exactly use the fact that it was previously excluded as evidence that it would still make "bad edits" today. ST47 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: if we unblock this and 'bad edits' resume, it can obviously be blocked again. The CiteSeerX complaint appears to be addressed by the operator, do you see any other impediments to unblock? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would support unblocking the bot. It has an operator who is willing to provide support, the CiteSeerX issue was resolved, and I personally don't think the issue of attributing edits to the specific end user who "requested" the bot visit a specific page was ever an issue in the first place. The overwhelming majority of {{nobots}} exclusions are either due to CiteSeerX or for no stated reason at all. Let's unblock it. If there are more issues, as you say, we can always block it again. ST47 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: You can stop mass removing bots deny: the ones I saw were added deliberately to prevent edits from Citation bot that were deemed objectionable (and people became aware after the RfC linked below), and in response to the bot's adherents suggesting there was no need for the bot to be fixed because editors could just use that template to prevent it. When they realised people would actually take them up on it they tried to switch to suggesting tagging each individual parameter in a citation template instead (but, obviously, still not fixing the objectionable edits at their source in the bot), and using a fiddly HTML comment for it. Shifting the burden to human editors instead of the bot, and making sure they can impose stylistic preferences on 5.5+ million articles and only actually discuss where someone objects. Or, hey, when the de facto maintainer (not the operator, they are still unresponsive) refuses to fix the first issue that eventually got the bot blocked the community can just make an edit filter(!) to prevent those edits (but let the rest of the bot operate). Note well: not "didn't have the time to fix", but "refused to fix" a genuine concern raised about the bots edits. Whether Citation bot has edited the articles before is completely immaterial: the instances I saw were people adding the bots template to articles they edit regularly or created, and specifically to prevent the objectionable edits the bot makes. They were doing that because the bot's operator was unresponsive to community concerns, its maintainers are opinionated beyond what CITEVAR provides for (and it takes a community RfC for concerns to be heard), and the oversight mechanisms designed to prevent just this situation have failed to do so. Using the bots template is neither a blunt instrument nor "FUD" (as you just told Nikkimaria), it is so far the most surgical and only recourse to prevent the bot from doing whatever its maintainers want to all citation templates regardless of consensus. The fact that it's now present on this many articles should in itself tell you that this bot's edits are both not uncontroversial (which BOTPOL requires) and not unproblematic (or so many editors would not feel the need to prevent the bot from editing so many articles). There is no edit summary and no hidden comment for it because they were not added by a bot, but by human editors who object to the edits the bot is making but who cannot hope to keep up with the speed or volume of a bot. This is why we have BOTPOL in the first place! --Xover (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JJMC89: any additional insight in to this? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• If I have a comment on the regard of the operation of this bot, it's this: Given our current bot policy, it should not take an RFC to stop activity for which there was never a clear authorization. I do not have faith in any of the operators of the bot at this time to operate the bot, whether actual or stand-in. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: can you elaborate slightly? It would help if you can provide some diffs occurring after that RfC where this bot is making edits in violation of the RfC closing? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  The bot has been changed since the RFC. The point I'm making is that the operator(s) (whoever those are) should not have forced an RFC to stop the bot's activity on the point, given that it was never obvious the bot had authority to perform those actions in the first place. That means somewhere, someone, or some process failed to ride oversight on what the bot is doing or what the bot operators have subsequently coded the bot to do. That's not okay. The correct way for the bot operators to have proceeded (again, if it were obvious who the bot operator was), once the activity was in question, was to stop that activity and verify with the community whether continued removal was okay. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  Essentially, #5 in your list above. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: thanks for the update, is it your understanding that this issue is not expected to continue to occur should operations resume? Can you elaborate on what unaddressed issue is still so egregious that the task needs to be reevaluated prior to resuming operations? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think Xover below hits on one of the points still egregious about the situation below. That particular point aside, the other "egregious" point is that the bot has not had a BRFA in some substantial time while its functionality has continue to increase. It's not doing whatever it was signed up to do in the most-recent BRFAs, and that's driven by the personality problems described by Xover also. If you were to review User:Citation bot#Bot approval, and then review what the code actually does, I think you'd find it clear it is not now and has not been for some time within any of its BRFAs. That's a problem by WP:BOTPOL; WP:BOTACC if nowhere else. To take a "personal" example, I much appreciate it when you (specifically) approach the community about a bot which may be problematic for the community, an activity that some significant portion of the BAG will also do. At no time in the past several years, besides the RFC that I initiated (not any of the responsible or less-responsible persons directly involved in the changes that have been made to the bot) has anyone from that bot project approached the community, when there have been several potentially-problematic changes made to the bot code. Either the bot operator (or one of his proxies) should have had, many times, the good sense to invite additional comment beyond the people who show up to the bot's talk page.

  Continuing, from WP:BOTPOL, we have at least one specific section that the bot is not in accordance with (though without fault of its own); that's WP:BOTMULTIOP. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Xaosflux: Citation bot ticks all three of your first "stop" criteria (which, it should be noted, are just the ones you adduce under BOTPOL and the BAG's remit, but just because it's a bot doesn't mean it is exempt from other community norms).
    1. The bot itself has not made any problematic edits, because it has been blocked for two months. However it is still operating in Gadget mode, and there it still makes mistakes: the last one I saw was setting |publisher=London. Those were, thankfully, much easier to handle because in this mode the edits are attributed to the user operating the tool, and so they get notified when the edits are reverted. Of course, tellingly enough, the edit in question was by the bot's de facto maintainer: so much for checking the edits before saving and not making mistakes a human editor wouldn't. Before being blocked the bot made similar mistakes: changing a {{cite magazine}} into {{cite web}}, messing with the whitespace inside the template (which is annoying for cosmetic change reasons, but majorly so for anyone trying to maintain citations by hand), etc.; stuff that Headbomb above dismisses as mere "GIGO". And since the bot's maintainers claim they have authority to do essentially whatever they want to citation templates, it's just a question of time before it starts doing stuff like removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} again (the latest use of valid citation parameters that its maintainers DONTLIKE seems to be |via=, so I'm expecting a spate of edits to remove that to show up any day now), again pointing to an 11 year old BRFA about adding DOIs to {{cite journal}}.
    2. As explained (at length, sorry) elsewhere here, the bot's operator is not only not responsive but is actively refusing to interact with the community, even to the point of not responding to requests to address policy issues on their own talk page, the bot's talk page, BOTN, and here. Of its two "helpers" one doesn't have time to involve themselves (thanks for the "pedantic" comment btw, Kaldari; that really made me feel like you care about my concerns), and the other "doesn't have an opinion, they just want to code" (I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't be bothered to dig up the diff). This bot also doesn't so much have an operator as it has defenders, to the point that I'm actively avoiding its talk page (thanks for the ping there btw, UninvitedCompany, but I'm not going near that place unless the need is great; you migh try Serial Number 54129 and David Eppstein though, I think they still have the stomach for it).
    3. The bot's BRFA was in 2008, and was for adding DOIs, removing duplicate template parameters, and other such minor cleanup in {{cite journal}} only. And even then its edits were problematic enough to end up… here at AN actually. And the consensus then was that it had to respect, in essence, CITEVAR. At the time that was regarding removing |url= when it pointed to the same place as |doi=, but in some articles they used the URL to signal that the journal article was free to access. That particular issue is, I think, moot now, but the point was that the bot should only make edits that were safe in the face of such citation style issues (i.e. CITEVAR). (It also, incidentally, concluded that when the bot was being directed by someone other than the operator of record, the user operating the tool should be identified. This concern was not sprung on them out of nowhere and recently.) In any case, the bot now makes edits far outside the scope of that BRFA. The RfC triggered by it removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} is the immediate example: its maintainers don't think those parameters should be used, and so they program the bot to unilaterally remove it. There was no attempt to seek consensus for its removal from all articles, objections were met with… well, it ended up with a contentious RfC. And now they claim authority to do whatever they want to citation templates based on that ancient BRFA (so long as they think it qualifies as "tidying"). I have suggested elsewhere that the bot's functions need to be broken down, analysed and categorized, grouped into meaningful tasks, and each task subjected to a modern BRFA using modern standards. Because any new bot proposing to do what Citation bot is doing would, if not rejected outright, have been required to run an RfC to demonstrate that there is consensus for for its proposed tasks (just look at some of the hoops a few recent bot tasks have had to jump). --Xover (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. I did warn that this would eventually end up at a noticeboard (but thanks for small mercies it's here and not at /I).
  @UninvitedCompany: I think you are mistaken: to my knowledge no one on the BAG has expressed an opinion in favour of unblocking; except Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it. In fact, the BAG, despite the issue being raised on BAG/N, has so far responded in a way best described with "crickets" and "ten foot pole". Personally I expect this is due to the two (independent) factors that there are (some, I don't want to blow it out of proportion) behavioural issues surrounding Citation bot and its community of adherents (which is outside the BAGs remit), and because a BAG member is involved there and it would be awkward around the watercooler if they touched it (regardless of conclusion). We could have presumably have avoided ending up at AN if the BAG had involved itself at least to the point Xaosflux has done here (hint: letting stuff like this fester is unlikely to result in less conflict).
  I also think you should have included a link to the contentious RfC that is the proximate cause of the current situation. I realise that for those who have not yet lost faith in this bot's ability to perform in accordance with community norms and policy are enticed by the good functions of this tool, and thus inclined to see that RfC and the behaviour surrounding it as a single issue and water under the bridge; but it was the straw that broke the camel's back and is hence very relevant background. I'd link the concurrent discussions on the bot's talk page, but frankly I'm too discouraged to go trawling through that mess (I avoid it like the plague now, because of stuff like whatever this is every time I go near it). What this bot lacks in an operator it more than makes up for in defenders. --Xover (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it." You can request I recuse from discussions 3 billion times, I will not. I have recused from making decisions involving citation bot, and that should be enough for anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Headbomb: Indeed; since my comment that you quote can easily be misconstrued to mean more than I actually intended, let me be tediously clear about it:
      I think you need to recuse from making any decisions regarding this bot in your capacity as a BAG member: as you say yourself and as you have done. And—lest the opposite should be implied by mentioning it—it should be noted that you did without any prompting from anyone (least of all me). Very much appreciated!
      I also think that to the degree the BAG holds any discussions (on IRC or a mailinglist or a obscure talk page etc.) that are to some degree non-public, that you recuse from those discussions. Your status as an "insider" combined with the absence of outside voices would influnce such discussions no matter how hard you tried to be neutral and objective (and that's about all human nature, not you personally). I'm not aware that the BAG employs any such forums or processes, and if so you can feel free to just consider this a pedantic and theoretical request.
      And finally, I think that when you participate in discussions like here, you need to note that you are not speaking in your capacity as a BAG member. Your membership in the BAG means those reading your comments tend to assign them weight, authority, and presumed objectivity that are not merited on an issue where you are INVOLVED. For example, I believe UninvitedCompany read your comments as from a BAG member and for the BAG. I realise it is tedious, but when you have hats like that you do need to specify whether you are currently wearing that hat in certain discussions where the distinction has bearing (such as this one). That was the issue my above comment was actually addressed to, and the frustration you can probably detect in it was at your failure to make clear that you were not speaking for the BAG.
      I absolutely do not mean that you should in any way refrain from participating in public discussions regarding Citation bot, but I see that my comment could be read that way (and if read that way it implies an accusation that you had acted improperly in that regard), and so I apologize for not being clear there. --Xover (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Xover:, fwiw, I did not interpret Headbomb's comments as speaking on behalf of the BAG. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone issues statements on behalf of the BAG. I had also interpreted Xaosflux's comments as being generally supportive of removing the block. I note that the BAG is small, with 13 active members at present. At least 4 of these members have commented on or formally approved Citation Bot tasks in the past. The BAG is collaborative by nature and I am unsure that it makes sense to ask BAG members to recuse themselves as a result of past collaborative behavior. I do value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. That said, I'm watching for a consensus to emerge, and do not necessarily have my own mind made up. Citation Bot has both proponents and detractors, which is unusual for a bot, and I am unsure what to make of it. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @UninvitedCompany: Thanks for clarifying, but I feel you somewhat prove my point: you value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. They indeed have that (very valuable) experience, but in Headbomb's case they are so deeply involved with Citation bot (top filer of change requests, chief "defender" of the bot that interjects themselves in all discussions where the bot or its operator is criticized) that you cannot assign that weight to their statements. Were this at arbitration, they would be named as a party (not an accusation, just an analogy!); were the question discussed an admin action, they would be WP:INVOLVED; were they a member of ArbCom they would have had to recuse. They are subjective and biased (like everyone else, me included, that cares deeply about a given issue) and letting their frustrations with the bot's critics shine through (see their responses to my BOTCOM question at BOTN).
          Compare that with Xaosflux who has no discernable personal relationship with Citation bot or its operator, is very carefully neutral in how they address the issue (refering almost exclusively to BOTPOL), and does not express an opinion beyond that (I, frankly, wish they would; precisely because I value their experience even beyond the remit of the BAG). But I have not seen Xaosflux express an opinion on whether the bot should be unblocked: they have merely explained policy and tried to clarify how it applies here.
          I have also not seen any other BAG member (except Headbomb) express any opinion (either way) on this; so if that's indeed the case I'm afraid I'm going to have to say "Diffs please!" (sorry, not trying to be glib, but I've been watching the issue and haven't noticed those comments). That a BAG member performed the formality of approving a BRFA 11 years ago—when a huge part of the issue here is that the bot is not operating within its approval—does not mean they can be presumed to hold any particular opinion on the current situation. The issue was referred to the BAG at BOTN, and apart from Xaosflux trying to sort out what the issues were, there was no participastion from the rest of the BAG nor any conclusion or recommendation. In other words, so far as I can tell, it is actually specifically incorrect to say that the BAG or any of its members have expressed an opinion either way on this. --Xover (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Could you, like, dial down the pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric about 204 notches here? I'm being pilloried for having opinions, filling bug reports, and making feature request, including one that requests that activators are identified. And somehow, this is a crime which means my opinion is now irrelevant and should be discarded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'll also note there's a pretty easy solution to all this. If the anonymous activators are deemed undesirable, just have the bot fail to edit when no activator is specified. Either through a code update, or an edit filter. I don't understand why this hasn't been coded in yet, or implemented at the EF level so the bot can resume normal operation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb. And anonymous activators are undesirable, as Citation bot can be used to do questionable edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that JJMC89 had previously stated that they would not find any solution that does not authenticate the activator to be acceptable. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BOTPOL reads users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (e.g. non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, IRC hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I will also note that keeping citation bot blocked is harming Wikipedia as it cannot be used to improve referencing. Our purpose here is to make an encyclopedia. The benefit of its use out ways the fear that it might be misused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

via= is removed if there is a doi/pmid/pmc and no url of any type. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to find a page that blocked the bot for any legit reason. I know that it is often there because someone flipped out after a gadget edit was done and a bunch of non-bot edits were down too and the bot took all the blame. As for the punblisher=London, that was GIGO, but still made article better since it now has locatio(just in the wrong place!). London is now in the bot as a bad_publisher AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot seems to be mostly blocked because it converts ISBN 10 to 13. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the use of the bot blocking template on specific pages seems to be mostly for the ISBN conversion feature. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the code for isbn upgrades has been changed to match the newer style guides and now only changes ISBN to ISBN13 when year is 2007 or newer. Also, someone claimed that the bot changed magazine to web: I find that hard to believe without an example. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: who are you talking to? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the bot in my pages because of the ISBN conversion and because it screwed up my cite journal entries by removing the publisher and location. I gather that the first issue has been fixed in a way that I'm fine with, but what about the second? And I very much did not appreciate the removal of my blocks with inexplicable comments like "not a blunt instrument" or whatever. Not helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The removal of publisher/location was changed back in March, I believe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GB: Negative. Citation bot was blocked because it was harming Wikipedia by disimproving "references", and without adequate attribution of editing. As to the implied argument that various alleged improvements require us to accept any collateral damage: bullshit. And perhaps it is time to discuss that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the {{nobots}} card to John Glenn as an interim measure on 17 October 2018 because the bot became confused by the use of handles for web sources other than journals. I did not see this as using the template as a "blunt instrument". I thought that was what it was there for. I raised the issue with the maintainers at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 11#Handles are not journals, and a fix was deployed on 31 October 2018. I should have removed the {{nobots}} template, but did not do so. My bad. Some clarification of the term "blunt instrument" would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what the rationale behind a generic 'blunt instrument' removal would be, especially without diffs. Sure {{nobots}} is a blunt instrument, but it's also one that works as intended. A {{nobots}} template should only be removed once it's confirmed it doesn't screw up that specific page anymore, or the problematic citations are bypassed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• To reply Xaosflux: 1) the number of erroneous edits (i.e. edits with more mistakes than intended fixes) is minuscule, to the point that it took months for some users, repeatedly asked for examples of harmful edits, to come up with any example; 2) in my experience the bot operator is very responsive to requests in his purview, while the most active developer generally fixes any reported issue within a few days, which is better than the vast majority of bots I know of; 3–5) the essential task (to fix citations so that they're closer to the expected usage as stated by the documentation) is supported by the original consensus and no new consensus has emerged (sometimes the consensus changes on specific parameters and how they should be used, and the bot has been changed accordingly). In conclusion, I agre with Graeme Bartlett and ST47. Nemo 15:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  (Copied from my talk) in general I think most of the "making bad edits" issues seem to have been addressed by the operator, so on that consideration unblocking and resuming operations should be allowed. I think the force edit summaries to include the editor it is reacting to part is an outstanding consideration - however I don't think it is a showstopper. Policy-wise, I don't see these edits that react to requests as elevating the others to the status of "operator", as such editors do not exert autonomous control over the account. (Compare to how someone not signing an edit is not operating sign-bot). I'd want to see affirmation acknowledgement of the current operator (Smith609) that they will be responsive and take responsibility for all edits their bot makes, and that if minor adjustments are needed to meet changing standards (e.g. if a certain parameter should not be removed from a template) they will comply to the standards. Taking responsibility for edits of one's bot is a core tenant of bot operations, and "garbage in - garbage out" isn't an affirmative defense (it should be "garbage in - nothing out"), as they are always welcome to NOT make any edit. While I'm on BAG, this is not intended to be a response "for BAG". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I can confirm that I am happy to take overall responsibility for the bot's edits. I have confidence that the bot's overall error ratio is presently very small – for every deleterious edit, there are many, many positive changes, and (invisibly) the bot visits many pages and correctly identifies that no edit is required. The bot now has an extensive test suite against which edits to its code are evaluated, and as a result, I can't think how long it's been since the bot systemically introduced major errors (which would occur occasionally before this test suite was introduced). There is a transparent way to report errors, linked in each edit summary, and an active community monitoring the bot's talk page and its contributions. As a result, fixes to most bugs are now rolled out to the production code within 48 hours, and the bot can be blocked very rapidly if necessary. Likewise, any changes in policy or template protocol can be reflected in the bot's code rapidly (I would welcome any suggestions from the community as to how planned changes can be communicated to the bot operating team before they take place, to give us a head start in adapting the bot's code). Whereas I am not now in a position to donate as much of my time to the Wikipedia project as I used to be, I am reachable by e-mail (via my user page) where my personal input is required. Finally, I would note that the scale and incidence of bugs requiring input from the operating team is now much smaller than it used to be; I've manually reviewed runs of c. 1000 page visits without noticing any adverse edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At this juncture, I do not believe that there is any remaining rationale for keeping the bot blocked:

1. The operator of record is clearly taking responsibility for the bot's edits
2. The original reported problem with CiteSeerX links is solved
3. There does not appear to be widespread support for the idea that authentication of the users activating the bot is strictly required by WP:BOTPOL
4. There is an absence of diffs showing actual problematic operation other than problems already addressed
5. Blocking policy states: "bots may occasionally not operate as intended for a variety of reasons. Bots ... may be blocked until the issue is resolved.... Blocks of [...] malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots [...] are repaired."

I do not believe that a continued block is in accordance with policy, nor do I believe it is in the best interest of the project.

I do acknowledge that there are various other concerns unrelated (or loosely related) to the original block. It appears to me that the operator of record and maintainers are making a good-faith effort to respond to specific concerns. I would hope that these dialogs continue. I also recognize that there are a minority of editors who oppose ongoing operation of the bot. The proper venue for these concerns is to make a request for reexamination at the bot noticeboard.

I note that the blocking admin has been absent from the discussion for several days despite being aware it is ongoing. Accordingly, I am unblocking the bot. I will remain engaged in discussion should there be any further comment about the unblock. I will also follow any request for reexamination that is filed in an effort to mediate and build consensus. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot has unblocked, and the third edit I looked at caused a working link [1] to no longer work by changing it to [2] instead[3]. Doesn't give a good impression... Fram (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported this on the bot's talk page and will continue to monitor the situation. UninvitedCompany 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The link works, Academia.edu was down for a while. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well no. The original link worked all the time, the "improved" link didn't work for a while and works now. Furthermore, the old link made it clear that you were going to a PDF, the new one doesn't. Why is the bot making changes which don't improve things and may make things worse (replacing a direct link with one which needs an extra resolve step at the source site, increasing the risk that it won't work sometimes, like here)? Fram (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, in one instance the bot changes a link to BBc news from cite web to cite news, and changes "work=BBC News" to "newspaper=BBC News". The BBC is not really a newspaper though. Baffling is why then in the same diff, in the next ref, the bot again changes a BBC link from cite web to citenews, but now adds "work=BBC News", the exact thing it removed higher up in a similar link. The bot seems to do a lot of good things, some useless but not in itself wrong things (like an edit which only changes "citeweb" to "cite web"), and then some weird stuff which seems more like annoying meddling than actually helpful improvements. Fram (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I believe these are legitimate concerns but are unrelated to the block/unblock discussion. Everything the bot is doing should be listed in one of the bot's BRFAs. If these changes are not listed there, initial discussion should be on the bot's talk page. Ideally then the maintainers would remove the feature or start a new BRFA covering it. If the response is unsatisfactory, I believe it would be appropriate to make a request for reexamination at WP:BOTN. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New problem

Here's a problem. Someone is driving the bot to abuse WP:FOLLOWING. After this ANI case closed with the following editor being blocked, someone started following hard on the heels of both of our edits.... with the bot. It's still going on today. (There are about two dozen more diffs.) One bot edit included the username of an alt account of the blocked user, but the others are not signed. Can a checkuser read the IP of who is using it on these specific edits and block individual users of the bot based on that? Otherwise, this is being misused and we need another solution. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

IP address logs are not accessible by tool maintainers. Bugs and issues with the bot should be reported at User talk:Citation bot. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is as good a place as any to report such an issue. El_C 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot operators of record are responsible for any edits the bot makes. If the bot is engaging in behaviour which falls foul of any policies, the bot operators are liable for those edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot is also being put to nefarious use, so I think we may have a problem here. El_C 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I emailed the bot owner, and you, and got no response. And I pinged you on talk. Clearly a number of people are concerned or this discussion wouldn't be happening. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaldari just told me that they are looking into this. El_C 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I just had a look at this, why can this bot even be activated to run tasks by people who are not the operator? (As is my understanding of what is happening) Is this intentional? As it seems a custom made harrassment tool if so. Does it log who activates it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still happening.[4][5][6][7] - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I looked at one of your examples: Special:Diff/901618104 - is something "wrong" with this edit? That is, should you revert it? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the content of the edit (except a trivial cosmetic-edit issue), but the bot is clearly here being used for block evasion and, given the context, as a way to keep stalking after being blocked (maybe we should ask T&S to block the bot?). Which was why the lack of authentication for using the bot was flagged previously. Which is why we have BOTMULTIOP. Which is why we demand all edits be attributed to the user that made them. Which is just common sense. But nobody wanted to spill the BEANS here, figuring the problem would be obvious. In any case, it has now been demonstrated. --Xover (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: the edit is attributed, to the bot. The responsibility for the edit is the bot's operator. If this is an edit that if made directly by the operator would be considered bad enough to lead to blocks, - ask the operator to stop. If they won't stop - then it can be blocked again. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: We're on the Administrators Noticeboard and I have to go ask Martin to stop evading the block ElC placed (yesterday) on the user harassing Corbie? I'm so confused. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, I replied to the e-mail that I received within 24 hours. The e-mail did not make clear what specific harm was being caused, so I was unable to suggest a specific solution. I note that the linked section on "Hounding" states that "the singling out of one or more editors [...] to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Corbie, if you could you spell out how your work is being inhibited, we might be able to suggest a solution: for example, if the problem is that you are encountering edit conflicts, you could use the bots|deny= template to exclude citation bot until you have completed your edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Can you please identify yourself by logging in? El_C 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [done - Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)]

Anonymous editor, being hounded by an individual and then by the bot does not make my experience here enjoyable. I also received troubling emails telling me that the initial block they were given would not prevent them from hounding me also with racist epithets. Having my watch list fill with bot notices prevented me from constructive editing. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @UninvitedCompany:, the bot is being used for abuse (WP:FOLLOWING), and as far as I understand, the bot handlers cannot prevent it. I'm considering reblocking, since there is apparently no other way to prevent this abuse. As the recent unblocking admin, do you object? Otherwise we're asking Corbie to tolerate behavior from a malefactor using the bot that we would never tolerate from another identifiable editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late reply -- I've been traveling with family. I see that you've blocked the bot, which I fully support under the circumstances -- I would have done the same thing. UninvitedCompany 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot is making unacceptable proxy edits for blocked users

@Smith609, Xover, and CorbieVreccan: — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm breaking this out to it's own section so that it doesn't get lost in the huge thread above. If I understand your report correctly Xover, you believe that Smith609's bot is making edits in violation of the proxying component of the banning policy, correct? To lay this out specifically in the component parts, can you identify the edit(s) you suspect are in violation, and the editor you suspect is being proxied? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: In a nutshell: yes. But it's Corbie and El C who reported the problematic edits (in New problem. See that thread for a list of diffs). I just tried (poorly, it seems) to clarify that it's not the content of the edits that's the problem, but rather that the edits are being made at all: the bot appears to be being used as a proxy by a blocked user to harass one of the two admins involved in the ANI case that got that user blocked. Note also that the original thread contains further relevant information. --Xover (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [edited to correct per El C's clarification below. --Xover (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)]

For the record, the bot has not been used to follow me around. El_C 19:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Further clarification, the bot has followed two of us to continue the harassment; the same two of us I reported being harassed in the initial ANI case: myself, and another user who is not an admin (Indigenous girl). - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• If someone made a spelling fix on every single page I edited, immediately after I edited the page, with the sole intention of annoying me, I don't think I'd be able to ignore that forever. If Corbie said "whatever, I'll ignore it", the blocked user (or some other blocked user with a different perceived enemy) would switch to someone who would care. And that behavior would be expressly forbidden by WP:FOLLOWING. My understanding is that a CU block on-wiki of the underlying IPs would still not prevent someone from using the bot. My understanding from Kaldari's post above is that it can't, anyway. Is that not true? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the bot is set up to accept requests from any editor or IP. My understanding is that its currently being used by IP's to harrass other editors. Unless there is a *quick* way to fix the bot so it doesnt allow anyone to set it off on a run, then it needs to be blocked. As the bot operators are responsible for all the bot's edits, they are enabling harrassment at this point. As an aside, I cant see how WP:BOTPOL allows a bot to be run by anybody. WP:BOTMULTIOP cant possibly be interpreted to mean a bot can be set to perform tasks by literally anybody. If it is, its not fit for purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Only in death: The bot isn't being "operated" by "anyone" it is just being "triggered" by anyone. Same as how sinebot isn't "operated" by people that don't sign their posts, and how ClueBot isn't "operated" by vandals. In any event, the current issue is that proxy edits by blocked/banned users are being facilitated and there are limited defenses to that, namely that the operator will have to show that their bot's edits are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not going to rehash that issue here (my word count on the matter is already large enough to annoy people), but just so that an absence of objections is not later read as consensus: that is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:BOTMULTIOP and would make it pointless if it were so. Cluebot reverts (clear) vandalism and is operated by a known operator: nobody can go to a web interface and ask it to edit a particular page, it edits by rules set by the operator. Ditto Sinebot, and it is triggered by one's own edits, not directed by a third party. Neither of those bots can be used to harass an admin that blocked you. This situation is exactly why we have BOTMULTIOP. Just imagine if AWB allowed unidentified users to run its canned rules on any page (and AWB requires permission even for authenticated users)… --Xover (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and UninvitedCompany: - pinging to this section. I agree that unless Smith609 can defend these proxy edits, it is against policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bots are required to be operated by someone if its not being operated by anyone its in violation of BOTPOL. There is a reason BOTPOL contains the word 'operator' a number of times, and 'triggered' zero. But I digress, WP:BOTMULTIOP has three criteria and as far as I can see this is breaking the first two, "1. operator disclosure – the Wikipedia user directing any given edit must always be identified, typically by being linked in the edit summary" - A number of the edits linked above do not list who is operating/triggering the bot that I can see in the edits. "operator verification – users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (e.g. non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, IRC hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified." - I cant see that the IP's triggering it are restricted in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure we're not going to come to a quick agreement on what elevates someone to the status of "operator" right now - but that is a bit aside of the claim of proxying for blocked users. Unless this claim is wrong, the exception is met, or there is some strongly compelling IAR reason - the proxy edits need to cease. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Unless the code of the bot can be changed, now, to always show the username of the person running it to make the edits, I don't think it should be in operation. I don't think it should continue being operated by anonymous people who are in violation of policy while we debate this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: from what I can see above, "identifying" the triggering party won't be sufficient to prevent proxy edits, the bot would need to also be able to make a determination that the party is eligible to make edits, something that would be quite difficult. (e.g. Just knowing that a blocker user was triggering the bot isn't going make this better for you). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the web interface has to be removed. Enabling the bot through the off-wiki web link means literally anyone can trigger it. I think the bare minimum is that people need to be signed in to their (unblocked) wp account to run it. That would stop blocked users. I don't know how to code the thing, but that seems to be a pretty basic requirement, yes? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: there are ways to authenticate someone via a web interface, and a major re-write could do lots of things, keep in mind "blocked users" can still "sign in" - they just can't "edit" (and can't do some other actions too). I'm assuming good faith that the claims of bad-faith edits here are legitimate, thus this should be taken seriously. I don't think I've seen harassing edits that have risen to the extreme of "emergency" levels of urgency and would ask that we give at least 24 hours for response on why this bot operations is other wise acceptable. (See below). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the claim that this bot is enabling bad-faith proxy editing, I'm recommending blocking (in 24 hours) unless someone can show:

1. That the claim is not credible
2. That the claimed bad edits meet the exception to WP:PROXYING
3. That there is an unrepresented overwhelming consideration (e.g. If the edits are of such great use and the "damage" is being greatly exaggerated, such that stopping operations would ultimately lead to a worse project, even when considering the outcome could be driving away productive editors).

— xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

From looking at this a little, I think a block would be justified now, but I would ask Corbie's forbearance for 24 hours to see if anyone can think of a way around having to block. The problem seems to be that it is literally not possible to throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. But CitationBot does valuable work, and if Corbie can put up with the annoyance a short time longer, let's see if anyone has any brilliant ideas on separating the two. To be clear, Corbie: do I understand right that the sole problem is that they're WP:FOLLOWING you? There are no other errors being introduced? If so, are you OK with being patient a short time longer? Because frankly, if you're not OK with a short delay, I don't see how we justify not blocking right now. I acknowledge it isn't fair to ask you to wait a while, and no problem from my end if you say you aren't willing to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I think I wrote this weird, probably from my lack of technological prowess. Maybe people smarter than me already know for an absolute fact that this can't be prevented. If so, then my replies to Xausflux's list is: I've looked at this, and the claim is credible. The edits themselves don't seem to be the problem, but the articles chosen to run the bot on are chosen specifically to violate WP:FOLLOWING; deliberately flicking Corbie's ear. There can't really be an overwhelming reason to keep the bot running in the face of this, because it has not been running for months and the world hasn't ended, whereas I have to believe that if it isn't stopped, the LTAs have a new tool in their arsenal to drive off editors one by one with no consequence. To be clear: if an identifiable editor was doing this to another editor, I would have already blocked without a second's hesitation, no matter how productive an editor they were elsewhere. I think we should block now, and the only reason I don't is I defer t xaosflux's superior technical understanding, and fear I'm misunderstanding something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]Well, as I noted above, the bot driver is also still harassing Indigenous girl, as well. At first I thought the bot following was funny: I thought the legit bot owner was making sure the harasser hadn't messed up the templates, and was correcting the mistakes the troll had made during the hounding. Then I realized it was the same pattern, and the troll had carjacked the bot. Not so funny anymore. I want the IPs of the stalking driver logged and blocked. Yeah, I can "tolerate" it. But I don't think anyone should have to, just for the sake of automating a few edits. I don't think it's good for morale to have disruptive users using this for block evasion and harassment. I don't think we should have to be making this kind of decision to tolerate abuse for the sake of making a few formatting tweaks more convenient. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: the delay I'm suggesting is somewhat related to Nemo's question below - at least at first glance these edits don't seem to be very offensive or difficult to ignore, so I at least wanted to give the operator a chance to respond (also if the only offended party is an admin - we sort of expect admins to have thicker skin). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify, what part of the edit makes them "hounding"? Does the specific username mentioned in the edit summary matter? Does the content of the edits? By the way, I can't avoid thinking that an unwanted consequence of noticeboard conversations like this is WP:BEANS: if nobody has ever suggested that edits following a certain pattern would be such a terrible thing, probably nobody would have thought of making them; now, the goal of such edits may also be to get the bot blocked, which is disruption in itself. Nemo 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Nemo, page up and read the original ANI case. Someone is using the bot to follow two of us and continue a pattern of harassment they are indef-blocked for. The other editor is not an admin. I've pinged them if they want to weigh in. Their contribs are linked above, and you can see that they're also being followed. I'll post diffs if you want. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I was harassed/stalked by an individual who is now blocked. Part of that harassment included them using the bot. This person also emailed me more than once via the WP interface and said some pretty racist stuff and creepystuff. They also told me that the block against them would not matter which is when the bot started following me around. It's very creepy when a person tries to negotiate harassment (they initially stated they would not harass Corbie and I for 48 hours if the initial block was lifted. I believe their final negotiation attempt was a year of not harassing us). I don't feel that it is helpful to have a bot that can be utilized to retaliate or harass editors. I am a little weirded out that people think this is permissible harassment when it is being done by a human driven bot. El_C ended up having to semi-protect more than half a dozen articles I regularly work on. This is not cool, this does not benefit WP or the editors that keep it going. Nemo they made it very clear by using their name on at least one occasion while driving the bot. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I did block both SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) and SolarStorm1859 indefinitely for misusing the bot for the purposes of harassment. El_C 11:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page on this: Nemo bis is here implying that one or more of the bot's critics (and they probably have me specifically in mind, given their previous accusations on my talk page) have deliberately impersonated a blocked harasser, and used the bot to continue harassing that editor's victim, for no other purpose than to get the bot blocked through underhanded means. Since I suspect they may genuinely not understand just how serious an accusation that is I'm not even going to bother asking them to retract that, I'm just noting it for the record. --Xover (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've reblocked the bot. I'm sorry, I know it's really useful in good faith hands, and that good faith users are like 99% of the users. But the current configuration cannot prevent this from happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It sucks for the 99% of good-faith edits by the bot to be blocked like this. But it was the right thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could this maybe be remedied by checking "Human (not bot)" in the Watchlist settings? --213.220.69.160 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If someone is being harassed, it is not an adequate response to say "but maybe if you stop paying attention to the harassment it will go away". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The Anti-Harassment team at Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to help out with the Citation bot by adding an authentication step before the bot can be triggered. We are working on this at the moment and hope to have a fix in place soon. Kindly refrain from making any code commits to the bot in the meantime. Please reach out to me directly/ping me if you have any concerns about this. Thank you! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

NKohli (WMF) - Awesome! Thank you for letting us know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot works too slow. There are millions of articles. There could be a twin Citation bot to help do the job or Citation bot needs more power. QuackGuru (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well until the problems which resulted in it being blocked are fixed, it's going to be infinitely slow. Unfortunately fixes seem to have stalled due to some confusion over what was being asked for and the fact no one seems to be working on it anymore after the bot was changed in the wrong way. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to the work of some volunteer developers with some help from the WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team, Citation bot's web interface now requires OAuth authentication to make an edit and always identifies who activated the bot in the edit summary. Apparently, blocked users are also now blocked from using the bot. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive309#A_request_to_see_deleted_edits_of_files

Have some new message to this?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Someguy1221?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hey, why don't you email me. I'll send you the ones I can, and at least describe the rest. You can then go do whatever you intended to with them. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been send.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I found two attack revisions at Irakli Tsereteli. I think they need to be hidden

Diffs

• 1
• 2

Best regards

190.160.21.173 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I missed those. El_C 21:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marina1banch Linkspam/Paid editing? Seeking guidance

I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed, and not necessarily any particular action.

All contributions by this user follow the exact same pattern: They add a "new" fact to the article, and always contain a reference with a link to an article on social.techcrunch.com - see the latest example (they are all the same, basically).

The user has been active for some months, none of their contributions cited any other reference than techcrunch and they did not make any other type of edit.

While each edit in itself seems innocuous, the overall pattern may indicate an agenda. I'm unsure on how one would proceed with this, so I'm bringing it up with the admins who may have more power to investigate.

I'll be leaving the required notice on the user's talk page, but they have not previously engaged on talk pages, even in a previous ANI case. Averell (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here. Clear possibility of COI editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor who started that COIN thread. On a behavioural basis, COI looks highly probable. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. It would be one thing if this user were citing something reliable, but the citations consistently go to unreliable reports, and the worse the content added in the pattern, the more likely that it's promotional, not a matter of someone trying to improve the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As pointed out by Lordtobi, there are also links to theverge.com: [8]. You can compare with the contributions of Alexandra.cader, RichardBentley1980 and SusanJames83. Marina1banch started editing 6 days after these 3 users were blocked. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The user has now requested an unblock, though they still didn't add their view to this discussion. Averell (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They requested unblock again. I have to admit that I‘m mildly fascinated. The goal was obviously to generate a lot of „legit“ edits in a small amount of time (they said in the unblock request they wanted to „build up“ their account). It may be possible that they actually do what they say - churning through some random news feed and turning each item into an edit; some kind of „edit farming“ For what purpose I can only speculate... Averell (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:All BLP articles lacking sources

This category includes 96,013 pages and if the category was used correctly, all of those articles on biographies of living persons lack sources. From my understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a category like this should not exist. Clovermoss (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What should not exist is a BLP without any sources, however I spot checked 5 articles from Category:BLP articles lacking sources, and 4 out of the 5 had more than one reference. People use the tag which generates the category for articles they feel need more sources, so those 96K articles aren't completely unsourced, many of them are simply undersourced, so there's no particular need for panic. If you're concerned, grab a few articles every day and add some references if there aren't any or they need more, or remove the clean-up tag if it's been used unwisely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have marked quite a few pages as BLP sources, yet quite often someone then changes it to BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there. (Granted I have made the mistake of putting unsourced before, but I usually catch that and have not done that in years I believe.) Wgolf (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: '... BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there' - EL's are not references. A BLP with only an EL to the subject's twitter is still unsourced. Worse, a BLP where only said twitter feed is used as a reference is still essentially unsourced. (but I agree, there will be many articles where there are reference-quality ELs and/or to which quality references have been added which are still tagged as unsourced). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay those ones I do considered unreferenced if they have something like a Twitter/Facebook/Youtube only. There are some though that are just listed as that. (I have tried using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ to sort some out-I have found quite a bit by having articles without the reflist tag. Though it still will include ones with refrences that don't use that tag but another one) Wgolf (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: What does EL mean? Clovermoss (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"External Link".--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In many cases an in-line external link can be considered a reference. It's not the ideal form, but it's a ref nonetheless.

Incidentally, the 4 out of 5 articles I mentioned above all had references in the usual format, not ELs, in-line or otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As others have said, a big part of this is users not understanding the differences between a source or reference and an inline citation. A lot of users think a source or reference is not a source or reference unless there's an inline citation. This is also partly why there are a lot of incorrect BLPPROD taggings. Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of history merge

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. In 2015, the article Marcus Louis was userfy-ed into one of my user pages: User:Starship.paint/Marcus. Since then, it was recreated as an article and still exists now: Marcus Louis. Could an admin help merge the histories of the pages? Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're fast, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus! :) starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page

I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. –xeno^talk 13:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got the popcorn, folks, this should be entertaining. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76: at least it brought you out of virtual retirement. Now that's a silver lining. ——SerialNumber54129 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good edit! This looks like the beginning of regime change. I would like steps taken to take over the WMF. The WMF can be run by the Wikipedia community of volunteers. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We do still need a policy on the community's handling of office actions, yes? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune vandalism

So there's been on and off vandalism on the Wheel of Fortune (American game show) page. It usually takes the form of inserting vaguely related gibberish related to the show. Take for example, this edit, which changes some phrasing for no discernible reason while also adding nonsensical phrases like "How to Play Wheel of Fortune in January 3 1975 After Jeopardy Between Friday & Monday" and "to Earn $1,000,000 as 2015 or 2019". I run a Wheel of Fortune fan wiki, and I often find editors in the same IP range vandalizing my wiki in a similar fashion, such as this example. It's my understanding that IPv6 addresses of this nature are harder to rangeblock, at least from what i've been told before with this editor. Given the nature of the edits -- random words, Capitalizing Every Word Regardless Of Whether It Makes Sense, repeating words, always putting words in certain manners -- I have to wonder if our IP editor is special needs in some way. What would be the best way to keep them from continuing to muck up the pages? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you requested semi-protection or, perhaps better, pending changes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is already pending-changes protected, and has been for some time. Deor (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the IPv6 addresses that have recently edited the WoF page. They are all quite different and from what I can see an enormous distance apart in terms of number. Moreover, geolocating them turns up locations all over North America. I think someone's playing with proxies or a VPN service that hasn't been caught. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Then what would work? I deal with what is clearly the exact same editor on my fan wiki. As mentioned above, the article already is on pending changes, but the edits somehow get through anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just a couple disruptive IP editors playing around on an article that has name recognition to them. Both are range blocked now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: My concern is that the edits are so ongoing, and have spread over to my wiki as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about vandalism to Wikia. El C semi-protected Wheel of Fortune (American game show). If there's more vandalism to the articles here on Wikipedia, I can block anyone who gets through the page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, have you thought of requiring an account to edit? If you run it, I suppose you can make tons of configuration changes. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

TFD > 3 months

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this TfD, which has been open for more than 3 months? Just a note that I was active in the discussion, but would appreciate if this could be closed one way or the other. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Working on it. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: thank you for looking at this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C.

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:Marchjuly has repeatedly reverted my attempts to update the Arsenal W.F.C. article with a correct version of the club badge. The badge that is currently on the page is not only outdated (it uses the wrong name), it was never actually used by the club. It was a Twitter profile photo that was apparently chosen as a "solution" when a bot deleted the correct badge file (Arsenal FC.svg) for not having multiple NFCC templates (one for Arsenal FC, another for Arsenal WFC). I have fixed this by adding a second NFCC template, as we do for all other women's clubs that share a badge with corresponding men's clubs. And yet he still refuses to let me fix the page because he seems to think this three year old flawed compromise is law, and is holding out for one specific admin (User:Explicit) to "figure out what to do," even though obviously nothing needs to be figured out - one logo is correct and the other is wrong. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain why the file was removed on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly#Arsenal Women, at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal Women and in edit summaries here. There've been a few edit conflict while posting which might have caused confusion, but despite what Eightball posts here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not some "made up hoop" that I've created. All he needs to do is discuss things with Explicit and explain why the close should be re-considered. File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit commented in that discussion, and then restored that the Twitter logo file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. Eightball re-added the other file with this edit and I removed it per Explicit. Eightball posted on my user talk about this here and I explained why I removed the file here, but we had an edit conflict. Eightball also posted about this at Explicit's user talk here and I responded here and here. At no point have I been trying to avoid discussion; I've been actually suggesting to Eightball how this might be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There would be nothing to resolve were it not for your involvement and insistence on reverting an obvious and necessary correction. The page was wrong, I fixed it, and now I'm spending hours of my day dealing with the fallout solely because of you. Eightball (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And you to have the self-awareness to understand that what you are demanding I do in order to make this change (which, again, is obvious and necessary) is absolutely absurd and indefensible. Eightball (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly is correct. Per the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, File:Arsenal FC.svg should not be added to any other pages, except for the one it is already used in. @Eightball: Please drop the stick; if you re-add File:Arsenal FC.svg to Arsenal W.F.C., I'll be happy to block you for disruption. If you have a problem with the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, then please make your case at WP:DRV. -FASTILY 01:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion at DRV would likely just result in relisting the file for further discussion at WP:FFD, which would be a waste of a week. I suggest going straight to FFD, an editor did at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. ƏXPLICIT 07:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a mistake on Wikipedia and it took me ten seconds to fix, and that should've been that. Now it's going to take me literal days to make that fix permanent because you insist on forcing me to lie to our readers until I jump through your hoops. This website is broken. Eightball (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have to think WP:IAR is relevant here. The admins and Wiki rules are only serving to stop me from improving Wikipedia. I have a very hard time accepting this. Eightball (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something here (and that's a good possibility, since I rarely if ever disagree with Marchjuly), but the FFD restricted use on sub-groups of Arsenal FC. The WFC is a separate entity. We have plenty of company logos that are used in more than one location, provided they have the non-free notice for each one. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Yup, I was right, I missed something (see below). Primefac (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Some editors do consider the women's teams to be "sub-groups" of the men's teams, but I don't think that debate even matters - as you say, there's nothing wrong with using logos in multiple locations so long as there are non-free notices for each one. I made this change but the admin involved in the discussion removed it, for reasons I can't possibly understand. The whole thing is immensely frustrating. Can you please chime in on the FFD discussion? They forced me to do this little dance and yet no one has even participated in the discussion. Such an incredible waste of time. Eightball (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-free files are only required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, and they can be used in more than one article as long as each use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Providing a separate, specific non-free use rationale, however, is only one (actually it's just one part WP:NFCC#10) of these criteria and doing so doesn't (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) automatically mean all of the other criterion are being met. The file had a non-free use rationale for the women's team article when it was first discussed at WP:FFD and this rationale was removed by the closing admin Explicit when he removed the file from the article. The file wasn't originally removed from the article for not having a rationale, but for other NFCCP issues; so, you recently re-adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the women's team didn't change anything from that FFD discussion. This is why you were asked to discuss things with the closing admin Explicit and this is why Fastily removed the rationale you added. What needed to be done is for you to establish a new consensus for the file's non-free use based upon the women's team re-branding in 2017; this is why Fastily suggested DRV and Explicit suggested FFD. A consensus can change over time, especially when there's some new relevant information to be considered per item 3 of "Deletion review may be used" in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you just don't unilaterally decide such a thing yourself, particularly when it involves an administrator's decision, and you don't just claim IAR to justify ignoring an administrator's close because you think it was made in error. Now, that you've started a new FFD discussion about the file's non-free use, it's possible that a new consensus will be established in favor of adding the file to the article, which means that anyone who disagrees with that close will be expected to do exactly the same thing you were asked to do (i.e. follow CLOSECHALLENGE). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I would strongly request that you stop interacting with me on this website. I will do what I need to in order to fix the article; I don't need any further harassment from you. Eightball (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT. You start a discussion on my user talk page here and here. You ping me in your post here at user talk Explicit. You start this AN discussion about me. You come to my user talk page and post this and this in a discussion started by a different editor about something completely different. You ping me in your responses above and below (the one to Primefac). You've argued that I am making you do all kinds of things which are making you waste time, and then you accuse me of harassing you for simply responding in a entirely civil manner. If you're going to make such an accusation against me, then please provide diffs showing where I've done this so that others can assess and take action if necessary. We're not here because I or anyone else has made you do anything, where here because you seem to have gotten really angry really quickly because someone else has disagreed with you. My guess is that this isn't the probably isn't the first time you've responded in such a way to someone doing so, and it probably won't be the last. What happens with the file at this point will be determined through consensus at FFD, not by any one single editor doing what they need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest, to both of you, that whether the logo on this page says "Ladies ®" or not is not a hill worth dying on. —Cryptic 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree; until other editors have commented on the situation there's nothing really more to add. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Why is it that so many uninvolved editors try to cut down disputes in this way? It's important to me that Wikipedia displays correct information. Is that not important to you too? If not, why are you even here? Eightball (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Eightball, I don't think that Cryptic is trying to shut down the conversation, but rather mentioning that the two logos being used are nearly identical and this level of apparent vitriol and anger is a tad unnecessary. My comment was in a similar vein, in that if it's just two editors arguing there will never be a consensus, so stepping back to let other (uninvolved) editors comment is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I don't disagree, necessarily. The two logos are nearly identical EXCEPT one includes the word "Ladies," and seeing as the team is no longer called "Arsenal Ladies," it seems like common sense to change the logo to the newer, correct version. The level of "vitriol and anger" I may be displaying has nothing to do with the logos themselves, it has to do with Marchjuly refusing to allow me to make a clear, obvious, common sense correction, and instead demanding that I spend literal days of my life navigating the banalities of Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to overturn a flawed, outdated consensus. WP:IAR exists for precisely this reason - perhaps it is good to have a structured method for reaching consensus, and perhaps it is also good for utilizing that same method to reverse said consensus, but when the time comes to fix an obvious error, we should be able to ignore those rules for the sake of improving and maintaining the wiki. This dispute is ultimately not about the logos, it is about the fact that I am being prevented from improving and maintaining Wikipedia.

If you think this is a waste of time, or that it's getting too heated, or that this hill is not worth dying on, I would strongly agree - we should not be here. This dispute should not have ever happened. I should have simply been allowed to fix the page, it'd be correct and up to date, and we'd have one less error on Wikipedia. It was not my choice to make it so difficult. Eightball (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I too think that Cryptic has a worthy point here, but the problem is though that we're discussing the usage of copyrighted content here. We're limited to which of that we can use under a fair use claim and thus the difference between the files does matter. We can only justify the fair use of one of them and Eightball has given sufficient evidence that it should be the one also used in the men's team's article. Therefor Eightball's edit should have been uncontroversial and the last thing Marchjuly should have done is repeatedly reinstate a copyrighted file the fair use of which is clearly questionable. At the very least they should have removed the logo's altogether pending outcome of the discussions. They could have decided to use common sense and accept Eightball's edit based on the evidence they provided instead forcing this proposed change through the bureaucratic chains despite Wikipedia itself telling us it is not a bureaucracy. Is is their actions and not Eightball's which has created all this drama (and unfortunately Eightball reacted badly to that) and what's worrying is that it is not an isolated incident. Marchjuly has repeatedly gotten involved in multiple such disputes over football team's logos with multiple different users. I appreciate that they want to get the right thing done, but these are just cases of being overconcerned.Tvx1 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't restore and re-add the Twitter file to the article. I also didn't originally remove the file used in the men's file from the women's article or the rationale from the file's page. All of this (including diffs) has been explained above. Eightball was only being asked to follow CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the closing admin, which is the same thing which was asked of you here. The fact that neither you nor Eightball think such a thing is necessary does not mean it's not necessary. Explicit seems to disagree with your approach as previously posted a little over a week ago here and here and then re-affirmed once again today here. Other administrators like JJMC89 and Ivanvector also seems to disagree with that approach per here and here made a few weeks back. Add to that what another administrator Fastily posted above here, then that seems to make at least four administrators who don't agree with that approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no possible justification for changing the logo here other than that one of them is actively incorrect. (I don't see you arguing anywhere that the one you're reverting from is, though it's late here and my head hurts and I'm pretty unmotivated in general.) There is exactly zero difference between the copyrightable parts of the logo you're reverting to and the logo you're reverting from. Hosting the same copyrighted content in multiple files, one for each article, makes us less compliant with WP:NFCC#3, not more.

If, arguing in the alternative, your primary objection is the FFD itself rather than following NFCC, then your reversions aren't correct either: the version of the logo with text should be G4'd and the article should have no logo at all. Maybe that meets WP:UUI#17 better, I've got no position either way on that, but using it as a justification to revert to the same image is insupportable. If the FFD legitimately forbids the textless version from being on this particular article, then it forbids the with-text one just as much. —Cryptic 07:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: I did actually ask about the Twitter logo in the FFD discussion and then asked Explicit about the difference at User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg shortly after the FFD discussion was closed. The logo with the text was only uploaded and added to the article after that user talk page exchange. It was used in the article until someone removed it a few months later in August 2017 and was subsequently deleted per WP:F5. It came up again as part of a WT:FOOTY discussion about the badge about a month ago, and was restored and re-added to the article by Explicit. It was then removed by Eightball and I re-added it per Explicit's edit. If the text file needs to go, then that's not a problem with me. If the FFD consensus about the other file is reviewed and a new consensus is established, then I've got no problem with that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Gumswick55

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_talk:ViperSnake151#Strange_IP

In my opinion Gumswick55 doesn't understand that amateur boxing, and Olympic boxing in particular, is not about national things, it's about the level of competion which one or another national Olympic team could have brought to the game, especially in such sensitive issue as in case of the boycotted Olympics (1980, 1984, 1988,) therefore articles on athletes and events that they've participated in should be free of any nationalistic agenda regardless of who was boycotting whom, the political things are of least importance in the sports-related articles (in my opinion, Gumswick55 with his ad hominem approach, and edits like these [9], has trouble complying with the WP:Politeness either, but that is not an issue of main importance.) 93.73.36.17 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:SaskatchewanSenator ; Senatorsfansask

Please check

• SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.249.188.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.220.227.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

in connection to aforementioned User:Max Arosev, for the same reason: an edit war already in progress over the same article of little or no interest within two hours since previous account was blocked, (with another edit war in a bunch of related articles,) along with constant deleting related thread from my talk page, and from the article's talk page. (It seems that somehow the topic is sensitive to Max.) Thank you in advance. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported your IP. Hope that finally puts your destructive activity to an end. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a sockpuppet report? Why the strong wording? I think this should be moved to the bottom section. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can help by moving it to the bottom section, I'll appreciate it very much (for I don't know how exactly to move it.) Thank you. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant that you should have said something like this at the bottom, but let's just leave it here.

Those users seem pretty familiar with Wikipedia even though they are very new users. How would they be able to know about the {{uw-unsourced2}} templates after being 1 hour on Wikipedia? It is possible, but only if you click on random links in the Wikipedia namespace. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I can easily answer that question. I’ve been using Wikipedia for a long time without being involved in editing. Now I saw an anonymous IP vandalizing this platform, and decided that it’s time to act. First, I undid some of his edits from my IP (188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), then I decided to create an account (Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s name (I noticed him fighting an anonymous vandal yesterday, he has been editing since 2007) served as an inspiration. 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is unrelated to me. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing since 2007? 93.73.36.17's earliest edit was in 2016. Besides, you should be replying using your account, not your IP. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalising? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who was reported by 93.73.36.17). Read it again. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalizing? He added SPECULATIVE, UNNECESSARY and CONTROVERSIAL content. SaskatchewanSenator has been editing since 2007, as he’a somehow a sock, according to 93.73.36.17. And, again, I forgot my account’s password (I told that, too). Yes, I have some memory problems, so I’ll stick with my IP. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it should have been talked about in the talk page. It isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Look at that edit. He added a personal opinion in contravention to Wikipedia’s policies. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But that's not vandalism. That's close to WP:COMMENTARY. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In a number of instances the user is employing the same offensive expressions (cf. "dipshit IP", for example: 1, 2, 3, 4,) so I suggest edit histories should be checked also for the same connection to the aforementioned master account if that is technically possible. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's because 188.93.243.189 and Senatorsfansask are the same person. Apparently they forgot the password for Senatorsfansask. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that to an editor who doesn’t read the comments. Speaking of my rvts with “offensive remarks”, that’s my bad, I was too impulsive. Promise not to use that language again. I also suggest focusing instead on the contents of his edits. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s be civil and assume good faith. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The subject is constantly replacing old threads at my talk page, and specifically the one thread that is somehow related to the mentioned sockpuppetry case, with nonsense warnings ([10], [11], [12], [13], etc.) I don't know whether it is in accordance with the rules or not to do such things. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Politically motivated user

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

---

I would like to report Tomcat7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With edits like this, this, this and this (3RR violation) to Russia men's national ice hockey team he clearly demonstrates his toxic political bias. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to inform you that your actions will be examined as well; you have exceeded 3RR on Russia men's national ice hockey team yourself. Are you sure you want to proceed with this? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified him. His response: even more vandalism on his part. His new edits: 1, 2. Someone, please stop him. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. He started reverting first (and violated 3RR first), you can check that. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Being correct, if you are, is not a defense to edit warring. I suggest that you stop reverting their edits. Edits are not vandalism just because you disagree with them. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are poorly sourced and you are edit warring. I've reverted your latest - take it to the talk page of the article concerned and stop wasting time here. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s make it clear. He started reverting my edits because he disagrees with them. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and once that happens, you need to go to the talk page and have a civil discussion with the other party or parties. That's how it's supposed to work here. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

188.93.243.189 has now been blocked as a checkuser-block. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

The Simpsons

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 move this page here (per others simmilar articles). Thank you! Patriccck (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done and histmerged. Nthep (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Community General Sanctions for Wikimedia Foundation drama

Clear consensus against this proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Main page:

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other related drama:

The above is just a sample of how much this drama is spreading and how toxic it is becoming. I suggest general sanctions for discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed. I suggest the duration last a minimum of one month. By this, I mean that the duration has a mandatory minimum of one month, and, if this continues to be a problematic timesink after that, the community authorizes an extension (say, three more months, six more months, or whatever). Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions for what this means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Huge mistake. People are upset over the WMF silencing their input on community matters. Putting in place a draconian GS when it isn't needed would only add gas to the fire. I'm confident that admin can handle the situation as is. The fact that it is spilling over into ANI often enough is just because it is such a heated debate, but it's one that affects us all. GS or no GS isn't going to change that, and then all you are going to see is more ANI reports with people wanting to "punish" those that disagree with them. Good faith, but bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me also add that admin shouldn't be afraid to use SHORT blocks (not cool down blocks, mind you......) to deal with problems. 24-72 hours is sufficient to actually get the job done. Any thing like a topic ban is going to cause more drama than it solves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That not so easy - there are unblockable users, and in a partisan situation there always would be an admin to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So you want to fill up Arb with cases where someone used GS and it is seen as excessive? If Starship.whatever had been blocked for 24 hours, and not denied TPA, no one would have blinked an eye. What he did wasn't wise. A warning might have sufficed, but a short block was also reasonable. The only reason it was unblocked without ceremony was that it was excessive. I don't think Tony was "abusive" in doing this, but he was mistaken in thinking it needed an indef block. Admin need to use a soft touch here. These are NOT articles, after all, and whatever happens in no way interrupts the experience for the reader, so some patience and moderation is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I actually did not support DS below, I just wanted to remark that this is a real problem which is not easy to solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and most of the problems have been pretty minor consider the scope of the issue. This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don’t consider preventing disruption on the biggest mess Wikipedia has had in anyone’s memory “Draconian”, which is a word getting flung around too freely these days. Seriously, people, we’re proving the WMF right if we don’t act to deal with the toxicity here (and it exists on both sides.) GS will give us more flexibility to deal with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Where has the WMF said that their original action was due to "toxicity", and what do they mean by that term? - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  That’s my word, but I think it’s a good description of WP:FRAM, regardless of one’s views on the ban. We need options between “do nothing” and “block” to deal with this, and this proposal helps that. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per DBrown. Tony's heavy-handed actions of yesterday (and the subsequent spill-out) is a reminder to not travel into these territories. ∯WBG^converse 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question and just what sanctions are being asked for? "they are specifically detailed instructions" is what the page says, yet the proposal here contains no suggestion, detailed or otherwise, as to what they should be. "Lets sanction everyone then decide afterwards what the rules are" is not a good proposal in my eyes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reading between the lines of TB's response to me above, discretionary topic bans seem to be the most likely candidate. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the rationale but I think DS could create scenarios that would add more oxygen to this drama; which is getting re-fueled on an almost daily basis now. Ultimately, this will pass. Hopefully, an ArbCom/WMF "clear-the-decks" statement/future process will be agreed. Editors will have to make their own peace as to whether this future reality will work for them or not. I don't think we are too far away from this. We should try and avoid any action that could amplify conflict in advance of this. Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I am the starter of one of the linked threads, but I think out usual mechanisms should suffice, we should just not hesitate applying them (possibly giving a bit of leeway since the situation is overheated).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DBrown and DHill. Yes it is toxic and the WMF seems to have not thought through their toxic action when they started this. Any blocks after such an arbitrary time limit would clearly be WP:PUNITIVE. There is also the problem of giving the WMF an out - i.e. when the month has passed and they have not responded with anything constructive they can just say "we no longer need to respond" since blocks will be handed out to anyone who questions their arbitrary action. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Are you suggesting we close down all discussion of the WMF and their role in this ongoing incident? Not sure what is being proposed here. WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In short, General Sanctions would mean that if I felt you crossed the line, I could topic ban you from discussing anything relating to Fram, and I wouldn't need the input of any other editor or admin. I could indef block you if you did mention it, and take away your talk page access if you crossed that line in the sand there. GS allows unilateral action, virtually unlimited in scope. It works in article space for hot topics, but not in meta space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Pardon my naivete, but this whole Fram business is a situation that calls for de-escalation, not the other way around. Empowering admins to hand out indef blocks and topic bans for this specific area of discussion will only further splinter the community. WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: What an absolutely terrible idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis & Duncan - People are quite rightly pissed off and IMHO blocking everyone who moans about it will only make things 10 times worse, The only way this will all stop is if WMF get their arse in to gear and make some sort of bloody statement or atleast do something about it..... –Davey2010^Talk 15:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose.

'if we don’t act to deal with the toxicity here (and it exists on both sides.)'

I keep seeing 'toxic', 'tearing itself apart', Armageddon imagery for what has been, overwhelmingly quite a civil, and eminently intelligent debate, one almost incumbent on users given the circumstances. I've never had the impression I lived in a 'community', until an inkling that indeed we form one emerged after June 10, as I read with surprise comments by editors and admins I have been in conflict with, deliberations showing a good deal of give and take, nuancing of initial views, sometimes a complete change in opinion, among several hundred editors, most of whom I have never heard of. Where I live, it would be regarded as par for the course for any public forum. One should not feel anxiety over the existence of debates between people of widely different backgrounds, and on occasion passionately held views. It is called the democratic process, and there is nothing here to bear comparison like the 'toxicity' I see in politics, or hear off from people who waste their time on social forums.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Dennis says, GS works well in article space where there's likely to be a reasonable consensus of what constitutes disruption, and that's really what it's designed for. But in this fractured and divided meta dispute, handing individual admins further authoritative power is a recipe for escalation and could be a disaster. I can already imagine the wheelwars and desysops that are likely if this is approved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose But only because I oppose these types of overly bureaucratic processes generally, and not because I don't think that this whole mess is somehow not a completely shameful response from the community, and that the professional-opinion-havers who feel the need to interject this into every forum possible should be prevented from doing so, shamed because of it besides, and pointed to a giant neon sign that says "mainspace is this way". GMG^talk 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Ha ha only serious - if enacted, I predict an admin invoking this to sanction another admin for invoking this within 24 hours. —Cryptic 16:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Today, a group of admins repeatedly closed down a discussion relating to the behaviour of one of their friends. With this mechanism in place, I would have been blocked. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both specifically as counterproductive to any reasoned discussion and generally against it. I'd also note that 461 editors have participated. These represent a massive proportion of those who would otherwise judge over such areas. Either it'd be piled onto a few souls and/or the COI accusations would fly thick and fast Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know that I have enough Wikipedia standing to weigh in one way or the other, but "the beatings will continue until morale improves" strikes me as a poor way forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Lurk123

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.

---

• Lurk123

vandalism-only account--Dimon2711 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for talk page access from User:Chzz

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.

---

Chzz, who was blocked a bit over 6 months ago and lost talk page access as well, asked me by email to post this message here. (Pinging Courcelles as the blocking admin/checkuser.) I remember Chzz from many thoughtful discussions on IRC about helping newcomers, but don't know much about the context of his block.--ragesoss (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Chzz. I've been blocked from editing. I tried to ask why, but I was blocked from editing my talk page. I tried to email arbcom, but they did not answer.

So, I waited 6 months.

I have 100k edits, I've written 100s of articles inc GA/FA; I think I was respected in the community.

I think I was blocked because I posted IRC logs. There is no policy on Wikipedia that says that is not permitted. I think that might be why they cannot give a reason for my block.

I will not post any further logs from IRC during this discussion.

I only wish to discuss the block, - and if unblocked (now), I will only make posts that are directly related to the issue until my block is resolved.

The block was because they publicly posted IRC logs and made it clear they would continue to do so. As far as the IRC channels are concerned this is public logging, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned it's considered to be copyvio (same as publishing emails without the consent of all parties). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 revoked the TPA. Speaking in my capacity as an individual editor and not as a CU, I strongly oppose restoration of TPA. For a while, Chzz would come into the unblock channel of IRC and tried to bait me into violating the privacy policy in regards to his block, and I believe he tried this with other people. He would also go on rants and misinterpret things such as "I know who you are" (i.e. your IRC channel doesn't hide that I know you are Chzz) and once went into the stewards IRC channel to report that he felt unsafe. If it wasn't that, he'd be going on rants about IRC vs. Wikipedia, and I had to kick him from the unblock channel at least once, and I believe multiple times. This is not someone I trust with talk page access. He will abuse it and Wikilawyer and do anything he can to make the reviewing admin make a mistake and cause further drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• As someone who has interacted with Chzz on IRC for many months before his block I'm shocked at the information brought forth by User:TonyBallioni and would have (and was just about to before this discussion was abruptly closed) supported unblocking talk page access. I have only ever had positive interactions with Chzz on both IRC and on-wiki and they have helped me many times with technical matters. Despite the claims by TonyBallioni I vouch for this user and think we should at least let him defend himself on his talk page. -- œ^™ 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OlEnglish, let me email another CU real quick. I see some things based on log entries that would likely make this request moot as being ineligible for unblock anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

    It's quite alright. I simply wanted it to get on record that Chzz has at least one friend here. -- œ^™ 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ragesoss and OlEnglish: another CU has looked at this and  Confirmed block evasion. I left a note on Chzz's talk page to this effect. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• How unfortunate. I'll join OlEnglish in going on record as saying that Chzz was a great editor who I highly respected, so much so that he was listed at User:Swarm/recall#Users who can simply request the removal of my admin rights. @TonyBallioni: from what I'm gathering here, Chzz was posting IRC logs on-wiki? Presumably while logged out, which is what makes it a CU block? AFAIK, Jéské has it right, but most people don't understand this. To your knowledge, was the underlying copyright issue ever actually explained to him in good faith? If he indicated that he would continue to do so because "there's no rule", that's actually kind of understandable. Not trying to play devil's advocate, just wondering if there's any point trying to coach this user into turning things around. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Swarm, I don’t want to comment on the specifics for respect for Chzz’ privacy, but generally I’ll say this: the reason for not posting logs isn’t just the copyright info: they’re oversightable because they can contain IP addresses of people who enter without a cloak and potentially contain more private information than people would wish to reveal on-wiki. Chzz would have known this.
    The other issue is that he’s been evading his block logged out pretty much ever since. I personally find it a bit disingenuous when someone sends an email requesting an unblock for a CU block when they know they’ve been evading the same block in the same week they send the email. Again, Chzz has been around the Wikimedia community long enough (whether on-wiki or otherwise) that he would know that block evasion was considered inappropriate. Also, I’ll generally say this: from what I gather, the Chzz of 5-10 years ago was a great editor. I didn’t know him then. I only know the interactions I’ve had with him since his block, which I have not found particularly pleasant. That’s not stating that the person you all knew was bad, just that his recent actions have left bad impressions in mine and a few other people’s minds. I hope that comes off as fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I wasn't aware of the privacy aspect of posting logs on-wiki, obviously that's an even more serious concern that is a lot less forgivable than not understanding copyright nuances. That makes it more difficult to believe his pitch that he perhaps just got caught up in something that he didn't know was wrong. And obviously block evasion is unacceptable, rendering everything else moot. I trust your assessment that he's not 'innocent' as he claims to be. Sounds like an SO request is his only remaining path at this point. It is strange that he went off the rails like this though. Not the first case of an established editor self-destructing, of course, but still hard to understand. IIRC he really was a venerable pillar of the community. If you don't mind me asking, do you have any idea why he started IP socking and/or posting IRC logs? Was it related to any specific incident or dispute that got out of hand? Or did he just become a bad actor at some point, for reasons unknown? No specifics needed, just curious. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• He posted logs because I and a few other regulars in #wikipedia-en-help called him out on giving dodgy advice to people who came into the channel for help. He then ran here and claimed we were persecuting him, and posted the logs in an effort to prove it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to get too detailed , but he'd been IP socking in December off-and-on for a few months when his TPA was revoked, and he's been IP socking this week. The data is fairly limited on this, so it could be larger, but it's enough to be pretty obvious that he is in fact evading his block and has never really tried to abide by it. He's aware of the ArbCom option, and I made him aware of it again when I posted on his talk a few hours ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Jéské Couriano: Wow! Really?! Facepalm How petty of a situation to get indeffed over. Sounds like he could have just let it go and gotten unblocked the same day, but he instead chose to self-destruct, and he is now apparently reduced to a block-evading IP socker. Unreal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

SPA adding links to articles

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

I am not really sure what to make of this. In the Game of Thrones (Season 8) article, a critical review was added from an odd source, the World Socialist Web Site. The anon IP adding this reference has been adding other WSWS links to articles (link here. I'm not sure if the source meets the criteria of a RS, but it just seems damned odd that an avowed political action site would suddenly a good source of GoT entertainment reviews. It would be if Mother Jones started writing articles about Magic the Gathering trading cards. The anon appears to be an SPA, in that all of their edits are adding WSWS links or opinion from the socialist standpoint (sans sources).
Not sure what to make of this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Ed. So, what happens when they don't respond to the notice of discussion? I'm betting dollars to donuts that, as an SPA, they won't be making an appearance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I also do parties and bar mitzvahs, where my renown for predicting the future is known (it is known, khaleesi) - the anon could not give a hoot about us; they are pushing a specific dialog and view. I am updating this so it doesn't stale date amidst the rest of the wackiness ensuing here.

All sources opt for a view, but is it not disingenuous to push a socialist view regarding a review of GoT? Even Sam got smacked down in the series for suggesting something akin to socialism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This IP has made no more edits since 22 June so there is not much reason for admin action. Let me know if it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Any issues with the edits the SPA has already made? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI and Sock Puppet

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate responses to FRAMBAN

Let’s have a meta vote to see which of the following would be useful responses:

1. We all take a holiday and redirect any issues to ArbCom and T&S.
2. We all add naughty words to our signatures.
3. We community ban one random ArbCom member.
4. We all request to vanish.
5. We remain calm and wait for WMF to address our concerns. After all, they can’t write this encyclopedia without us. We are the ultimate power.

Thanks. Vote below. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• 6. Wait until Doc James, Jimbo Wales and ArbCom report back to us, and make a community decision at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• 5. We're here for the readers. Internal governance matters, but the service we provide to the world is more important. I also support Cullen's suggestion, but at the end of the day, my service here, while mainly behind the scenes at this time is a part of the greater reason we're here: I volunteer my time dealing primarily with privacy issues and abuse. That enables editors who shouldn't have to face harassment, vandals, and LTAs to contribute better and in some cases to feel safer in real life. While there are plenty in the community who may not like me, I think one thing the FRAMBAN thing has shown is that the community wants and needs people who are actively engaged in it to have a role in privacy and harassment issues.
  This is why I will continue to serve as an editor, a sysop, and a functionary: I think my service helps the people who write the content that our readers read. I'm sure everyone commenting here can find their own reason to stay, because ultimately, whatever happens at the WMF, we created the product and the product is bigger than either the foundation or us. It is truly a gift to the world, and I don't think we should harm that because of an issue of internal governance. Questions should be raised and answered, and the WMF has not done a great job in responding to this, but that does not impact our product, which is ultimately the output of our editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I was reading up on that, and wow, that seems a pretty over-the-top response. And there is no appeal or word as to why from on high. How, very disappointing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. If/when the project dies, the text, under a reusable license, will also not be lost. While it's alive, it's worth keeping up. —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Two thoughts. 1, I learned a long time ago in a RL work situation that I might be irreplacable, but I wasn't indispensible (when I quit they couldn't find anyone willing to do what I did, so they eliminated the position). In other words, Wikipedia would survive without me if I left. 2, If you do not enjoy what you are doing, find something else to do. - Donald Albury 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Edited 09:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that a petition signed by lots of admins would have some impact. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd suggest that the focus be on complaining about the WMF roaming into Arbcom's turf and not providing any advice on why it didn't trust it or the admins to fix the issue, or what we can do to fix the issues which generated this lack of trust. As for direct action, no I'm not going to either disrupt Wikipedia or allow vandals to disrupt it because the WMF messed up the procedure here. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support #6, although I must say, I'm getting antsy.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• With every day that passes, I'm more convinced that the WMF is just waiting for us to dry up and blow away. I haven't made an administrative action since the shit hit the fan, FWIW, and my enthusiasm for this place is lower than it's ever been. Miniapolis 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Sphilbrick at this time. The WMF Board should not, however, get the idea that the community is going to hold off on taking action forever. Their time is getting short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• We each have to follow our conscience. I handed in my bit because I answer to the community and served at their pleasure. I'm not willing to simply be a free janitor under the control of the WMF. What happens next will depend on whether the current lull is only a stalling tactic, or if the WMF finally understands that we are supposed to be a partnership. But each person has to do what they feel is right for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think the circle on this issue needs to widen; it started with an WMF action against an administrator, yes - but the response to that cannot remain with the administrators. This affects all of us from admins on down to the occasional contributor. If WMF can arbitrarily (and without recourse or protocol for a proper, transparent handling), they can do it to anyone. Not to get all Niemöller-y, but there is no way that this cannot be seen as a slippery slope into something like Wikipedia byut is not-Wikipedia.
  

I don't know Fram and have never interacted with him. I don't know what he is accused of. But this is Wikipedia, and transparency is our currency of note. This grievance needs a public airing, or the image of Wikipedia as a self-analyzing source of information dies - and I do not believe I am being over-dramatic in saying so.

So, stop surrendering the mops and go to work letting everyone know about this. Write an article about the controversy (like was done about Essjay). Link it through DAB pages so that folk don't think Fram was just the name of a Norwegian boat. Add the Fram story to the list of Wikipedia Controversies.

Transparency is the best disinfectant against back room decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know any independent reliable sources reporting on FRAMBAN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

<delurk>This is all i could find so far. It's a start, I suppose.<lurk> Baffle☿gab 21:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why I handed mine in. It isn't about Fram, it's about the condescending way the WMF is acting towards the community, and this has been a growing thing for several years. My user page says more. And now WJBscribe has handed in his admin bit, crat bit, and retired over this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • After a sidewards look at BN...we're not the only ones leaving/handing in our bits...Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would never criticize any admin choosing to resign if they feel they can no longer make a contribution here or if they just no longer want to. But the project will continue, in some shape or form. Articles are still being edited, self-promotional pages are being tagged and deleted, noticeboard conversations go on, life continues.

One editor said that 421 editors & admins had commented on the FRAM page. That means that hundreds, thousands (tens of thousands?) of editors are either unaware, indifferent or are choosing not becoming involved and are instead focusing on the work. Different choices. I feel like the issues, involving the relationships between the admins/bureaucrats, English Wikipedia, ArbCom and WMF are seriously important for our future as a project. But please keep in mind that while the voices protesting WMF's actions are some of the most senior, experienced and trusted editors, they are a minority of the active editors. Most editors are still focused on the work, not the politics. I consider all of them, "our community", those who care about WMF and those who couldn't care less. We serve all of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate, that is why the larger community needs to learn about this. No one is suggesting that WMF be taken out behind the barn for a whipping; we need them almost as much as they need us. But they need to learn their place. We are the reason they have jobs, not the other way around.

Either we get some fuller explanation behind Fram's banning, or shit gets worse. When admins - the folk who support good editor and shoe the bad ones the door - start quitting because WMF is imperiously banning senior editors - there is a problem. And it won't get better.

As for the idea that "the Project will continue, in some shape or form", I imagine the good folk at Friendster and MySpace felt pretty much the same way. Until it was too late.

Maybe the Arbs and assembled admins need to write up a notice to WMF stating that this lack of transparency is unacceptable. They are just waiting for us to get bored and accept it because, you know, it only happened to one guy. It will only embolden them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a list somewhere of admins who have resigned and those considering resignation over FRAMGATE? I have only recently become aware of this situation but everything I have read thus far is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More generally, I've found Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2019 (and the other years) perennially depressing pages to keep on my watchlist. —Cryptic 19:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School

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'd apprentice it if someone versed in copyright issues would take a look at the above article with an eye to removing the huge template in the history section. This school is in the midst of a controversy right now and it would be nice to have that template gone. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears Archer1234 took care of it. All that's left is to reconstruct something that isn't a copyvio out of it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of copy removed. Please make sure a {{revdel}} request is placed. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Abusive behavior and controversial edits by an IP

93.73.36.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received numerous warnings on his [talk page], yet he never ceased his dubious activity, and made many controversial and speculative edits that were later reverted. Examples: [edit #1], [revert]; [edit #2], [revert]. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't notified him about your ANI report. I've done it for you. I think this is a case of the user not having a neutral point of view. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?

Could someone please remove email access from Catflap08 (talk · contribs)?

This should not be a controversial request, since he was sitebanned more than two years ago and has shown no interest in returning, having never attempted to appeal his ban (he seems to prefer to just evade it through IPs). He hasn't used email to harass me directly in a few months (for reference, the earlier emails date to 4 July 2017 at 22:08 JST and 18 November 2018 at 19:42 JST), but certainly someone with a history with me has been sending people a list of my "enemies" and a pretty one-sided and inaccurate account of my history.[14] Catflap wasn't a suspect until I noticed just now that he's still following me and not even trying to hide it.[15][16]

Whether or not it was him (or if he's done it all since 2015, when he definitely was doing it to get around our IBAN), there's really no reason not to remove email access at this point. If he wants to appeal his siteban he can use his talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to refuse this, but what practical effect do you see it having? Will it really make that much difference if the emails are labelled "sent by user 'Catflap-08' on the English Wikipedia" or "user 'Catflap09'" or "user 'Fbff986oRN4'" instead? —Cryptic 06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AGF forces me to assume that if that happened, Fbff986oRN4 (an account with either no edit history or no apparent reason to be following me, or an account that had already been recognized as a sock and blocked) would have less credibility with the majority of email recipients than someone who claims they were sitebanned as a result of me hoodwinking the community (or whatever). Yeah, realistically anyone who believes the latter will believe anything, but at the very least forcing Catflap to create a new account every time he wants to email someone I reported for copyvio would make it harder for him. Also, as of November 17 last year I had no reason to assume I was due for another email myself: I'mnot comfortable receiving them in the first place, and since most wikiemails I receive are helpful I don't want to turn it off and only turn it on when I need to use it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good enough for me. —Cryptic 07:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic, I reverted Catflap's talk page to the prior state as it seems like he was using it to further harass Hijiri88, and I was about to take away TPA, but remembered I handed in my admin bit over the current Fram-Gate. Would you please look at it, and take any (or no) action you feel is justified? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not ordinarily block-worthy in itself, but after them not otherwise editing their talk page for five months except to blank it, revoking access seems like it'll cause the least harm all around. I'd like to note for the record that I neither know the previous history here nor care to. —Cryptic 16:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the above appears to have prompted Catflap to do something with UTRS again, I should say here that I stated earlier this year that I wasn't opposed to Catflap's siteban being lifted under certain circumstances (primarily that the community and admin corps carry more of the burden of monitoring his edits rather than forcing me to do it and then accusing me of "hounding") and was forced to remove that statement for reasons apparently unrelated. My opinion of the matter hasn't changed a lot since February, except that the above "paranoid" thing (and the cross-wiki "Hijiri, I'm watching you!" behaviour) have made me a little more concerned that any lesser editing restrictions he were placed under would be immediately violated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh. It seems the UTRS thing was already closed before I wrote that. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin input solicited - Indian Society of Cinematographers

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 fellow admins, here's my issue:

A variety of IPs (who are probably sockpuppets of now blocked user Roastedcocoa) keep spamming Indian cinematographer[17] and Indian film articles[18] with postnomial "ISC" every time a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers is mentioned. This has been going on for several months. In biographical articles they add it after the subject's name in the infobox, in the lead, and they also continuously misuse |title=. I say misuse, because we have an |organization= parameter, and ISC (being an organization) is not an honorific or a degree, so "title" is wrong. I've asked about this at WikiProject Film and while not many people commented, the general feeling is that the postnomials probably don't belong in the |title= of the infobox and they shouldn't be used at individual film articles. In some cases I've left them after the person's name in the lead of a biography.

However, there is a serious marketing campaign going on. Here is an example of Roastedcocoa insanely adding 10 of these in a general article about Indian cinematographers. (Note that all the links are circular, too.) There was even an effort to hijack the general Indian cinematographers article. In 2017 it was a basic article with some mention of the ISC. In these edits an IP changed the entire focus of that article to the Indian Society of Cinematographers.

Some (but not all) IPs involved:

• 49.207.63.117
• 106.51.107.188
• 106.51.109.159
• 106.51.109.35

Tl;dr, at what point would it be fair game to add "Indian Society of Cinematographers" to our keyword blacklist? Also I'm open to other options, but that seems like it could be the most impactful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider posting at WT:WPSPAM to get some advice, and find out if this justifies adding a blacklist entry. If you are hoping to get admin feedback on your actions so far, they look justified to me. I have semiprotected Indian Society of Cinematographers for 3 months due to spam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: Hi there, since you have loads of experience in anti-spam, what do you think should be done in this situation? There conceivably could be a legitimate reason for people to add this information to articles, but so far the only people doing this seem to have marketing/promotional intentions. A keyword blacklist entry might actually get one of these people to engage in discussion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The only option is the Wikipedia:Edit filter to prevent the addition of "\bindian\bsociety\bof\bcinematographers" by non-autoconfirmed editors. Trying to stop the addition of "\bisc\b" has too many false positives. MER-C 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: Would you, (or anybody else) be willing to help me with this? I don't know anything about setting up edit filters. As for the ISC addition, it typically appears as to either [[Indian Society of Cinematographers|ISC]] or [[Indian Society of Cinematographers|I.S.C.]] or [[Indian cinematographers|ISC]] if that helps in any way. The first two would be covered by your regex, but the latter one would seem to be the sneaky workaround that they might try to use. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should have just opened a request in the edit filter department, which is what I've done here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Awareness

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 wanted other admins to be aware of the discussion at User talk:Patton976. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes people threaten to create a sock puppet army. It's more work than it sounds like, and it usually just makes you easier to spot. If I find 50 sock puppets on the same IP address, I can block them all within seconds in the CU tool. It's not really a good use of one's time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin here. These posts confirm that this is yet another sock of AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs) (who also claimed to be involved in some kind of movement which appears to have comprised nothing but their sockpuppets and personal website), and I have tagged accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

To those familiar with AnnalesSchool, it was obvious this was a duck from the get-go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Obvious WP:DUCK. Dr. K. 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just another example of why this encylopedia needs a team of competent active administrators on duty at all times. Thank you, Nick-D. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Open letter to the WMF Board

The Arbitration Committee has sent the following open letter to the WMF Board of Trustees, regarding the WMF ban of Fram.

OPEN LETTER TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

30 June 2019

On 10 June 2019, the administrator Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for one year as an office action initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team (T&S). In a later statement, T&S Lead Manager Jan Eissfeldt clarified that Fram was banned for harassment, citing the passage of the WMF Terms of Use prohibiting “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism.” The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has followed with concern the English Wikipedia community’s reaction to this action. We have received three related arbitration case requests, and multiple editors have asked us to intervene on the community’s behalf. As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue.

ArbCom is a group of volunteers elected by the community to adjudicate serious conduct disputes in accordance with the English Wikipedia’s arbitration policy. This policy also delegates matters unsuitable for public discussion to ArbCom, and all members of the committee are required to meet and agree to the WMF’s access to non-public personal data policy. Over the years, ArbCom has passed responsibility for some matters, including child protection issues, legal matters, and threats of violence, to the WMF’s Legal and T&S teams. We are grateful for T&S’ assistance on these difficult cases and for their efforts to support ArbCom’s work in general. However, despite requests, we have not seen any indication that Fram’s case falls into one of the categories of issues that T&S normally handles, otherwise lies outside of our remit, or was handled by them due to a lack of trust in our ability to handle harassment cases. Rather, we must conclude that T&S’ action is an attempt to extend the use of office actions into enforcing behavioural norms in local communities, an area conventionally left to community self-governance.

Together with a large section of the community, we have been awaiting an adequate response to these concerns from the WMF since 10 June. The Board has yet to issue a statement, and sporadic comments by individual WMF employees (including the Executive Director Katherine Maher) have been non-committal with regard to the substance of the dispute. In the last public statement by Jan Eissfeldt (21 June) and in our private meetings, T&S have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review. The ban itself was actioned using a recently-introduced T&S process for local, time-limited bans, which although announced in T&S’ 2018–2019 Annual Plan, was not adequately communicated to the English Wikipedia community, and not subject to any form of community consultation.

We understand that this change in policy from T&S comes in the context of efforts to tackle harassment and hostility in the Wikimedia movement. Individually and as a committee, we fully support this initiative. We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection. However, if the WMF have also been concerned about ArbCom’s ability to handle harassment complaints, they have not communicated this concern with us, nor have they provided any suggestions for changing our policies or procedures. If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.

We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes. Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia.

We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign.

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned members of the Arbitration Committee,

Molly White (GorillaWarfare)

Joe Roe

KrakatoaKatie

Mkdw

Opabinia regalis

Premeditated Chaos

RickinBaltimore

Steve Pereira (SilkTork)

Dave Craven (Worm That Turned)

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Open letter to the WMF Board

I am requesting input I am trying to do the right thing and not get banned or start any wars . I am just trying to learn form all the good and bad that happen so I do better

I had a disagreement with a user but it was resolved on there talk page but they started to change the wording on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history. And the reason why I undid was because the page was built extensively with multiple users to come to an agreement with the material that is on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2

So I said take it to the talk page to gain consensus and the Final things they said was, (you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity My edit stands. Take it to the talk page.) (Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

I did Object to it by asking them to take it to the talk page to gain Consensus that does not seem to me like its part of the rules if nobody says anything you can make your edits that were asked to gain consensus with?

I have made edits that were asked to gain Consensus with and I did try to edit without the consensus that was requested and they were reverted.

Like I said I am not trying to start any wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and I have made a lot of Mistakes on Wikipedia I am trying to learn from that is why I keep them in my archival.

That is why I am asking for input on thisJack90s15 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now." @Ramos1990: ayfkm? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Someguy1221, I think this was meant for ANI. But I have my evidences lined up already for that in case I need to report this editor. Possibly will result in some sort of sanction - has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for disruptive behaviors and edit warring [19].

In short, User:Jack90s15 reverted me once and I took it to the talk page to prevent any edit warring on June 26, 2019. I explained my edit there and waited 3 days for him or anyone to respond to my neutral wording edit. He did not object or respond at all in those 3 days. So following WP:BRD "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." - I re-added my neutral wording on June 29, 2019 since no objections were there.

Then all of a sudden after 3 days of silence in the talk page discussion (June 29, 2019), he begins to edit war with me again after I followed wikipedia protocol. It is obvious that he was active in those 3 days by looking at his contribution history. So now it is his loss. I gave him ample time to object, but now it is too late. My edit now stands. If he objects to my wording he can continue to discuss, but now he has to convince me of his particular edit. This editor has engaged in disruptive editing before so this is not surprising.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I want you to take a look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, and see ... the list of exceptions to the policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Redacted something I should not have said. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I understand your response here directing Ramos1990 to WP:EW; I just feel that it wasn't necessary to word it in the tone and manner that you did. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Wikipedia on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit.

Now I came up with a Solution to the problem I trimmed the opening for it to not favor one estimate like what was said on the talk page. this way its showing how prior to 1991 all the Estimates were 20 million and higher that were made by reputational historians. and it also shows now what the death toll is with the archival date. and it still shows the reader what reputable historians say about the death toll in its own section which shows how some say it higher and lower.Jack90s15 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15 the purpose of a talk page is to discuss and sort out differences to prevent edit warring. If you did not engage in it in a reasonable amount of time then others can certainly proceed in making a contribution. The fact that you did not raise any concerns on the talk page for 3 days and then you started to edit war again before discussing on the talk page, means that you were not being serious about solving an issue. I don't agree with your attempt at innocence since you have more than 6,000 edits in the past 9 months. I am pretty sure you would have encountered similar issues before with that much on wikipedia. Use the talk page correctly or let other make their contributions. When you revert someone you have to discuss the issue not just revert over and over without discussing your thoughts.

Furthermore, why are you still editing the article [20] when we have not resolved the issue in the talk page?!

User:Someguy1221, I don't get your comment. Look at how User:Jack90s15 operates, he does not discuss things and he just makes major edits [21] while there is a dispute in the talk page over it now [22] that he finally wrote something. He should resolve the issue on talk first not impose his edits. I see WP:OWN issues here.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did engage the right way like if it did come not off that way my bad. that is why I trimmed it to resolve the Issue with the opening I am not try to act innocent I acknowledged I have messed up on the wiki.

User:Oshwah Explained to me that,

Collapsing quote. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(If this user is stating that their edit reached consensus because you did not respond to the discussion they started on the article's talk page, just go to the talk page, respond to that discussion, and raise your objections. Then, go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion and that the resolution to this issue should continue on the relevant talk page. Any user who is civil, understanding, and knows how consensus works here will gladly continue that discussion and work with you to come to an agreement,)

I was discussing my thoughts in the Edit summary that is why I trimmed it so the opening Explains the difference between the pre-1991 estimates and the estimates with archival data this way the opening is NPOV. and my large edits are from patrolling the recent changes and I am not WP:OWN other people have undone my edits on there and I let them and I do discuss on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&diff=899514906&oldid=899437161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1#Updating_the_historians_number_and_for_Simon_sebag_adding_contacts_to_it Jack90s15 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not where you discuss things! Those are edit summaries after all. The talk page is where you have to go an sort out the differences in detail. 1) Some times there are other editors in the talk page, so you can reach a consensus with others - sometimes there are no consensus with other editors by the way. 2) Sometimes no editors comment at all in the talk page - in which case you can proceed with your edit that was reverted since no one contested it further. WP:BRD states 'Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Read that guidline

Wikipedia is not an infinite waiting game. Clearly no one is interested in my neutral edit except you so you should resolve the issue on the talk page with me before making any further edits. Making bold edits like you did after you finally objected to my neutral wording on the talk page [23] is disruptive editing because now we are discussing the issue, whereas before you were not. Follow wikipedia protocol. Read WP:BRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

previously there was a discussion on the talk page about this the wording and the recent changes fix it this was the discussion,

Collapsing pasted talk discussion text. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I got to tell you, my father beat me, too, and I haven't killed 20 million people yet. - Stephen Kotkin, interview after publishing the book "Waiting for Hitler" in 2017, https://slate.com/gdpr?redirect_uri=%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Finterrogation%2F2017%2F12%2Fhistorian_stephen_kotkin_on_stalin_and_his_new_biography_on_the_soviet_dictator.html%3Fvia%3Dgdpr-consent&redirect_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags" - Montefiore 2007 , s. 376. Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives. - Volkogonov, Dmitri. Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime. p. 139. ISBN 0-684-83420-0. My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s. - Yakovlev, Alexander N.; Austin, Anthony; Hollander, Paul (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-300-10322-9. "More recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest' and range between ten and twenty million. - Gellately (2007) USRR – 20 mililon - Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. p. 4: "U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths Estimations on the number of Stalin's victims over his twenty-five-year reign, from 1928 to 1953, vary widely, but 20 million is now considered the minimum. - Brent, Jonathan (2008) Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia. Atlas & Co., 2008, ISBN 0-9777433-3-0"Introduction online" (PDF). Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 19 December 2009. (PDF file) We now know as well beyond a reasonable doubt that there were more than 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million - Rosefielde, Steven (2009) Red Holocaust. Routledge, ISBN 0-415-77757-7 p.17 "Yet Stalin's own responsibility for the killing of some fifteen to twenty million people carries its own horrific weight ..." - Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin's Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Princeton University Press, p. 11 "Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." - Conquest, Robert (2007) The Great Terror: A Reassessment, 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, in Preface, p. ...most historians now estimate that he had been directly responsible for death of somewhere around 20 million people - Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, XV, 1994 ,,With estimates ranging from eight to 20 million; some put the number as high as 50 million Leslie Alan Horvitz , Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, 405 - 2008 30 to 40 million dead in total (….) as a result of Stalin;s murderous impulses: Stephen R.A’Barrow, Death of a Nation: A New History of Germany, Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo and the closest adviser of Mikhail Gorbachev, who as chairman of a commission to study Stalinist repressions had access to all the relevant records, Stalin was responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet citizens. - https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/cleverness-joseph-stalin/ In my opinion, it should be written, "the number of victims is from 3 to over 20 million." Differences arise from distrust of official archives and problems with the number of victims of some events. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Our goal is not to reproduce common stereotypes, but to provide a good quality information. As a rule, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. If some author just mentions some fact tangentially, it is hardly a good source. If some author just reproduces the data from other sources, it is hardly a good source. If some author tells "historians agree that..." it would be good if they explained which historians they are telling about, and in which context. It is quite likely that the figure of 20 millions is just an uncritical reproduction of Cols war stereotypes. Actually, these stereotypes are still existing in non-special literature. In connection to that, it is important to know if each of the authors cited by you did their own research, or they just took the data from other books. It is quite likely that the figure of 20 million was taken from the Black Book of Communism. It is a very influential collective volume, and its Introduction says that communists killed 20 millions in the USSR. However, two facts should be taken into account. :First, the Black Book is highly praised not due to the Introduction, but due to the chapter about the USSR, authored by Nicolas Werth. Werth himself says 15 millions were killed. Second, Werth's own opinion about the Introduction, and, especially about the figures, which were taken by Courtois out of thin air, was very negative. He publicly disassociated himself from the conclusions made in the introduction. Third, most reviewers call the Introduction "the most controversial part of the Black Book", in contrast to the Werth's chapter, which is considered a "rock the whole Black Book rests upon". That means it is the Werth's opinion which should be trusted. Nevertheless, popular writers and journalists continue to cite highly questionable Courtois' figures, as your search perfectly demonstrates. That is probably because the Werth's chapter is long and detailed, and to a superficial mind it is much easier to look through a brief and primitive Introduction than to go through the whole Werth's chapter. However, if we are not ready to read long and complex texts, maybe we shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Last (but not least). Even the figure of 20 million (manufactured by Courtois) is a total figure of all victims of Communism in the USSR. It includes Civil war victims (from both sides), Volga famine victims, Red Terror victims, etc., and all of that happened before Stalin took a full power. Even if we consider all of them victims of Communism, they are not victims of Stalinism, because there was no Stalinism during this time. To summarise. Cherry-picked quotes from google are hardly what we need. Wikipedia's goal is not to summarize common stereotypes (if that were the case, no Wikipedia would be needed, a simple google search would be sufficient). It is always better to use few really high quality sources and filter out all garbage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Weird how these anonymous IP's and WP:SPA's are coming out of the woodwork at around the same time. I wonder...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) However, take into account that a specific number of "20 million" rarely falls in these quotations. These are rather estimates from 15 to over 25 million. In addition, you forget that the Black Book of Communist has set the number of victims across the USSR at 20 million, including hunger during Lenin's reign - 5 million victims. That is why they are not thoughtless copies. 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives Some events are not added: Deportations of Germans after 1945 [2 million victims], killed German prisoners [1 million], Hunger in 1931-1932 - a total of 8.7 million victims - Ukrainians and others - only this gives almost 12 million victims. Add to this the fact that it is not known how many kulaks died in deportations until 1937 [15 million deportees]. Volkogonov was to assess the number of those killed in these repairs up to 4.5 million, Conquest 3,5 miliona. Snyer and others only count until 1932. What's more, Snyder added to his number of starved Ukrainians, but not 3.3 million, he estimated, the dead of other nationalities. Then his number of off Stalin would be 12 million. That is why the number of victims of 20 million is likely, the more so because we do not have accurate information about kulaks until 1937 and the number of war crimes during World War II. Apparently, the NKVD shot 1 million soldiers in the back. Many historians support it, even in 2017, which is why I am insisting on a change. 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Have you read my post? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I'm sure the anonymous IP skimmed it at least, but it doesn't matter. These SPA's are bent on flooding the article with this stuff, which is why I requested semi-protection back in early September (see "Persistent unconstructive editing" above). I think it is imperative at this point.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC) As WC Fields would say, I don't know why I ever come in here. The flies get the best of everything.--Woogie 10w 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I will ask for semi protection using Twinkie since we all agreed on the death range with using archival data and historical footnotes by reputable peopleJack90s15 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) On a serious note, no W.C. Fields today. These "repression" statistics in fact are penal statistics, 14 million persons convicted of crimes in the judicial system. In addition 6-7 million persons sent by the secret police to the Special Settlements. In The famine of 1933 6-7 million perished, the reasons are debated and disputed. Wheatcroft has provided details of the 14.269 million who were convicted of crimes: from 1937-52 of those convicted 3.081 million were sentences for political offenses,only about 1/5 of those convicted in the Gulags or executed, 1,344,923 in 1937-38 in the purges and 599,909 in 1941-46, when many were sentenced for collaboration with the Nazi invaders. 3.287 million "repression" deaths are listed in this article: 878,704 occur in 1937-38 during the great terror and 1,241,031 from 1941-45 the war years when there were food shortages. The balance of 10-20 million additional deaths listed in some sources are in fact hypothetical deaths. The natural death rate can be manipulated to achieve a desired higher number of deaths. In any case the living conditions in the USSR were at lower standard than in western Europe and the US, forced labor of everyone was the norm in Stalin's USSR. We need to give readers a better understanding of the reasons for the"repression" statistics. To cite a single solitary statistic listed in a reliable academic source misleads readers.--Woogie 10w 22:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) No comments. I am wasting my time here.--Woogie 10w 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC) You are not. Just let's re-write the article accordingly (as I proposed below).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC) I agree with your proposal below. But if we are going to go into "serious demographic effects", that changes the scope of the article a bit. Should the article also mention the "excess lives" (Ellman, 2002, 1164) and growing population under Stalin?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) The numbers scholars are operating with come from two different type of sources: documented deaths and demographical evidences. The second type data actually operate with such factors as a normal birth rate, normal mortality, life expectancy, migration. These data are are absolutely necessary to take into account when we discuss demographic evidences. Therefore, all of that fits the current article's scope pretty well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2#Historians_assessing_the_number_of_victims_Stalin_for_about_20_million

Jack90s15 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is why the talk page is there! They can discuss any issue on the talk page section I opened if they want - clearly none of them have contributed to it probably because they don't care. None of these editors WP:OWN the article or the content nor do their words dictate what any future editors should do or not do. Their old comments from another discussion do not determine the outcome of another talk page discussion like the one I started. Each talk page discussion stands on its own.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring

If you reached an agreement with me, then mention that on the talk page! My gosh, you really seem to avoid discussing things on the talk page. Instead you create such a commotion on user pages, the article, engage in a edit war, revert with no intent of discussing things, ignore talk pages discussions - all of which are meant to resolve issue like this - and make bold edits when you have made the content to be in dispute. Please stop making disruptive edits and follow wikiepdia protocol. Once you engage in the talk page, you now have to seek consensus since two editors are in dialogue over content. Resolve the issue on the talk page first.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The help you're looking for

The discussion that Jack90s15 is referring to is this one. I maybe could've worded "go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion" more clearly, since it appears that Ramos1990 interpreted "respond to the user's message" to mean that he was supposed to respond using an edit summary, perhaps. Ramos1990 Jack90s15, we don't want to make or respond to discussion using edits and edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to be used to briefly describe exactly what you're changing on the page and why - hence 'edit summary'... a summary of your edit. ;-) If you need to communicate with another user in a dispute, you need to do so on the relevant article's talk page in a discussion, or do so with the user directly by messaging them on their user talk page. Using edits to revert content in a back-and-fourth manner between editors or even argue back-and-fourth using edit summaries constitutes edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia and can result in being temporarily blocked for doing so. This noticeboard isn't designed to discuss the exact specifics of the content dispute that you're currently involved with. It's designed in order to report violations of policy by other users so that it can be reviewed, discussed, and the proper actions taken in order to resolve the matter. No one here is going to dive in-depth into the content dispute itself; we have noticeboards and solutions available on Wikipedia's dispute resolution guide and protocol if you and the other editor involved cannot resolve the matter and come to a consensus amongst yourselves. I highly recommend that you go through, read, and review that dispute resolution guide I linked you to from top to bottom, and make sure that you understand everything that's discussed in there. It will contain the information you need, the answers you're looking for, and the different methods that you can use to resolve the dispute peacefully. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, appreciate your comments, but I think you are talking to the wrong person.

1) I was reverted by User:Jack90s15 so I took it it the talk page to discuss. So I did start a talk page section on it on June 26, 2019 [24] like I was supposed to.

2) Waited 3 days for comments. User:Jack90s15 never engaged in the discussion and no one objected to my small neutral wording edit.

3) So since no one objected to my edit in the talk page I went forward [25] after 3 days on June 29. Per WP:BRD, it says "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article."

4) Then User:Jack90s15 started to edit war and it was him who responded in edit summaries [26]. I even told him to take it to the talk page [27]. but he did not listen.

5) Finally after the 3 days of no objections and after this little edit war, he finally writes something on the talk page like he was supposed to [28]. Notice the dates on the edits. Clearly he was on Wikipedia from June 26 (when I made the talk page section) to June 29 (when I re-insterd my edit) and he could have discussed the issue in that time [29] which he clearly did not do. So I was under the impression that no one really had an issue since I explained my edit in the talk page on June 26 and no one objected for 3 days - a reasonable amout of time for at least him to discuss the issue - if there even was one.

6) So now that he finally is discussing on the talk page on June 29, he goes and makes major bold edits to the article without discussing on the talk page first in the same day! [30]

Hope this give you context. I have been following wikpedai protocol. But his disruptive editing, lack of engaging in the talk page, and making bold edits when he has made the situation into a dispute, is very problematic. I see WP:OWN issues. Plus User:Jack90s15 has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for this kind of disruptive editing and edit warring [31].

I have never been blocked because I usually try to compromise, but how can you compromise with someone who reverts, does not engage in talk pages, and makes bold edits when they make an edit into a disputed edit?Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Wikipedia on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit. this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring Can we agree on the bold change since it addresses Both of are ConcernsJack90s15 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did acknowledge the edits and I was on I was patrolling recent changes. and you did responded in edit summaries

(Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

(you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity. My edit stands. Take it to the talk page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk page for you to discuss your concerns on June 26. That was the place for you to discuss your issues not on edit summaries. My edit summaries on June 29 were not a argument, they were redirecting you to the talk page discussion which you willfully neglected since June 26 (which you agree you were aware of my talk page discussion where I asked for input from editors). You made this edit war not me. I followed the protocol WP:BRD. If you would have discussed any issues on the talk page like you were supposed prior to June 29 to then I would not have re-inserted my neutral edit in the first place. I waited 3 days for any input. If you would have commented on the talk page like you were supposed to (since you never voiced an objection or reason for reverting me in the first place [32] aside from saying that other editors worked on this article before), I would have discussed the matter until you and I had some consensus. It is very simple.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - Crap! I meant to ping Jack90s15 in that comment I made above, not you. Sorry... this is what I get for trying to use a mobile device to edit... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, I see. Understandable. No worries. I was beginning to think that the world had gone mad on me, when I had followed wikipedia protocol. Glad you clarified that your comment was not for me.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ramos1990. I was trying to make the point that if you find yourself making back-and-forth reverts with another editor, then unless your reason for doing so is one of the seven listed at WP:3RRNO, you are edit warring. Aside, @Jack90s15:, please please when you make comments in the future try to stick to a more easily followed indentation formatting. Between how the indentation in your comments pops in and out, mixed with multiple formats of copy-pasted walls of text, it is simply impossible to follow, and makes me not want to try. I'm not asking you to reformat it, by the way, because Oshwah is right that this is not the place to rehash the content dispute. But for future reference. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I went through and tried my best to fix all of the indentation issues here so that the discussion makes sense. Please feel free to fix anything that I may have missed or indented incorrectly during my attempts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) I apologized to Ramos 1990 Since I made this in to one Big Incident. and I am Sorry everybody I am looking in to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user So I can have help with Wikipedia so this does not happen again I am not ashamed to say I need help.Jack90s15 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - My apologies for the delayed follow-up response. I just got home from work and sat down at my desk. :-) I struck the incorrect ping to you in the comment and updated it to be directed toward Jack90s15. Sorry about the confusion earlier... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user

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

This account was created solely to edit Athikkadai in a disruptive way. I demand a wake up call for him/her, at least. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This definitely looks like a WP:CIR-type situation, combined with WP:OWN. Ashiq has been here for three years, and made almost 200 edits, but only to that one article, which he did also create. In that time he's been in frequent edit wars, including with bots trying to remove links to deleted files (really points back to CIR), and has never once used a talk or user-talk page. He also never uses edit summaries when reverting. Honestly surprised he has a clean block log. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots are kind, gentle people with infinite patience who would never dream of reporting someone to AN3RR. Perhaps that's why it has flown under the radar, plus the edit warring there seems to be a low tempo warring. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper for an admin to censor a page of an unblocked user?

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:Bbb23 has reverted my talk page messages at the talk page of User:Cirt twice now, in his last edit summary saying this is an administrative action, the user is a sockmaster who hasn't (and can't) edited in over 3 years, leave the talk page alone. Looking at the edit history of that page I see he has been removing similar messages of other users under a similar rationale. This seems problematic to me on two levels:

• first, and of less importance: there is no indication that User:Cirt has been blocked (ever). If he was a sock or a sockmaster, isn't it customary to block them indefinitely in either case, regardless of whether they retired or not? There is no indication on Cirt's user or talk page he has been declared a sock(master) by the community, ArbCom or such. Without a proof of his wrongdoing, calling him a sockmaster seems like a WP:NPA. I did find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive, but the only person who confirmed that Cirt was a sockmaster is... Bbb23. I do not find it comforting that a single user, without community discussion or even so much as a second opinion by another admin, gets to decide by themselves whether someone is a sock(master) or not. (But, to keep it short, and per WP:AGF, I am not challenging Bbb23's call here, particularly since Cirt is inactive, so - who cares, eh; I am not posting here to defend his good name, or such; in fact I have no particualr reason to doubt's Bbb23's judgement here since he clearly has more experience with SPI cases that I do).
• second, here is the main reason I am posting here. Regardless of whether an editor is blocked, or is a sockmaster, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines justifying removal of other editors messages to their talkpages; on the contrary, the guidelines are clear: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Wikietiquette dictates that only the owner can remove messages from their talkpage, unless they are uncontroversial vandalism type of an edits. What policy gives Bbb23 the right to apoint himself a custodian of Cirt's talk page and decide what posts stay there and what posts do not? Particularly after I asked him not to remove my comment?

I think I and any other editors who wishes to do so should have the right to leave whatever messages they want at Cirt's talk page with no interference from others. I find in it very worrying when an admin gives himself extra rights that violate a guideline (TPG) and threatens others with their position ("this is an administrative action"). Sorry, to me this not administrative action, but administrative power abuse. I have full rights to leave comments at Cirt's pages, regardless of what his standing in the community in general, and Bbb23's views of him in particular, are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What the fuck? How is this a valid administrative action? It's not even explained?!? No one has the right to force-delete talk page comments outside of the purview of WP:TPO. Of course, this notion is flexible, such as if there's a good reason for a talk page to remain unedited without exception, but if that's the case, how are you just gonna revert a good faith editor with an edit summary of "no" without explaining what the hell you're doing?! Seriously?? By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise. You can't just decide that no one is allowed to post on their talk page, without any policy rationale, or any rationale. That goes beyond every basic conduct standard we have. If Cirt is to be treated like a blocked LTA sock master who's not even allowed to receive messages, then at least block and tag. Don't just revert posters with no explanation. I literally have nothing against you, Bbb23, in fact, I respect what you do, but you seemingly never stop making these completely unreasonable and borderline-abusive actions that give me cause to speak out against. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise" et al, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt. ‑ Iridescent 2 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So why not just block him and end all this drama? What are we all missing? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Regarding the possible block of Cirt, it would be good to get a community's consensus before blocking and editor who can be described, to quote Swarm, "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing". If there is community consensus that the linked SPI and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt with its shocking contents of a single sock is sufficient for a block, so be it, but I think more than one admin should endorse such an action when dealing with an established editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two socks of this editor have actually been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The account was not tagged, there was no notice or indication to an ordinary user that Cirt was de facto blocked or banned, and certainly no indication that they should not be left messages. If there was a good reason for such an unusual talk page moratorium, then the page should be protected, or at least a reasonable explanation should be made when removing comments. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of direct reply by Bbb23 either here on on his talk page outside reposting a SPI link that I've already posted, and other comments here, with none disputing my right to do so or citing any policy allowing an admin to arbitrarily censor another editor's talk page, I am planning on restoring my comment on Cirt's talk page since I believe this is my right within WP:TPG. If there is any policy that I should be aware of that indeed allows an admin to remove my talk page posts to another editor as 'administrative action', please do tell me this ASAP. TIA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to see a good reason to be posting the talk page of this account to invite them to participate in an article with controversial political aspects. Given that they were caught using a sockpuppet to evade their topic ban on political biographies last October and December, no good is likely to come from this and it looks like an invitation for them to sock some more. I'm also surprised that Cirt hasn't been blocked as a procedural matter: using two sockpuppet accounts to try to evade a topic ban is clearly not on. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 has said he would block the Cirt account if it ever returned to editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Bbb23, on the grounds that neither Cirt nor Piotrus are blocked, and I cannot find a policy that says posting on talk pages of retired editors in good standing is a sanctionable offence. (See User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees, but that is simply good advice not policy). In turn, Bbb23 should read WP:OWN and WP:TPG and particular WP:3RR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cirt isn’t in good standing, he socked to evade a topic ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If he wasn't in good standing, he would be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, he will be blocked by Bbb23 if he returns to editing [33]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. GiantSnowman 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

To avoid future confusion, I’ve blocked Cirt. For more background on this, see this discussion about blocking stale accounts. Sometimes stale masters aren’t blocked since it doesn’t really matter much, but I think in this case it makes sense given that it’s a former longstanding editor. Letting Bbb23 know, and he can reverse me if he thinks it’s inappropriate as he handled much of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts - Piotrus should not have posted, but Bbb23 should not have reverted, and Cirt should be blocked for socking. GiantSnowman 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree - Piotrus was within his (?) rights to post, especially given what he knew. However you are right on the other two aspects Nosebagbear (talk)

• I would say that an editor who has broken the rules to a point that they warrant an indef shouldn't be told they'd be blocked if they returned - just blocked. If only to avoid individuals slipping through the net in the future (which could happen if, say, Bbb23 ever left). This at least should be the case in the case of a remotely established editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Page history shows that Bbb23 has been routinely removing comments and xfd notifications from Cirt's talk page for several months. It's standard practice to notify editors when their creations are up for deletion, and in my experience it can be helpful to see past xfd nominations in case there's some sort of pattern. These removals are totally uncalled for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say BBB's removals were improper. Generally, removal of talk page comments that aren't your own shouldn't be done. pbp 13:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: I have reblocked Cirt as, if I had done it a long time ago, as was recommended by several editors, it would have been - and now is - a CU block. I've also, as is normal, tagged the userpage. I've left in Ritchie333's misguided revert because I don't intend to edit-war over something this lame. If editors want to invite a confirmed sock to edit, what can I say?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "misguided", it's per consensus on this thread per at least two administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objections to Cirt's block if there is a consensus here. But it is worth clarifying that there is also a clear objection to Bbb23's removal of the posts - something that they still have not addressed. I would like to hear from them, at least, that they won't do it again (because expecting an apology for improper removal of my posts would be going to far, I know well Wikipedia isn't a community that supports the concept of apologizing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: We are still waiting for you to comment on your talk page reverts. Do you understand that you should not have reverted me and others on that talk page, and can you promise you'll not do so again, particularly under a baseless claim (threat) of "administrative action"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no reply despite a ping; I've left a direct message on Bbb23's talk page asking him to reply to this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Whether Cirt socked is irrelevant. You can't delete good faith messages without explanation, blocked or not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as explanations go, don't be an idiot could probably be improved upon, particularly when again reverting another editor on a third-party's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block of Wnt

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.

---

Multiple editors have expressed disagreement over El_C's block of Wnt for DE consisting of criticizing WMF and a 2019-04-07 edit which introduced an extremely graphic video of an act of terrorism (without the faces shown) at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings (I'm not linking it directly). Since El_C told a critical editor And you are more than free to bring this up to any forum of review you see fit. [34] I am bringing this up here. There was an ANI discussion about a related controversial link around the same time, but this issue has not been touched until El_C's block. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The user not only linked to the New Zealand shooting video a month ago, but they recently also suggested that, as protest against the Foundation, we should use that video to dissuade corporate donors and the likes from donating to Wikipedia. The combination of which led to the indefinite block. El_C 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This should not be considered as it is a third-party appeal and the normal unblock process has been used and other administrators have declined to unblock. Wnt is free to submit a new appeal through the ordinary procedures. I’d encourage another administrator to close this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Another edgelord up for keeping this in the news, perhaps as an indignant response to their last block. cygnis insignis 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As Tony has noted, the unblock request was denied on the talk page, and for what it's worth I'd decline a similar request as well—Wnt's actions could be the most illustrative WP:POINT action I can think of in quite some time, and is certainly detrimental to the project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question

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 curious as to whether my fellow admins are aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout states "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so" . I can think of instances where this very much is not the case and could impede block reviews, SPI cases etc. I only noticed when I saw edits such as this. Am I out of the loop on standard protocol?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the editor has also lost talk page access, they would be fully entitled to remove all content. Including the block notice for that matter. Only declined unblock requests of the current block couldn't be removed. Per WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. So IMO it would be a mistake for admins to assume such material has not been cleared out. Of course the fact they could be cleared out doesn't mean admins need to do so although I think it can be common especially when it's not expected the editor will ever be back. E.g. non master sock accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. As long as talk page access is available the blocked editor is free to blank the majority of the content on the page themselves, but I don't understand why others should do so on their behalf.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've fixed the project page. I removed the subsection. It's absurd advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how it even ended up there in the first place as it doesn't align with the blocking policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It was added by Bellerophon (here) in 2011. It is an excellent thing that it has been removed, as such gravedancing is much favoured by wannabe admins and wikicops. ——SerialNumber54129 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Backlogs

Since we have WP:FRAM, and Ragnarök is possibly approaching, many active administrators retired, and some others stopped contributing. This apparently increased backlogs. At WP:RFPP, I have seen in the past three days twice a backlog of over 30 requests, and over 24h delay. This possibly means those of us who are still around and doing admin work might think of expanding and clearing the understaffed admin areas. I would appreciate if we can identify these areas requiring a constant admin monitoring. RFPP might be one of them (though what I have noticed might be a fluctuation, we lost Lectonar who was active there on a regular basis recently).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

Since my above comment has been taken and used out of context, I should go on to say my concerns are less about WMF not supporting me. I have questioned my continued tenure and decided to stay. Unlike the 25 admins who are gone now. These were key people. The work load is greater. And my point was and still is that there are fewer people doing more work each and the backlogs are now worse than they were. And will be. Nothing more should be read into that simple statement.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Move to close. Nothing to do but sigh and shake our heads.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half

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 report I made on the edit war noticeboard regarding Larry Sanger's article has not been attended to even though it has been on the noticeboard for a day and a half and reports made after it have been dealt with. The "war" itself has abated on the article in the time since the report was filed (although that might very well be a truce while the report is still pending), but I would like some closure on it and any underlying disputes before it gets archived. (Also, please put any dispute related to the matter on the ANEW thread, not here.) Thank you, and apologies for any inconvenience! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I explained at Talk:Larry Sanger#Best known for that adding "best known for" was a bad idea. The correct response would be to revert your changes to the lead back to the old version which was based on reliable sources. There is no need for every report to have an official close. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's all well and good and I have come to agree with you on that particular count, but my changes to the lead involved much more than that and was an attempted overhaul that was disputed in its entirety. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

More edit warring. See previous discussion at Talk:Larry_Sanger#Failed_verification. Also see misleading content in the lede. I commented on the talk page about the problematic content. See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site."[35] Does anyone support adding "controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography"? This is nonsense. Neutral wording is being replaced with the word "argued". QuackGuru (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It is continuing to happen. Mass changes mainly to the lede are being made. The lede is now is poorly written and looks like a critic of Larry Sanger is editing the article. For example, neutral wording is being replaced with the word "arguing". QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See above thread.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I read the thread above and your comment. I merged the related thread and I was reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

See "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000."[36] No, that is patently untrue. Sanger did not join Nupedia because of his interest in the Interest. This is historical revisionism.@JosephABernstein: I am very curious what do you think? QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=903764169 Revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=904235167 Revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=904309434 Revert.

User:Bastun, it seems you are reverting to User:John M Wolfson's version. Am I correct? QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Block please

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

---

Resolved

 – --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone please block Pharmboy and Farmer Brown. Those are both alts of mine. For security reasons, I ask you block them as they won't be used or monitored anymore. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and please full protect my user page. Being a former admin, etc etc etc, vandalism and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed merge

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

---

Resolved

 – --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if any admin could make a conclusion for this merge proposal which nominated from March 2018? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Pflipper73

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.

---

Pflipper73 claims to be a sockpuppet (which may be so) and an administrator (which is not). Is admin action required? Dorsetonian (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the claims of being an administrator from this editor's user page. If they want to claim they are a sockpuppet, I don't think that harms anything on its own (if they are using sockpuppets abusively, that's another story). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Linkspamming of Warming stripes by User:RCraig09

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:RCraig09 appears to be WP:LINKSPAMming the article Warming stripes. Perhaps someone would look into that? User has been notified. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit - the Twitter links and the reading.ac.uk link seem unnecessary, and we would normally only include one link to the "official website" - but he's also just written the article from scratch. Have you considered contacting him on his talk page or the article's talk page, or just following WP:BRD? Bringing this to WP:AN seems premature. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• What??? The Twitter links are to three different scientists who either invented or expanded the subject data visualization technique (in one case to the very tweet that discloses a new application of that visualization technique to glacier retreat). The two reading.ac.uk links are to the university page (I know of no other "official page") of the inventor of warming strips, and to his previously-invented spiral data visualization, both of which visualizations are notable. Talk page with specifics, or WP:BRD, are appropriate, rather than making other people "look into that". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

The_donald "taking back" Wikipedia

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.

---

[37] I'm trying to be (cough) neutral about this. It's apparently from a week or so ago but I just came across it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

With all of its four comments, I'm sure that discussion had reaching impact. Killiondude (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Delhi Temple attack

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 we get some administrator eyes on 2019 Delhi Temple attack. This article is about a developing event, and is plagued by editors trying to push various points of view without adequate sourcing. I've tried to help keep the article neutrally worded from proper sources, but it is a losing battle. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Railfan23: It's a great time to mention that this is being discussed at WP:CEN. There's a lot of issues at play here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s spilt over onto my user talk page too! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The matter has been plastered all over Wikipedia, including my talk page. AND ANI. The matter seems resolved .  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic bans against SNAAAAKE!!

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

---

I would like to propose topic bans against Niemti/SNAAAAKE!! regarding any character articles and any articles related to gender issues. Furthermore I would like an admin to consider whether his indef block should be reinstated due to the following issues.

There is a very clear consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! is generally uncivil, does not respect the views of anyone who disagrees with him, does not collaborate with others, is starting unnecessary conflicts, makes personal attacks and violates NPOV, especially on gender-related issues, and especially on gender-related issues in gaming.

This behaviour has been occurring for several years, and shows absolutely no signs of changing. SNAAAAKE!! has been blocked from editing over 15 times across multiple accounts, and was also indefinitely blocked at one stage. He has also been topic banned multiple times, including from anything related to Anita Sarkeesian. This is not surprising, considering that SNAAAAKE!! openly admits to being a participant of the Gamergate controversy ([38]), a targeted attack on women including Sarkeesian, something he apparently has no regrets about:[39]. I understand attacking women outside of Wikipedia doesn't directly prevent him from participating in discussions on here, but it should give you some clarity on why he is so disruptive in these topics. I have been informed he is currently under at least four other editing restrictions: a topic ban on GA, a 1RR restriction, a 1 account restriction and a general civility restriction.

It is my understanding that SNAAAAKE!!'s topic ban on Anita Sarkeesian prevents him from discussing her anywhere. He appears to have violated that topic ban with this comment here: [40].

SNAAAAKE!! is currently engaged in an argument with five other editors at the talk page for 'Women in Video Games'. In a thread he started entitled 'Why is there no article men and video games?', he refuses to listen to the overwhelming consensus against him and is insisting on radical changes to the entire article to suit his narrow world view. It is my understanding that the fact he commented at this topic at all may cause issues with discretionary sanctions he is currently under regarding topics related to Gamergate.

He has been known to manipulates prose to further his agenda against women, even if it contradicts what the sources state: [41][42]. He also frequently attacks articles and sources that disagree with this narrow world view. For example, referring to Sexism in video gaming as "ridiculous and horrible". Here he refers to an FAC approved high-quality source being used at a female character article as "nonsense" and "bullshit" (Cursing in his comments is also not unusual: [43][44]). Multiple editors, myself included, have repeatedly explained that on Wikipedia we write about what our sources write about, yet he refuses to accept this. He refuses practically any advice given; I've lost track of how many times he's been asked nicely to do something simple like actually fill out the edit summary. SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly displays behaviour that would not be expected from an experienced editor. He is very difficult to talk to not only because of his opinions and lack of civility, but also because he frequently edits his previous comments out of order, fails to indent replies and often places walls of text as a response. This may be forgiven for a new user, but there is no way that an editor with this much experience is not doing this as a deliberate attempt to make it difficult to engage with him.

SNAAAAKE!!'s lack of civility, however, even extends to the most banal of topics. Here he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names. There is also a consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly starts conversations purely to voice his complaints about certain things, and that this behavior is a persistent disruption. See here and here and here and here. Probably the archetype example of exactly how difficult it is to engage with this editor can be displayed by this thread here. SNAAAAKE!! frequently demands other people do what he wants, and frequently ignores multiple editors giving him sound advice. No less than eight editors explained what was wrong with his behaviour, yet his final comment is "You didn't even explain to me what is the problem." He also frequently violates WP:OWN, referring to articles as 'his' and using the fact he wrote a majority of the prose as a reason for why other people shouldn't be editing 'his' articles. Multiple users have commented on this: [45] [46] [47] [48].

A topic ban for SNAAAAKE!! on the above two aforementioned areas is welcomed by the undersigned. Additional comments on whether he should be topic banned from video games or indef blocked (either of which I would endorse) are welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support any combination of action against - per proposal above. He is a constant source of conflict and civility virtually any time he interacts with anyone in the video game subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - There is a clear need to topic ban Niemti for the repeated issues and confrontations he has accumulated here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support any combination of action against - I've been mostly withdrawn from the conversation, but my observation concurs with the suggestion. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support in terms of some action needing to be taken. I will point out that we do have a potential standard discretionary sanction WP:DSTOPICS related to Gamergate, that includes "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed", which SNAAAKE probably should be on, regardless of any block or ban action here. --Masem (t) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on characters and gender issues As my default position, but I am not opposed to more severe actions. I believe Damien originally intended to start this with a blanket topic ban on video games. In the interest of trying to be lenient, I offered the suggestion of a narrower TBAN on characters and gender issues, which seems to be where a number of SNAAAKE's content issues most often come up. That said, we do need to weigh the fact that SNAAAKE has been blocked more than 15 times across his original account (Which is still marked as community banned) and this one, socked on at least 4 IPs and a dozen+ more named accounts, and violated his 1RR unblock restriction recently. His unblock conditions included a civility clause, but unfortunately (as topics elsewhere also highlight), I found nothing that really defined what that meant in the context of his unblock. I think most people want to give the benefit of a doubt and let things slide as much as they can, but where's "too much"? -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Since there have been some calls for a Video Game TBAN, I want to express that I feel a TBAN on Gender issues should happen, in addition to any TBAN that covers video games or characters or both. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment as party to one of the articles in question I am going to refrain from indicating a vote. However in the interest of transparency I did feed back some of my feelings of my experience with SNAAAAAKE! to Damien and I see that this has been included in his request. I am therefore content to see the argument judged by its merits and the accounts prior history. Koncorde (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Site ban them. Wikipedia does not need this toxicity in any topic. Support the proposed topic ban as a secondary measure, but there's already evidence this will just spill over into other topics that the womenfolk might have the audacity to interact with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck per discussion with Atsme below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and DS at the very least, support site ban. SNAAAAKE!! has a long history of combative and disruptive editing that is amply described above. Leaving aside his overt incivility in communicating, he is savvy at subtly subverting the tone of an article to push his POV, e.g., [49]. Cleaning this up requires a lot of work and a lot of babysitting his edits to make sure he is following core 100-level policies like NPOV and RS. Search "Niemti" on this noticeboard for even more context to this case. Per ferret and WP:ROPE, how much more are we going to give him? Would support reinstating INDEF/site ban based on this long history and apparent lack of any semblance of character improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Bryn, it's clear that a TBAN on video games alone, even broadly construed, would not suffice. This editor does not seem capable of leaving his biases about gender at the door. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see you didn't notify SNAAAAKE!! as is required by WP:ANI's rules. Jtrainor (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jtrainor: They pinged SNAAAKE and left a notification... -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support a site ban, but will also support a TBAN if site ban is not consensus. Niemti/SNAAAAKE!! has made it clear he's never going to learn to be civil and to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point he feels needs to be made. This has been going on for years. If he hasn't figured it now, I would say he's not competent enough to be welcome in the English Wikipedia community. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support permaban. The user has demonstrated disruptive behavior on not just areas relating to GamerGate but also the most trivial of topics. He engages in bad faith behavior to subtly push a POV, such as trying to modify text to create a different statement out of it that is not supported by the source. I would argue that rather than SNAAAAKE!! being clueless on what people are saying or his non-neutral changes, he is actively playing clueless. Anyone who gets into a conversation with SNAAAAKE!! runs the risk of running their head into the wall, and I have talked to multiple people who say that they will avoid any topic containing SNAAAAKE!! because their behavior is so affecting that they do not want to risk it. Another example of POV pushing, and subtle at that, is here. SNAAAAKE!! has good editing qualities, but I feel that his right to participate in video game articles should be taken away. I've seen too many users who reduce their presence because of SNAAAAKE!!, and I find them more worthwhile, regardless of how good of editors they are. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Making a more emphatic proposal for a permaban. I've found the case more compelling than when I had posted. While I do not know whether SNAAAAKE!! behaves this way outside of the video game space, their issue is not with video games specifically, as they appear to have some really bizarre gender biases. A video game topic ban would only be half the equation, as there is a vast array of areas on Wikipedia for SNAAAAKE!! to disrupt and harass relating to women. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah dip, now I gotta add even more. Seeing this, where SNAAAAKE!! uses language that downplays the severity of threats of violence. It was one thing to have him be a member of GamerGate and to defend it, it's another thing for him to exhibit the same manipulative behaviors that people in GamerGate often do in order to downplay how bad women have it in games. For me, it adds emphasis to this - what is stopping him from going to comic-related articles and imposing his POV in a malicious way? Or Magic the Gathering? Or any other topic relating to women in any field? How many topic bans does he need to have before he's essentially banned as a result of literally not being allowed to edit anything? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban, if not topic ban. I've never directly interacted with SNAAAAKE!! before but have observed their behavior a lot since I'm active at WPVG, and almost nothing constructive comes out of discussions involving them. It's gotten to the point where threads they start at WT:VG are almost immediately closed. A ban might be the only way to resolve this. JOEBRO64 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on video game topics broadly construed. Calls for site bans are over the top. He didn't do anything in that discussion to warrant a site ban. I have been mentoring SNAAAAKE!! for a little over a year now, and he has done well except for a few episodes this year. He believes his arguments are substantive, and they are for the most part, but he still has not learned how to present them succinctly. He also doesn't recognize when consensus is against him and it's time to drop the stick. He does try to let things go, but it's a learning experience that I'm hoping he will be able to adapt to over time. I can relate because I tend to be a bit overzealous when presenting an argument in controversial topic areas that are under DS w/1RR restrictions that force editors into lengthy debates. I think the t-ban will give me a little more time to help him better understand why/how he must change his behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, this means a lot coming from his mentor. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support T-BAN on video game topics, broadly construed, per Atsme: While I have never interacted with SNAAAAKE!!, others note that he is disruptive and overzealous; but I still believe that we can turn that energy towards more productive endeavors, once the impetus to edit articles that are, for him, controversial is removed. In short: if SNAAAAKE!! isn't editing video game topics, then maybe villages in Indiana or something? A little more leeway can't hurt, though it's likely his last chance (in terms of video games): per above, his actions are certainly becoming taxing. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban: I've seen it repeatedly mentioned that Niemti/Snake is capable of good work outside of 'problem areas', but I haven't seen it, and I don't think one editor is worth sacficiing the time and effort of a host of others. The problems extend beyond gender articles to failures to understand basic copyright issues and demanding others fix his mistakes. If this AN hadn't been posted by someone else, I was one more issue away from making it myself. This user has been wasting our time for years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm of the same mind. Cleaning up after his messes and sorting the wheat from the chaff is a full time job. Many people have described reluctance to edit in their areas of interest for fear of being dragged into an argument with him. This chilling effect has a much wider impact, to the point where it's hard to see how preserving one editor's inordinate zeal is worth the cumulative cost of many others. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please...let's play fair regarding the alleged copyvio issues - please read this diff which explains that some of those images "are freely released photos of copyrighted objects." Commons handles potential copyvios with expediency, and we don't expect everyone to understand the pertinent laws. SNAAAAKE!! uploaded those images with good intentions so please, let's not pile-on here over legal issues he knew nothing about. Yes, he's had issues in the past - but he has done good work for the better part of a year under my tutelage, and has done one helluva job editing Arthurian legend articles. He made the mistake of treading into the highly controversial game articles. T-ban him but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This user has been uploading images since 2012 [50] (and tht's just En.wiki), so I fully expect them to be well aware of copyright and image policy per WP:CIR. Additionally, the attitude take when it was pointed out that the mass uploads may include numerous copy vios and may need to be fixed by the uploader, was met with scorn. --Masem (t) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban or topic ban: SNAAAAKE!! was indef-blocked as HanzoHattori in 2008 after 12 blocks over 2 years for incivility and disruption. For reasons I disagreed with, he was allowed to come back as Niemti 4 years later in 2012; he didn't even make it 4 months before he was blocked again for abusing multiple accounts, which was followed by 8 more blocks over the next 2 years, for incivility and disruption, most by me. By the time I indef-blocked him (again), he was under 2 topic bans, and there was a tacit agreement to stop making threads specifically about Niemti at WT:VG because they never got anywhere. During the next 2 years, Niemti had multiple confirmed socked (AggressiveNavel, LKAvn, 302ET) as well as IP addresses. After literally being cajoled into writing a coherent unblock request after 6 months of incoherent ones, he was somehow allowed back under 2 additional editing restrictions; in the year since he's managed to get blocked once again for incivility and now this, where even his mentor thinks he needs to be banned from the areas he used to spend 12+ hours a day editing.

I can't think of a single other editor that we would put up with this nonsense for. Indef-blocked twice plus multiple socks? Civility problems for 13 years? Multiple editors saying they avoid areas he works in because they can't stand the way he interacts with people? I know he makes an absurd amount of edits, but I don't understand why we're still treating him like he just needs some time to learn how to talk to people. If he hasn't figured it out in 13 years of editing, it's never going to happen. --PresN 19:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I've investigated this editor previously. He's been seriously disruptive for more than a decade and has a block log a mile long. Topic bans are for good faith editors who might have trouble in one area. This guy has trouble where ever he goes, and he's had well more than his fair share of second chances. I'm going recommending to indef block the account and I recommend another administrator close this discussion as a community site ban and add the accounts to WP:LTA. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: before you do, note that this discussion has not been open the requisite 24 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of comments in something like 5 hours. This looks like a pretty overwhelming consensus. I'll hold off for now and we'll see if anything changes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The charges against him now don't even come close. How long do we hold prior actions over an editor's head - infinitely? He did the time...his actions at that TP don't even come close to what he did in the past. He has shown remarkable improvement - nobody is perfect - he made the mistake of venturing into a topic area he cannot handle. He spilled a little milk - take that one milk cow away but leave the herd. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Handle" doesn't really sum it up does it? Let him come back as a sock as he has done a dozen times already, and let himself known once again with his behaviour and once again we can say "yeah, but he isn't as bad as he was!" As if setting the bar so high a decade ago makes the current behaviour palatable. Koncorde (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Did he "do the time"? I'm learning in this very discussion that he's been socking and block evading for as long as he's been blocked. It certainly doesn't sound like he's understood he did something wrong in the first place, which is usually a prerequisite to lifting any sort of sanctions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the charges are perfectly acceptable. Through my interactions with SNAAAAKE!!, I have seen users not be able to handle being in his presence because of how toxic an element he is. He is incredibly uncivil, his participation in a harassment campaign is questionable at best, he has and continues to try and implement his POV despite repeated warnings against this, he doesn't respond well to disagreement, he doesn't respect consensus. How many times do we need to look the other way on his egregious behavior? How many times are we going to let good Wikipedians leave because of him? He is not worth it if it makes editing Wikipedia less palatable for others. I tried to give him a chance, and he never does anything with it except double down on his abhorrent behavior. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Axem and Abryn make really good points. If SNAAAAKE!! has not learned to play nicely by now, then I don't think he ever will. This has been going on and on since what, 2006? And we're still having the same problems since then? I don't think he deserves another chance; he's had far too many by now. JOEBRO64 20:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Let's show that we can actually enforce civility policy through the current existing community processes, please. There's no reason this sort of behavior should stand, no matter how supposedly productive the editor is. We will always find others. WaltCip (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I would recommend waiting a day or two more--the majority of the above editors whom support are predominantly in the video games area (not to discredit them). While I personally don't believe that this problem can be resolved with anything short of a pair of TBANs or possibly a CBAN, I'd like to have some assessment external to the video games members before a ban is actually implemented. This problem can wait a few days. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  What difference would it make? WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Izno. A few more days' time will allow tempers to cool, ideas to be further examined, and, most importantly, greater discussion and buy-in by the wider community (and not simply a niche core; no offense meant to the video game editors, a topic about which I enjoy but never edit). After all, this is a consensus-based process, predicated on the strength of argumentation; a few more days of deliberation and discussion (as we can't seem to decide what particular actions should be taken) is the most prudent course of action. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Strength of consensus. Things can be overturned elsewhere on wiki by saying "not enough people showed" and/or "I have new information" and/or... The above editors may also converge on a particular solution to the problem, as there is something of a spread. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Addendum: Izno, you mention a pair of TBANs; which ones would you advise in this case? Perhaps this might be an acceptable compromise. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  "Anything short of" :). If I were to consider much of the discussion above, it's not two CBANs, it's three or four, on top of the existing restrictions this editor has. When we start getting into the "lots of editing restrictions", a CBAN looks like better alternative. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. TBAN/Siteban/whatever & whenever. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I take one issue with the report @Damien Linnane: in this example you claimed that he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names although the dispute is about male surnames too (Chris Redfield is the other character mentioned). Supposedly you framed this dispute as "anti-woman" too to fit the "agenda against women" narrative . If so, that is rather dishonest. --Pudeo (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the examples are rather underwhelming. I'm puzzled to why changing "PC and Console gaming " to "all electronic devices" or changing "women sexualised" to "sexualised, especially for female characters" would be examples of an anti-woman agenda. Basically, his worst offence is WP:FORUM bickering about feminism on some talk pages. For instance, he has 0 edits in the article sexism in video games despite claiming the article is "ridiculous and horrible". The claims about incivility hold more water. He uses the words "bullshit" and "shitty" when describing sources and posts cynical messages about everyone at the Video Games Wikiproject doing a bad job. --Pudeo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is rather better demonstrated in the background discussion here which Damien Linnane was summarizing in the thread they actually linked to. In that thread, one may observe SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly and aggressively describing anyone disagreeing with their "obvious" point of view as "clueless", and somewhat horribly as "researchers" (sometimes more elaborately as "obvious sexism/racism researchers", as in, people looking for something to feign offense and stir up drama), and describes various publications as "aggressively stupid" and "race-baiting complete nonsense". While Damien might have framed that in the context of a misogynist campaign (which does seem evident from other evidence provided) I think the point really is that SNAAAAKE!! is just generally a thoroughly awful editor to work with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pudeo:. You're right, he did complain about a male character being referred to be their last name as well, though he did so at the article about the female character so that's what stuck in my mind. As per Ivanvector, please read the full discussion to get a full context of what happened, not just my diff. And even if the dishonest changes to sourced comments weren't anti-women, they're still dishonest and deliberate manipulations of referenced content. I'm certain countless other examples exist, but it really got to a point where I thought I had enough evidence to make my point. My point about the bad language was just playing on top of the evidence that he's not a nice person to talk to; that in itself obviosuly isn't a big deal, and obviously that is not the crux of anyone's complaints. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Lets do a topic ban for now if needed and reserve the more draconian site ban if they persist.--MONGO (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And I will add - that if he does persist, I will personally request a site ban as his mentor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree to a topic ban if there’s a mentor. My reason is that it may be less disruptive to keep track of the user with his known account than to ban him and endure socking from multiple accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems reasonable if consensus goes that way. @Atsme:, I appreciate you taking it on, rehabilitation is a preferable outcome to banning a productive editor, but you must know from the reactions here that this is really, really, the last straw. Their behaviour needs to improve dramatically and fast. Are you up to putting your foot down? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support siteban. I'm familiar with the editor's work and find it objectionable, i.e, Mai Shiranui - scroll down to the pic of the bouncing boobs. Is this what we want? Victoria (tk) 21:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that the "bouncing boobs" animation is a noteworthy aspect of the character's development. It's encyclopedic information and Wikipedia is not censored. Maybe the image itself is gratuitous? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Ivanvector. I realize some of the images may be offensive to some but as editors, our role is not that of social justice warriors or to RGW. You are absolutely correct in that WP doesn't censor. We cannot be the sum of all human knowledge if we censor things that offend us. I will be first to admit that SNAAAAKE!! lacks diplomacy and is rough around the edges - his social interactions leave much to be desired - but if I'm made aware of an issue brewing, I will do my best to help correct it while also helping him understand what went wrong and why I had to intervene. He has done remarkable work in Arthurian legends and I will try to keep him focused on that and other topic areas where his work will shine. He actually is an excellent game costume photographer and designer (I don't know the terminology) but until he can learn how to interact, it is better to simply t-ban him from video games and allow me an opportunity to keep mentoring & teaching. Believe me, if he wasn't such a prolific writer, we would not be having this discussion. And yes, I realize there's a point when project disruption becomes the priority. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: That comment is unfair and perhaps lacks cultural perspective. It has no bearing on the behavior of SNAAAKE!! I urge you to reconsider. WaltCip (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a site-ban for SNAAAAKE!!, but would also suggest that we take the time to apologize to the editors who have had to deal with him during this misguided attempt to give him a sixteenth chance, or whatever number we're up to. I don't understand why SNAAAAKE!!'s right to get a last, last, last, last, last chance to behave outweighs the rights and interests of constructive, good-faith editors. As others have explained more eloquently than I, the time and goodwill of constructive editors are our greatest resources, yet we treat them as if they have no value at all. It could not be more clear that SNAAAAKE!! isn't a good fit for this project. Every time we conduct another social experiment in trying to salvage him, we damage other, better editors; we worsen their experience; and we increase the likelihood that they will burn out and leave. It's a fool's bargain. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• If SNAAAAKE!! is merely topic-banned, I would like to see it go further and have more restrictions on behavior, including:

1. Editing any topic strongly related to gender
2. Editing articles about other media (ie film, television, comic, etc.)
3. Persistent complaining about absence of articles
4. Persistent insulting of articles (at least in an unconstructive way, such as calling them shit)

Editing Arthurian legends isn't going to get rid of their negative tendencies, and we run the risk of his toxicity seeping into other areas if we aren't more strict. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Stats - SNAAAAKE!! has created 88 articles, has made 96,830 edits with 87.9% of them in mainspace, and only 3,799 (4%) on Talk. That covers a 5 year period beginning in 2012 because he did not edit any articles in 2015, 2016, & 2017. Yes, he socked a few years ago and he vowed that he would not do it again when I agreed to mentor him last year, and Alex lifted his site ban. SNAAAAKE has done a good job keeping his hands clean for the better part of a year. Ok, he made a mistake and wandered off the straight and narrow a few times, and expressed criticisms others didn't like. I'd like to see the profanity cleaned-up all across Wikipedia but I've yet to see anyone sitebanned for the occassional use of the f-word, or poop word. It's pretty sad when 96,830 edits in mainspace means so little in comparison to socking activity years ago, and a bit of untoward behavior. How many glass houses are on this block? Sorry, but I think he's worth the extra effort, despite the behavioral shortcomings he is unable to overcome without help. Some of us are just not born to be diplomats. More importantly, it's never a fool's bargain to offer a helping hand to a fellow human being. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My friend will not participate in any discussion that involves SNAAAAKE!! in any capacity, and she isn't the only one. She specifically avoids these discussions both because of his incivility as well as his specific sexist and transphobic behavior in the past. While I empathize with SNAAAAKE!! oin his difficulties with dealing with this kind of stuff, we should be more concerned with those affected by him. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Its hard to feel the sympathy you’re asking for, for a person who is aggressive and argumentative in virtually every single interaction with anyone. I appreciate that he occasionally stops when you ask him to, but he so rarely, if ever, shows any sense of understanding or remorse for these interactions. Just on and off. Continuously. For years. Without improvement or acknowledgement of the issue. Just momentary pauses until the next eruption. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 90,000 edits sounds like a lot but what fraction of them were productive vs. disruptive edits that just made more work for others to clean up after? Is it half? A quarter? The speed at which he zooms off to implement some half-baked new idea across dozens of articles without seeking consensus first is also worrying. This is an editor who has demonstrated the ability to generate a mountain of cleanup work for others to deal with in a short period of time and feels no remorse or recognition for doing so. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to remind Atsme that no one is indispensable to this project. We are past the era where we can handwave off gross civility and conduct violations if someone is productive enough to make up for it. No amount of contributions should shield someone from being obnoxious and difficult to collaborate with. T&S has made it clear that if we do not handle issues of civility, they will. I'm inclined to be proactive.--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I always value your comments and read them twice. If we only concentrate on the users well-being, this is my take. Helping a user to find a way to continue contributing here presumes that is a good outcome for the individual, I think that is highly questionable. The last statement I read from the user is a red flag, stealing a girl's nickname to create a new persona, we should not facilitate someone so troubled and clearly operating without serious repercussions (being indeffed is no obstacle to their life or, apparently, to further contributions). The idea of having a mentor that will patch up any incivility is unworkable, and may further alienate the recipients (like getting a good cop / bad cop as replies to a possibly simple matter of discussion). cygnis insignis 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (default), or as a minimum wide-ranging conduct restrictions (if SNAAAAKE were to voluntarily step back from the abyss, now, and realize how many bridges he's burnt) per Abryn. Niemti / SNAAAAKE cannot work well with others and takes even basic, easy human interactions and makes them toxic (the difference between "Hey, I've uploaded some images and would like some help categorizing and weeding out copyright problems!" vs. "I've uploaded some images scraped from the Internet you ungrateful lazy rubes, go fix my shit, I can't hear you that many of these are obvious fraudulent copyright licenses"). Side note: Alex Shih has retired so he can't be asked about his thought process on this, but there really needs to be some better procedure on editors who wreck enough havoc to cause banning discussions then get unbanned due to one sympathetic admin. Niemti is not alone on this, it's happened elsewhere too with toxic banned editors coming back with few strings attached and, shock, being toxic again. SnowFire (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• In response to SNAAAAKE below calling me out for the "lie" that is my paraphrase of his image post as it appeared to other people: Snake, good intentions are not sufficient. I believe you that what you meant, in your head, was my suggested kinder, gentler version. But good intentions don't matter. What you actually wrote - linked above already - makes you come across as a flaming jackass, and that is what we are all trying to tell you. You absolutely need to learn how to formulate simple requests, read a room, and to understand basic social responses if people aren't reacting like you expected. You can't just claim that nobody is upset or offended; we obviously are, regardless of your genuine good intentions. For reference, I think your content contributions have been fine, so this isn't concocting a non-existent conduct complaint as an excuse to get rid of you. No, it is in spite of your content contributions, and sometimes needed passionate counterbalance on policy, that you need to have some form of sanction placed on you. Perhaps this is the fault of the unbanning admin as well for not installing some sort of guard rails to let you more directly know when you're being unacceptably rude sooner, before you enraged everyone, but regardless, you did. As a useful exercise: try reformulating this image help request in a way that you think would come across better, and then imagine how you'd respond to the copyright issue raised later. Maybe don't say that these images need something from a bunch of volunteers. It is probably too late now, but that is the only way I'd be content with settling for merely heavy conduct restrictions rather than a site ban. Acting shocked, shocked that everyone is mad is not going to help. SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban or failing that, a video game topic ban. I have watchlisted some of the articles at issue and have observed SNAAAAKE!!'s contributions. I am commenting as an editor instead of closing this thread because I do not recall whether I have also been in content disputes with SNAAAAKE!!. I agree that SNAAAAKE!!'s mode of editing is disruptive and a net negative to the project. Sandstein 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban PresN and MastCell have said pretty much everything I would want to say about this situation already, so there's little point in my repeating it. Our tolerance of this level of inappropriate behaviour, and its impact on so many other, good users for so long, has been so lenient as to verge on foolhardy, and it really needs to stop now. -- Begoon 09:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support anything up to and including an indef site ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Clearly disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Having read this entire thread, I think it would be best to support a siteban. The user appears to be pretty ill-tempered, hypocritical and disruptive, and this seems to have gone on for a long time. That being said, I think we should place a condition that Snake can return after nine months if they agree to reform. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community-ban and don't them back ever :- This shit has gone for a decade with little change; this is trolling to me. She needs to be shown the door and permanently. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems as if SNAAAAKE was been a valuable asset to this project in many many areas. Let us not forget that this is a free and open Wiki, where all ideas should be discussed and should be considered, even if unpopular. Times change, consensus changes, and ideas change. This is also a volunteer project. Nobody forces anyone to edit or discuss topics. I feel that the valuable work that SNAAAAKE accomplishes in many other areas, supersedes the occasional heated talk page discussion. I mean how many of us haven't got a bit "hot under the collar" in a talk page discussion? There seems to be enough people that disagree with this user on a few topics, to negate any serious main page perceived bias that he places into the articles.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Site ban; anyone who feels (today) that GamerGate did nothing wrong and that the harassment campaign was invented isn't going to do well in any area that intersects with, you know, women. I'd say just topic bans but when you keep racking up topic bans eventually its the whole site.--Jorm (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support T-ban on video game and gender topics They stir up a lot of negativity within that space. I'm not familiar with their conduct on Arthurian legend articles, which they also seem to be passionate about. TarkusAB^talk 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support a site ban. Anything less would be prolonging the cycle of conflict and difficult behavior. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 18:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban, or at the very least a topic ban. I am the friend Abryn referred to in her comment further up, and her summary of my feelings on this is accurate.--Alexandra IDV^talk 22:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - Niemti is a difficult case. I think the most salient issues involved are (1) Peer editor collegiality, (2) Gender issues, (3) whether he's a net benefit or a net loss to the project, and (4) whether constraining him within a single limited account will be effective against his lengthy career as a sockpuppet. The idealist that I once was would probably be disappointed in me, but I think a pragmatic approach here is probably the best way to move forward. I would not at this time !vote for a site ban, but I do think that a TBAN à la the GamerGate sanction from WP:DSTOPICS would probably help Niemti to direct his energies into areas that are less problematic for him. -Thibbs (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to lies and proofs of truth (which I implore to read closely while actually clicking the links and verify, not just a matter of a prose narrative but to just check and see the truth objectively)

Huh? I will need to read it when i get some time, but I just started reading and I can see "referring to articles as 'his' and using the fact he wrote a majority of the prose as a reason for why other people shouldn't be editing 'his' articles" is a lie because i never said or thought anything like that which sounds really stupid indeed but is not true. I'm even taking care to often "thank" button when someone makes a good edit, and encourage to write more (for the latter, for example [51] out of top of my head, to quote myself: "I really hope you might expand on the rest of the series").

And you can see it it's a lie by clicking that supposed "evidence": [52] (where I explain some of these "my articles" aren't even mine, including one that I didn't write at all in any way), [53] (it is not me writing - and KFM who wrote it is my twitter-friend), [54] (again nothing about how "other people shouldn't be editing", which is a lie), [55] (also not me writing). The discussion there wasn't about editing, it was but about destroying (redirecting articles). Just such a blatant lie. Is lying allowed here? I'll come back later. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and GG wasn't "a targeted attack on women". I freely admit to participate, because I don't lie, which is important, and also I myself have nothing to be ashamed for regarding my GG conduct. For how the narrative of GG as "a targeted attack on women" was constructed on Wikipedia and beyond, see my discussion with the admin Masem here on Wikipedia: Talk:Video_game_controversies. (Really read this thread.) Masem, who was anti-GG himself, was actually "targeted attacked", but by the hardcore anti-GG people extremely hard for just trying to be neutral in his editing, as it's discussed in that thread). As I also noted right there, I chose to never edit anything GG to avoid trouble (yes) and because I shouldn't edit due to conflict of interest (something which was never respected by the anti-GG side). More later (can't now). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've randomly seen the claim I wrote "I've uploaded some images scraped from the Internet you ungrateful lazy rubes, go fix my shit, I can't hear you that many of these are obvious fraudulent copyright licenses")" just above that is also a blatant and total lie. You can see what I actually wrote and what I expected was to people to thank me for once and ask how can they help, perhaps distribute the work among each other so their work won't overlap (which I imagined as only categorizing images and using them in the articles to quote the title of my thread: "So i've been uploading hundreds of pictures from various events to Wikimedia Commons and they need: 1) categorization 2) usage in articles" and elaborated: "I'm not finished yet, but there is a lot already so I thought I would let you know. There's a WHOLE LOT more to come so check it on a later date if you want, too." which is actually indeed close much closer to "Hey, I've uploaded some images and would like some help categorizing and weeding out copyright problems!" expect the "copyright problems" part of which I wasn't even aware at all as I thought I'm all-clear by just finding free-licensed images). Now someone please do something about these and other lies about me before I come back to address everything. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And thus begins the first posts in a coming wall of text designed to confuse and discourage further discussion. His first couple lines really says it all. There's countless evidence from multiple users, but he's going to ignore virtually everything and focus on a protracted debate on a couple points. As anyone who has actually interacted with him will tell you, it's highly unlikely he only actually read the first arguments and doesn't have time to address the overwhelming consensus against him.

I've made my case. I will not be goaded into a protracted debate about my concerns or anyone else's from him. If anyone takes issue with any of my arguments, as Pudeo did above, I will only respond to them. I really think it's a mute point though; even if I made an error somewhere in my opening remarks, there's a clear consensus he's a toxic editor.

There's 19 supports for bans of some description, including from his mentor, and not a single call to let him go completely unaccounted for his behaviour. If that isn't overwhelming enough, nothing will be. I don't see any further need for conversation, but ping me back here if you must. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I responded above to the specific "lie" claim that I wrote, FWIW. (It's something that was directly linked and easily checked from the original proposal, so not so much a "lie.") SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And the claim is of me having an "agenda against women" is just a MALICIOUS lie, which I find totally outrageous. Literally, outrageous, it's so horrible I can't believe it. How is it allowed??? Did anyone speak anything about it in all these comments?? if not, why?? The truths, as opposed to this evil lie, is that I've been actively supporting women also on Wikipedia, also in video games (by which I mean real women, in addition to fictional ones about which I wrote more than all everyone in the world on English Wikipedia - literally, not exaggerating, I've written about them more than everyone else combined). From top of my head, for example, i've written almost everything about the artist Kinu Nishimura (the starting point was [56] of 2KB, followed by my unglogged and logged edits of 21KB). PLEASE SANCTION THAT USER FOR THAT ASAP. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus man, just let it go... take away from this that you should be better than this. As someone who used to behave in a similar fashion to you, it is within your power to be better. The first step is to stop denying and deflecting incredibly valid criticisms. I'm not going to respond further, I just want you to care about being better. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So here we go.

Bryn:

I WILL NEVER "ADMIT" AND WILL ALWAYS "DEFLECT" SUCH A MALICIOUS LIE' I have an "anti-women agenda". It made me angry, yes, it did, his right there in particular I need to be be OFFICIALLY APOLOGIZED to. As I told you, I chose to always speak truth, no matter what. I will also never surrender to lies. Not just this lie, any lie.

One of the last things I've been recently working "to further his agenda against women" in video games in articular was an article was to again improve an article about a game created by a woman (directed and written) and starring a woman: [57] I've been editing this article before, I've been editing about its creator too, who is Roberta Williams, and of whom I've been a fan for almost three decades. I consider Rhianna Pratchett my well, maybe not a friend but quittance (not personal but we correspond and I also edited her Wikipedia article but only copy-edited it as to not break the conflict-of-interest), and the photo-session I did for a girl cosplayed her (Rhianna's) version of Lara Croft helped kickstart her cosplay-model career including being one of Lara's officially-employed models. And so on. Why am i so bad about furthering my "agenda against women"? I don't know, I really need to get better at that.

And since I'm only talking about truth - I've been editing more on Liana Kerzner (back in 2015[58], whom I guess i can consider actual (e)friend) as we talk at least weekly, so here's an actual disclosure of a conflict of interest BUT I've been not doing it since my return so not really. And as it hppens noot only both of them in fact self-identify as feminists, even as it's not in Rhianna's article nor his categories (a sample proof of her feminism: [59], just not 'this kind' of a feminist which brings her "targeted attacks" by other kinds of feminists on her: [60]) and yet I have no problem with "even" that, and what's more got to know each other during GG no less. So here the truth of my "anti-women agenda" and also the truth of my editing. Full truth, always.

Oh, and btw "targeted attacks" on women - I just remembered one of our shared enemies created the account "SupremeEReader" to attack Liana on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SupremeEReader (I think I just ignored it.) Not this was done by someone who obviously knew much about me, including that me and her are frens. It wasn't the first time someone on Wikipedia made an account specifically to denigrate/parody me. I never came to complain about it.

Now, back to countering (more) lies with truth:

• He has been known to manipulates prose

Just a lie, I never did it. In 14 years here I have never done it even once. Even when I've been editing political/military articles about a certain then-ongoing conflict I tried to really get so hard to the neutral truth and put aside my sympathies (I've been no longer edit it for many years). I'm obviously not know for something that never happened.

• contradicts what the sources state: [61][62].

For the first link, here's my actual edit: [63] As you can see, the article was already contradicting what the sources were stating, as it wasn't about just "PC and Console gaming" but all gaming devices. Bryn's problem was my not-native-English writing of this as "electronic devices", and if you check the talk page you can see where the misconception is being explained to me. In the end, there's no text anymore (after Bryn removed it) and I realized it's okay and he was right (I've made a linguistic mistake) as my problem was precisely with "contradicts what the sources state", the very thing I was accused of in the lie above.

For the second one, see Abryn's talk page where we discuss it AND where I then decide it's something I shouldn't even bother. To quote myself in how i ended it: "It's really so unimportant. I just wanted to tell you that I might've had all these minor/petty/silly disagreements but actually you're alright. I mean, seriously I appreciate that you care." [64] It's another lie (of course) and also it shows how well I actually approached it. So I bolded it out for everyone to see the truth.

(I still believe I was right in this one, but I just suddenly realized it's not worth it to argue about it, it's nothing, so I unilaterally gave up and said some nice words that I genuinely felt about Bryn at the moment. But it wasn't "contradicting what the source states".)

• He also frequently attacks articles and sources that disagree with this narrow world view. For example, referring to Sexism in video gaming as "ridiculous and horrible".

I explained earlier in the talk how it's horrible - "horribly written" (to quote myself: "a just horribly written article that I just took a look at it and saw "that aren't associated with female players such as the Sims" - literally written like that", by which I meant it should be written "The Sims" for really some even just only acceptable writing).

• Here he refers to an FAC approved high-quality source being used at a female character article as "nonsense" and "bullshit"

It is, just laughably so. The authors of this "high-quality source" repeatedly can't even spell the antagonist Wesker's name (referring to him as "Westker"), but what's worse anyone who played Resident Evil 5 and other RE games cen see it as nonsense it is. As in:

explaination

the authors accuse game of "sexism" as presenting African zombies as violent and "unthinking", while not only all zombies in every RE game are violent and they were most white, but RE5 is a clone of Resident Evil 4 where the white Spanish zombies for the first time actually became intelligent and continue to be intelligent after game moved again this time to Africa. Another charge was that RE5's African location was not diverse enough, while in reality it was most diverse of any RE game along with its RE4 source of cloning and its quite diverse Spanish location as well (in RE5 it has locations ranging from a shantytown to a savannah to an industrial refinery to swampy marshes to ancient ruins underground, while for example Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3 had only the same one fictional American city full of almost-all white, actually unthinking zombies, and Resident Evil: Code Veronica got diverse by just going to the entirely other part of the war in the second part, namely going from a prison on a tropical island to a base in the Antarctica) and what's more the game was never supposed to "represent Africa" but a fictional location set on this continent. And so on - I can go through all of it in detail. The allegations against the game were just false and can be super easily checked to validate the quality of the article.My opinion of it as a nonsense is a statement of an observable and provable fact. Especially nothing like that was directed against RE4 that was basically the same game but with ridiculous depictions of modern Spanish people as you can see: [65][66][67] (that no one cared of, myself included - it's just a game, and the real Spaniards didn't care too).

• (Cursing in his comments is also not unusual: [68][69]).

Actually not a lie. But we all know it's not unusual on Wikipedia. I say it's better than lying.

• Multiple editors, myself included, have repeatedly explained that on Wikipedia we write about what our sources write about,

In this recent discussion, I've been providing alternative sources (namely I brought multiple interviews/features/editorials from video game magazines). In fact repeatedly saying I can being large numbers of them (and I can) and what I showing them was only samples. I'll elaborate: I have access to over 22,000 video game magazines on my HDD, and many of them can also be linked via Internet Archive (as I've been doing for years). In fact I even took care to manually transcribe an entire interview when I felt I was unjustly accused of "quote mining" after showing only a scan and citing some parts. It's here: [70]] (it's collapsed there).

• There is also a consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly starts conversations

I don't start conversations, because (as I told them) I'm no longer coming there.

• SNAAAAKE!!'s lack of civility, however, even extends to the most banal of topics. Here he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names.

It was apparently about "clueless". I'd say if I launched an ANI attack on someone falsely accusing them of furthering "agenda against women" it would be worse. This insistence on pointing out "a female character" as "female" had to be a part of vowing a narrative of my "agenda against women" - I've created and written most of this very article, namely Sheva Alomar, for my pro-women agenda. The truth, as opposed to a lie, it was about all fictional characters (male and female), and the consensus decided I was right, and the very Damien Linnane, so busy maliciously lying about me here to paint me as a horrible person with working on an "agenda against women", was the one who lost here and it's now accepted. It seems he didn't get over it. So incredibly petty.

I replied to the rest of the accusations above. I'm not reading the replies to the maliciously false portrayal of me as a person I'm not as to avoid stress. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• "And thus begins the first posts in a coming wall of text designed to confuse and discourage further discussion." - well, you called that one ok - (+9,807)... -- Begoon 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Atsme: thoughts on this new tirade? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You should read "this tirade" instead of dismissing. I bet none of you clicked the links when they were accompanying the lies about me. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. I can see how this user would be impossible to work with. I stand by my call for a site ban, perhaps more emphatically so.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Listen. This guy accused me of my writing being "designed to confuse". It was his writing that was designed to confuse. REALLY please and see how I get it point by point, read closely, make sure to do CLICK all the links that he falsely used and I repeat to see they were falsely used and READ THEM, see my provided contexts and see if my description of these contexts is true. Really, just check it for the truth. Yourself. Without believing anyone's narrative being told (myself included, don't believe me, go check), see yourself. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, you're missing the whole point here. You have 19 users above who have an issue with your behavior here. We are here to examine your behavior, and what you're showing here is exactly the same behavior. If you don't chill out and speak to why you are behaving the way you are, you won't be convincing anyone. This isn't the time to passionately defend. This is the time to take a step back and reflect on what the community sees as an issue with your behavior so intractable that you're no longer wanted in the subject area, much less on the whole site. That is how you can fix this. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is about the worst thing you can do for yourself right now. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• A sad day. I recall Snake making great contribution to our Kony article back in 2012, and as Atsme summarises he’s done much other fine work. SNAAAAKE!!– none of the more perceptive editors think you're a woman hater. Clearly you're the opposite, all be it in a rather old fashioned chivalrous sense. I guess if you saw a woman in danger, you’d be one of the first to risk yourself to defend her. But you do seem to have an aversion to what you possibly see as SJWs / white knights / extreme feminism, but which much of the community would see as mainstream academic views on gender. Together with your somewhat confrontational nature, I fear Sandstein has called this correctly, you may be a net negative here. Unless the amazing Atsme or others can somehow find the right words to save you, this looks like game over. If so, thank you for your many excellent contributions, and I hope you know that being perma banned from here just means you are a bad fit. In many other RL & internet communities, a man with your fine qualities will be most appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just on one individual example "- btw the article that I myself made about Lulu (Final Fantasy) here on Wikipedia had been destroyed and turned into a redirect, thank you very much for respecting my work)." This is one the obvious examples of the passive aggressive WP:OWN demonstrated, and there are other less obvious but equally disruptive statements made that read as claims to authority on an article (or series of articles) or individuals.

SNAAAAAKE!! has demonstrated the inability to see how much of a SEALION he is. Koncorde (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

With regarda to the charge of quote mining; SNAAAAAKE purposely took 3 sentences and ignored all the context around those sentences in order to synthesise a position being held by the individual. His response was to type out the entire interview. What he didn't do is acknowledge that he was taking things out if context, and instead then claimed special knowledge of what the individual was thinking and inferred that therefore any other sources are wrong and demanded an example that met criteria that he specified. When provided, these were then dismissed as not quite meeting his thresholds even though they fundamentally agreed with the statements made Inn his first interview that he had mined around. This is not a one off just in that thread of extreme selectiveness. And while that isn't an offence, when the person goes on to create more and more arguments as infinitum, it does become tedious to debunk what are effectively gish-gallops of claims. And it's a pity, because he can clearly glean information from sources when he wants to, or it agrees with his position. Koncorde (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm leaning away from TBAN and towards CBAN here. SNAAAAKE had the opportunity for self-reflection here. The statement could have been "I disagree with many of these portrayals, but I see many people have concerns" or some such similar. Instead of even recognizing there are a dozen+ people voicing the same concerns, not just Damien's original statement and highlights, we have a heated and impassioned attack of the original post that doesn't address anyone else's views, as if this is just a 1v1 battle with Damien (or 1v2 including Abryn). I get it. It's hard to be the focus of an "attack" on ones behavior, but there's also the chance to go "Woah, maybe what I'm doing here isn't working". Edit as part of the edit conflict I experienced posting this: One of the issues highlighted is refactoring his statements and talk messages after people have replied, which is happening at this very AN thread now. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: I didn't read the comments (my eyes only catched the one that totally mis-characterized what I said while putting it into quotation marks) as to not get even more angry. I hope they at least saw this was a lie. As for women, one of my best friends i ever had is a woman who is slowly dying right now from multiple sclerosis and I'd given up my life for her if I could to save her, I really would as in fact I hate myself and feel worthless and probably going to kill myself anyway and she's wonderful but is dying and yet she looks like if cheerful and pretends it's fine. While I'm chronically depressed over less. Thanks for your kind words, but in fact now I think my work on Kony 2012 was quite poor from my today's perspective. I'm not proud of it and would have returned to rewrite it completely, then realized no one cares about it anymore so it would be a waste of time. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Koncord: This is what happened, these articles were targeted and redirected (without a proper procedure) precisely because they were mine. And as to provide a proof of my claim, here it is: [71] (to quote the opening paragraph: "So this is another one of the Niemti articles."). This happened to a bunch of them at the same time. If they were allowed to remain, they would become infinitely better by now (through my continued work, and I've been collecting sources for that, and I can show you them of you want - Rinoa for example had 14 more waiting in addition to more already there at the time[72] when I found out the article ceased to exist and stopped collecting), however all these "Niemti articles" have been destroyed and I didn't work on restoring them. And no, I diodn't "purposely took 3 sentences and ignored all the context around those sentences in order to synthesise a position being held by the individual", I even transcribed and posted the entire damn interview (expect a few entirely unrevelant questions) which is an exact opposite thing of "3 sentences and ignored all the context" and even since the very beginning I posted a link to the scan of the page with all the context of course expecting everyone to read it. Are you too just unable to tell the truth? WHY do you need to lie? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote: "Here's a sample article from Kodama that I talked about, not the only one but just a sample: "I have never felt such a thing" (asked about feeling "being persecuted"), "As a female creator, I have never experienced any discrimination or disgraceful behavior towards me at all", "I don't think this is a problem of gender", "I have never felt any restriction due to my gender"

In my response I pointed out the context that you neglected. So you did in fact take those statements out of context to synthesise a position not held in order to support your own argument. Presenting the entire piece does not change what you were trying to argue, and continue to argue.

You may be entirely 100% honest, and may never lie, but in that case you are incredibly forgetful and incapable of understanding why you are wrong and what the arguments other people have are - because I also am 100% honest and never lie. Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I see many people have concerns" indeed, but for the sake of not getting stressted I didn't read for them as they appeared to agree to the character assassination conducted through a personal attack (look at this guys spreading his "agenda against women") and lies. Let's not go around it, it's lies, which you can check and verify. What about the lies? It's my question that I need a response. Are lies allowed? Is it just okay? Nothing happened? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, please listen to me - you are NOT worthless. Please...I will help you get through this, and you know that I'm your biggest fan. I'm going to help you create amazing articles. You know how much I enjoy reading them. Ivanvector, Ferret - I just sent Ivan an email...please contact him via email. Can we please end this discussion? I will be happy to communicate with you via email, but we should not continue this discussion. Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same about my 2012 work – I just remember thinking your edits to that were good at time. Almost everyone questions their worth at times, sometimes others see what we are more clearly. You have some great qualities, my words may have been kind, but I never say nice things I dont believe to be true. Ill leave this with Atsme for now as she is wiser than I. Listen and believe the wammenses! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And talking about the lies, and me never lying, and being open about everything, I'm going to tell you right now truth about something very awkward. I don't like being being called Niemti because it's not me - in a way. Niemti is a girl I used to know. I honestly don't remember why would I steal her nickname for myself on Wikipedia, but it was stupid and I hate about basically her being referred in a negative way while it's about me. You can easily find the real Niemti on the internet, on top of search results. No, I'm not her stalker or anything like that, I really have no idea know why would I do it. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Also I wasn't going to post anymore, I'm going to notify you about a behavior of some stranger who just pinged me for the sole purpose of baiting/taunting me on someone's talk page: [73] And after that I'm also not posting here anymore, just as I was asked to. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Just a warning

Nothing to see here. LLcentury, please dial it down a notch or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I am very very patient human being, however, I don't tolerate bad manners, irony, sarcasm and disrespect. I wanted to make it clear, I don't want to accuse any user, but hostility on Wikipedia is getting used as a day-to-day thing, I've blamed for my bad English. I will tolerate good faith comments about my English, never calling it appalling. Thank you. --LLcentury (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, LLcentury. Do you have an issue that requires administrator attention? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No User:Ivanvector, I hate conflicts and confrontations but I just got enough of mistreatment because of my level of English. I just wanted to express that appalling seems to my English unnecessary and rude. --LLcentury (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The statement says: to work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors. A safe and respectful environment is not only one of our five pillars, it will also allow for more diverse voices to join our communities, bringing new knowledge with them.

Humbly, I am amused by that really, when it's clear the hostility and disrespect Wikipedia has for users with some difficulties whether technical or language-related. It's my unchangeable opinion and I stand for what I say. Not for one incident, I've already stumbled upon many hostile places on this site, if your Foundation really wants to make a safe and respectful environment for good faith editors, I think you're very far from that at this point. --LLcentury (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved your comment, because it seems to belong more here. If it was meant to be a response to the Board statement, please discuss it there. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury, if you're being harassed, please post it at the incidents noticeboard. If you don't want to post publicly, please contact an admin (me?) and we'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you get some resolution on that. I see so many editors being so uncivil and offensive, and it's rather saddening. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Abryn:, you're a good faith contributor, but I've crossed (if that's the word in English) way too many more hostile than nice people on here, so I've decided to humbly retire w/o accusing anyone. It's up to God, destiny or whatever your belief is to deal with them. Thanks Wikipedia for opening up my first place to literally come out. :) --LLcentury (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems LLcentury was referring to this diff. WaltCip (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and as usual I'm commenting on the content, not the user. I don't even know the user, nor if the user is a natural English speaker. In fact, I didn't even look at who created or amended the blurb. I certainly didn't "blame" anyone for anything. I simply stated that I thought the blurb was appallingly written, just as I find it appalling that we are featuring a stub as a bold link from our main page. I also find the behaviour of WMF appalling. None of this constitutes "bad manners, irony, sarcasm and disrespect", certainly not where I come from. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Draft:Dujuan Thomas

Can some admin take a look at this draft as well as the creator’s user sandbox? The draft was declined and some attempts were made to try and explain why, but the created removed the messages from the draft’s page. The draft was then tagged for speedy deletion, but the creator removed that as well. The creator is a new editor trying to figure things out and others have tried to help her, but the situation at this point would probably benefit from an admin trying to explain things instead. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This has attracted the attention of some admins; so, things should be sorted out now. -- 21:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone can please add remaining cast members

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

---

Hello Can anyone help me. I am looking forward to adding some more members to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_Detectives. I dont know about wikipedia code. So here I am clear that I am an coworker of Psychic detectives and some of our Cast members are not listed here which really make it look awfull. So, can anyone add the remaining cast members please. You can check here. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460670/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast I want these remaining cast to be added for their contribution to this show.

   Les Marshak Narrator 8 episodes, 2006
   Phil Jordan Himself 5 episodes, 2006
   Patrick McGuinness Himself - Assistant Public Defender 2 episodes, 2005-2006
   Andy Morgan Gunman / ... 2 episodes, 2006-2007
   Kevyn Settle Michael Manfredonia 1 episode, 2006
   Chad Ridgely Kerry Myers 1 episode, 2007
   Cheryl Scungio Janet Cannon-Myers 1 episode, 2007
   Ryan Salzwedel Suspect 1 episode, 2006
   Greg Cool Bill Fontanille 1 episode, 2007
   Tara Chiusano Stadium Fan 1 episode, 2007
   Kevin Quick 2nd Baseman 1 episode, 2007
   Jimmy Fitzgerald Team Captain 1 episode, 2007
   James Kevin Sloan Team Manager 1 episode, 2007
   Jim Brockhohn Jim Vohl 1 episode, 2004
   Evan Scott Golden Rusty 1 episode, 2004
   Charles Moore Gary Yost 1 episode, 2005
   Hayley Podschun Amber 1 episode, 2005
   Timothy Ryan Meth-head 1 episode, 2005
   Eddie Sicoli 911 Operator 1 episode, 2005
   Andre Bellamy Javis Holland 1 episode, 2006
   Mark Bentley Neighbor 1 episode, 2006
   Tamieka Chavis Detective #2 1 episode, 2006
   Dave Cooperman Museum Villian 1 episode, 2006
   Nick Doetsch Suspect 1 episode, 2006
   Keith Michael Gregory J.R. Griffin 1 episode, 2006
   Joyce Morgan Herself 1 episode, 2006
   Mary Ann Morgan Herself 1 episode, 2006
   Valerie Morrison Herself 1 episode, 2006
   Michael Mowery James Outten 1 episode, 2006
   Catherine Sewell Patricia McCormick 1 episode, 2006
   Robert Trapp Shawn 1 episode, 2006
   Darren Zancan Mark, Killer 1 episode, 2006
   Ariana Almajan Thelma Horne 1 episode, 2007
   D.T. Carney Officer Carney 2007 1 episode, 2007
   Chris Cavallaro Principle 1 episode, 2007
   Vonnie Crooks Mary Ann Bragg 1 episode, 2007
   Rease Etzler Jackie Skeels 1 episode, 2007
   Kevin Finkelstein Andre Daigle 1 episode, 2007
   Peners Griffin Michael Weary 1 episode, 2007
   Jan Johns Rowena Williams 1 episode, 2007
   Bradley Laborman Local Thug 1 episode, 2007
   Neal McNeil Darryl Cozart 1 episode, 2007
   Chester West Derrick Todd Lee 1 episode, 2007
   Mark Wooster David Gore 1 episode, 2007
   Adam Cadd Barry Brown 1 episode, 2008
   Brian Scott Carleton Detective Garvey 1 episode, 2008
   Brad DePlanche Mr. Urso 1 episode, 2008
   Mandy Ekman Amanda 1 episode, 2008
   Stacey Ann Shevlin Victim 1 episode, 2008
   Daniel Trinh Cop 1 episode, 2008
   Thomas Walton Thomas T-Bone 1 episode, 2008
   Erik Bjarnar Cop 1 episode, 2008

Above is the cast list. Please someone expert editor. Add this to the Psychic Detectives page. Thank you Psychicshot (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just sent you a welcome template on your talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Psychicshot This is a form for requesting assistance that requires an administrator, or for other administrator related issues; your issue is just an edit request that does not require an administrator. You should post this to the article talk page for other editors there to see. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for help in talk page. Thanks for your help. Psychicshot (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

331dot Sjones23 No one is responding there. If you dont mind can you do this. I will be thankful to you. Psychicshot (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Psychicshot You may make it a formal edit request which will draw attention to it from other editors who may not follow that article. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Psychicshot: In addition, you added your question to the article talk page about 20 minutes ago. Allow at least a few days before concluding that nobody will respond. Even if that should happen, this page is still not the right place for an edit request. --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Psychicshot Since there is a bit of an ongoing kerfluffle on Wikipedia about the treatment of new editors, I think I will toss in this: while 331dot and Bonadea are right about where the edit request should be put, I think I speak for everyone in saying that we're happy that you did choose to ask for someone with no connection to the show to make the edit. (Not saying that I think it's necessarily something inappropriate--I'm not the most familiar with the rules on cast listings and such--but just that, if there's the possibility that someone might perceive a conflict of interest, it's better to ask for an outside opinion.) People who check up on the rules enough when starting out to recognize that are rare, and a sign of someone we should encourage as an editor; I hope you enjoy helping build the encyclopedia!

As an additional note, I'd say that if there's no response in a week or so, you could feel free to be bold and make the change yourself, on the grounds that nobody registered any objections to it, but go ahead and wait a bit, because we don't have a deadline. Again, though, welcome, and I hope you enjoy contributing! rdfox 76 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

A complicated revdel request

A user recently made a major restructuring to the Yutong article. Most of their revision was fine. I'm not a car guy but nothing that struck me. But they also put some racist comments into a CN tag at one point.

I've deleted the offending tag in this edit [74] but there have been subsequent edits, and while I'd like to see that epithet excluded from the article record, I would hate to see subsequent edits rolled back as part of it. Any admins feel like doing some clean-up? Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: do you want all the revisions with that phrase in it deleted? What about ones with it as the edit summary? Note: you used it the edit summary as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I was rather heated over the use and put it in my edit summary to call attention to why I was upset. As part of this action, provided the initial use of the word is removed, I would also ask that my own edit summary be blanked. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:We have an article on the topic, Chinglish, that doesn't seem to put in in the same light as the more common racial slurs - so I'm not sure deletion is warranted here (cleaning up the article text and CN comments certainly are fine!). Leaving open for other comments below. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

When an individual uses that specific phrase to critique others' language, yeah, it's an epithet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Cardei012597

Whoever this is, needs to stop as they think a Marvel film wasn’t distributed by Disney even though it was, someone help with this because they do not think Disney acquired them. Make it as long as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll probably find that your edits don't get reverted if you cite reliable sources. See this list of sources and this guide. If you get stuck, you can raise issues or ask for help at WikiProject Film, a forum to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Board response to WP:FRAM

The Board has posted their statement at WP:FRAM. I am cross-posting it here so that those not following the WP:FRAM page can read it. If you wish to comment or discuss this further, please do so at the discussion subsection. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone,

The Board is a deliberative body and we strongly believe that it is important that we consider issues of high importance thoroughly. We realize that for many of our community members our silence has been frustrating, but we genuinely used this time.

A recent ban of an editor by the Wikimedia Foundation under the Terms of Use on the English Wikipedia has generated discussions and debate. There were calls for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to respond to the discussions.

Almost three years ago, the board published a strong statement against toxic behaviors and directed the Wikimedia Foundation teams to work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors. A safe and respectful environment is not only one of our five pillars, it will also allow for more diverse voices to join our communities, bringing new knowledge with them.

While we remain fully committed to this position, we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing and for the movement, as a whole, to make high-level decisions. While we realize that the Wikimedia Foundation staff did not take this decision lightly, we also believe that we need the right processes to reach the right results.

It is also evident that existing processes within the communities and T&S have failed, as we have cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred.

We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables". In fact, those in a position of authority should be held to a higher standard. We also recognize that the communities may need support to carry out these needed steps.

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

Even the larger projects struggle to effectively address the most difficult and controversial cases. There is a gap between our movement principles and practices. This is an issue we need to solve together. That is a task that needs to be led by the communities, with the support of staff and guidance from the board.

As such, we have asked Katherine Maher, CEO of Wikimedia Foundation, to work closely with staff in support of our communities to identify the shortcomings of current processes and to propose solutions. This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans).

We recognize that T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations. While the aforementioned conversations between T&S and our communities take place, we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues until consultation and agreement between T&S and the community are achieved.

Any changes in the long-established practices of dealing with toxic behavior within the communities should be introduced carefully and only following close collaboration with the communities. As discussed above, we have directed the Foundation to take on that conversation.

We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings.

We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community.

The Board views this as part of a much-needed community debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities.

The chair has formally delegated this matter to the vice chair and was not involved in the issuing of this statement or in any of the deliberations that led to our response.

On behalf of the board,

1. Schiste (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Pundit|utter 04:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss at the discussion section here

Statement by WMF Executive Director, on behalf of the WMF, regarding WP:FRAM

Katherine Maher, the executive director of the WMF, has made a statement regarding WP:FRAM on her talk page: Special:Permanentlink/904607134#Response_on_behalf_of_the_Foundation. I have cross-posted it to WP:FRAM. For those not following the discussion closely, I have included a copy below. Please leave comments on WP:FRAM. MER-C 09:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

A pre-note: Thank you for your patience awaiting the statement from the Board and now this message from me on behalf of the Foundation. In the intervening time between the Board's statement, my writing and re-writing this below, and now posting it, there have been many comments and question here and elsewhere. This message will not respond directly to those points, but is meant to offer a broader perspective on recent events. In coming days and weeks, the Foundation (myself, T&S staff, and others) will be able to respond more directly to these more direct comments. Some will be easily resolved and clarified, some less so. Some may need to wait for further conversations at the upcoming Board meeting at Wikimania Stockholm. Hopefully not all will be answered at 01:00 local time. Thanks again.

The events of the past few weeks, following the Foundation’s decision to implement a partial ban of User:Fram on English Wikipedia, have evoked concerns, surprise, anger and frustration, and led to an important debate on the difficult task of managing disruptive behaviors and ensuring a healthy and civil community for all. The leadership of the Foundation, as well as the Trust & Safety team, have been closely following the conversations and constructive criticism and suggestions here on wiki.

First, I’d like to apologize. I am genuinely sorry that so many people have felt such distress, frustration, and disillusionment in recent days. Each person who has participated here in these conversations, and as Wikipedians in general, has done so out of a passion for this project. Whether we agree or disagree, we’re here because we care deeply about its stewardship and future. Whatever one’s perspective on the merits of the issues at hand, I regret that this has been such a difficult period for so many people.

I also would like to acknowledge that there are things that the Foundation could have handled better. The conversation about the limitations and challenges of addressing the most difficult behavioral cases, and what this means in the context of the principle of community self-governance, should have been held in fora in which people here would have had a chance to participate, weigh various considerations, raise issues, and collaboratively develop constructive solutions.

The introduction of the tools themselves could have also been improved. Paraphrasing an expression about unpopular decisions, the first application of a temporary ban on a contributor might have come as a shock, but it should never have been a surprise. That is to say, it is the Foundation’s responsibility to ensure people across our communities had been consulted on, and were familiar with, the reasoning and process behind the creation of new T&S tools, the conditions under which they might be applied, their relationship to the role and authority of existing community processes and bodies (e.g., ArbCom), and the relative weight and flexibility of the sanctions.

Finally, I would do certain things differently if there were a way to rewind and retry the last few weeks. As I’ve noted on my talkpage, I am responsible for approving the ban. Regardless of the merits of the case, I should have been better prepared to step forward and be accountable. There was some early confusion about the role of the Board in office actions, and some well-intentioned efforts by both Foundation and Board that both delayed response and added to uncertainty. During that period of delay, there was an opportunity to be more engaged in community conversation, rather than adding to the perception that the Foundation was aloof or insensitive to both people’s concerns and constructive proposals. And while this paragraph is not intended as a comprehensive retrospective, certainly, I would sit on my hands and not tweet.

As of a few hours ago, the Board of Trustees has posted their response. Building on the guidance from the Board, and in response to ArbCom’s open letter to the Board which set out its preparedness to review the User:Fram ban, the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee. The release of these materials is intended to facilitate the committee’s review of the length and scope of the ban in place. T&S and Legal staff have a standing meeting with the members of the committee on 3 July 2019, in which the case and materials will be further discussed.

Additionally, Foundation staff have begun preparing for a dedicated community consultation on:

• The two new office action policy tools introduced during the last change (temporary and partial Foundation bans). Under the approach noted on June 17th, we will seek further community feedback on those changes. These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their purpose and mechanisms are completed;
• Alternative approaches to supporting communities dealing with onwiki harassment;
• Working closely with the community to identify the shortcomings of current processes and enforcement mechanisms, and to support the development of appropriate solutions;
• Offering training opportunities for community leaders (including ArbCom) involved in dealing with harassment to strengthen their ability to meet these challenges.

I believe strongly in the commitment to community self-governance, as do Foundation staff that work closely with our editing communities, including those in T&S. We also believe strongly in the principle that no one participating on the Wikimedia projects should be subject to harassment, abuse, or intimidation. We believe there is a way to respect and support both of these as foundational and equally important principles, to do so judiciously and with integrity, and without compromising on the safety and wellbeing of Wikimedia participants. As many have pointed out over the past weeks, Wikipedia is a grand and ongoing experiment, and we do not always get it right.

Someone on my talkpage asked me the other day if the culture and priorities of the English Wikipedia community are compatible with the Wikimedia movement’s broader vision and the Foundation’s own strategic plan, and whether the Foundation would care if they were not compatible. It was a thoughtful question, which seemed to get to the heart of some of the concerns and skepticism I was reading and hearing from some community members over the past few weeks.

English Wikipedia is a marvel. It is imperfect, it is a work in progress, it is a remarkable achievement of collaboration and cooperation in building the encyclopedia -- a rendering of humanity’s knowledge. Members of this community have spent thousands of hours writing and building this collective resource, as well as developing the processes, roles, and governance structures that are critical to sustaining English Wikipedia. In doing so, you have not only made English Wikipedia possible, but shaped the principles of the broader Wikimedia movement.

The Foundation views its responsibility as being to the long-term health of all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia. This responsibility must be guided by both the needs of the projects as they exist currently, and the broader Wikimedia vision of a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. This means supporting essential technical and social resources that enable the projects to thrive today, while also keeping an eye on what to anticipate for the future. This means supporting Wikipedias that are open to newcomers, in terms of policies, experiences, and culture, in order to best position the projects and communities to remain self-sustaining, self-governing, and resilient -- and better yet, grow in size, commitment, and capacity, enriched by diverse global perspectives.

The community that has built this remarkable project has more collective wisdom and experience than any one of us alone, and the richness of that perspective must inform the long-term flourishing of this remarkable project. I look forward to working with you all on how we support this, together.

Katherine (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Discussion (Katherine Maher's statement)

Whitelisting IP

Hello! I am tutoring a course on Wikipedia at Polytechnic University of Milan. Could someone please whitelist this IP (131.175.147.29) for a week so to avoid throttled actions? --Jaqen (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am co-tutoring the course and second this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This can't be done by standard economy sized administrators; you need to ask on Phabricator. phab:T192898 is how such a request looks like; the "create new task" button is in the upper right corner. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jaqen and Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure filing a Phab request to whitelist the IP from throttling is the best option. Wouldn't it suffice to grant Wikipedia:Event coordinator status to Jaqen, so he can create accounts with confirmed status without being subject to the rate limit of account creations per IP? I have met Jaqen at Wikimania and am happy to give him the event coordinator flag. Deryck C. 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not about account creation (I have EC rights), but about the throttling of edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've created the task, thanks! --Jaqen (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy, edits by IPs and unconfirmed accounts are throttled at only a certain amount per wiki per minute. Getting accounts confirmed is one work around. ϢereSpielChequers 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:

Community advised Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([75]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.

In response, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ([76]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice (talk · contribs) ([77]). WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ([78]).

Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([79]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 02:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

Update from the Arbitration Committee

The Committee have received from Trust & Safety (T&S) their detailed report on Fram, with names and identifying information redacted. The Committee are still discussing the report; however we have agreed that the report is sufficiently detailed and minimally redacted such that we can open a case on Fram. The format and scope are yet to be decided, as we are trying to find the appropriate balance between being transparent with our proceedings, and protecting any parties from harassment. We would like to invite open feedback on how best to achieve this balance. We will be accepting additional evidence about Fram's behaviour from the community, however we ask that you please refrain from sending it until we formally open the case. We will keep the community updated with our progress.

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Update from the Arbitration Committee

Talk:Larry Sanger

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) seems to have some concerns about the lack of admin response at Larry Sanger. Could some one look it over and see what the matter is? He's left some detailed commentary there.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see related post above.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it quite disgusting how he uses the Fram issue to advance a content dispute. Conspiracy "theorissmus" comes to mind.--TMCk (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru seems like an edit warring obstructionist to me. I saw this article come up at RFPP, and I warned him back then because he tried to get his version protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: somehow he's conflated posts I made here in to something strange and troubling at the talk page. I see he cares greatly aout the "revisionism", but at my best, I'm not up to that sort of critical thinking. It's July 4-- I'm not at my best. Im half awake and keep walking away from the computer.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As QG's main "rival" in this dispute, the salient facts are these to the best of my understanding: I cleaned up and refactored the lead, which entailed removing citations and attempting to summarize the content in the body per standard practice in good and featured articles. He took things the wrong way and interpreted those actions as respectively constituting "verification problems" and "historical revisionism/SYNTH", etc. While I'm glad that QG is no longer reverting my edits in the main article, his/her conduct is still quite annoying and I keep telling him/her that he/she is able to take care of any of his/her "issues" raised in the talk page so long as he/she doesn't put citations in the lead or completely undo my work, yet he/she continues to rant about various things on the talk page and trying to get admins (and even once the WMF) involved. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And now they're pinging a new editor who is apparently a Buzzfeed journalist. It's all a little bizarre. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:JosephABernstein appears to have written the article on which QG wrote his since redirected W article on Fram controversy. Something seems amiss.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Just based on the descriptions of the issue here and only a very quick glance at the Sanger talk page: I have had similar issues with QuackGuru way back in the past (about 2008-2011). I am convinced he always acts in good faith, but unfortunately he can't help jumping to conclusions very quickly. This is evident from the discussion two years ago which I just found that led to his topic ban regarding religion, and it agrees with my past experiences with him. Unfortunately, quick and sometimes bizarre assumptions of bad faith are a natural consequence. If he has a strong opinion on a page, almost any change can trigger strong ownership behaviour.

Equally unfortunately, his communication style tends to be terse, sometimes bordering on the enigmatic. When combined with ABF, this can be very puzzling to his target.

When he was still editing primarily in the area of pseudoscience, he was protected by a mob of like-minded editors. I see he has now moved on to other topics where I suppose he is on his own and problems are more noticeable.

I wish I had a solution. But the only thing I can say is that after years of sometimes hefty clashes with him I think he is fundamentally a nice guy. Perhaps knowing this helps getting through the ABF problem. I doubt that editing restrictions will be very helpful. Another topic ban would likely just move the problem elsewhere, and I seem to remember that revert restrictions in the past didn't really help, either. Hans Adler 18:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed

An arbitration case regarding Canadian politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Curly Turkey is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.
2. Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.
3. Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Littleolive oil, PavelShk, Safrolic, and SWL36 are admonished for edit warring.
4. All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed

Is there any established process/guideline around "deleting" an article from the article space by MOVING it to the draft article space?

Hi. I've been editing for over 15 years and many tens of thousands of edits, and am quite familiar with the three means of "deleting" an article from the article space.

• WP:AfD
• WP:Speedy, and
• WP:PROD

having run into many examples of each, and been personally involved with many discussions of such, over the years.

Today, I learned of a new process for "deleting" an article from the article space that I'd not previously seen:

• without any discussion, and no consensus formed, a single editor just merely Moves an article from the article space to the draft space: from ArticleName to DRAFT:ArticleName, even though the article had multiple secondary sources from even pretty mainstream and wide-circulation secondary sources.

My question is quite general, and not specific to any particular use of this procedure on any particular article.

Is this process considered a valid WP process for removing an article from the article space? It is new to me, and I can't find any discussion on the process, nor the governance of the process. Is there prior process and guidelines in place? How would the opinion of any single editor be discussed? And there seems to be no "fix" sans Administrator support since, following the MOVE, no single editor can MOVE the article back to the original ArticleName, as that name is occupied as a result of the prior MOVE.

Any help would be super appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think what you're looking for is WP:DRAFTIFY. (To the best of my knowledge, It is inappropriate to keep non-notable things in draftspace until they are notable.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree. Non notable articles, articles that do not meet WP:GNG should not remain. But my question is about process for doing such. I've normally seen that hashed out in a AfD discussion, where consensus is formed. Here, the process is for a single editor to make the "nomination" and "final decision" that is not easily turned around by not using WP:AfD, WP:Speedy, or WP:PROD. N2e (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @N2e: see Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space also, some people may partially "rescue" a PROD by moving it to draft, but it's reason is already covered under the normal PROD process. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've seen articles that are speedy tagged as a7 moved to draft space. It's been going on for some time, but it still strikes me as a relatively recent phenomenon. It's usually done by experienced editors, sometimes by administrators. If the article can't get past an a7, it should be deleted. It's true that when an author protests a deletion I've made, I've offered to WP:USERFY it for them, but sometimes I refuse. When I do refuse, there is always deletion review available to the author. I'm not sure that any policy prevents this "process", though, and I've never objected to it, figuring it would go nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, John M Wolfson, and xaosflux. That identifies a process for it occurring, under specific curcumstances, in WP:DRAFTIFY.

Interestingly, the WP:DRAFTIFY info does have info on how the single-editor decision might be contested.

Requirements for page movers[edit]

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:

notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js), be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.

Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD.

This is exactly the info I needed to find. Thanks so much. N2e (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

While it technically remains in Mainspace, it's somewhat like WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible stalking

Would an administrator have a talk with @PM800:, as he's continuously reverting some of my edits with no summary given for why? He won't even discuss anything with me. @Sabbatino: is aware of this & has 'also' unsuccessfully gotten a response from PM800. Note: I did 'briefly' lose my patients with PM, but am trying to keep a level head. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Issued the last warning--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Please let us know if this continues. --Regards, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

They've not responded. I think they have violated Ymblanter's ultimatum. I requested a response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary topic ban appeal

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

---

I am asking the community, Jimbo Wales, and Katherine Maher to support allowing me to speak on the topics from which I have been banned, economics and agricultural chemicals, as part of full-throated appeal of those bans. My previous appeal was closed as procedurally insufficient because it was opened as a sub-thread in a WP:AN thread investigating the systemic biases which I have been trying to counter. I admit that it has been very difficult to abide by these bans. Most recently, I participated in a GA review of Motivation crowding theory, an article involving both psychology and microeconomics. It was on my watchlist and I became involved in the process before it occurred to me that I was likely in violation of my topic ban, because I had only ever been involved in macroeconomics discussions on Wikipedia. That does not excuse that it was a violation, but after I realized it I did not revert or strike my comments, and am open to opinions on whether I should have in such cases of unintentional mistake, when there were no allegations of disruption. In contrast, when I forgot my agricultural chemical topic ban, I struck my comments in violation and explained that I would appeal at a later date, which I would like to do with the freedom to discuss particular details as part of the appeal. I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of forbidding discussion of banned topics when petitioning for appeal of a topic ban, and am prepared to continue this discussion on Meta should any administrator so prefer. EllenCT (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: You are hereby warned that if you continue to disrupt this noticeboard and other venues, you risk being blocked. There's no such thing as a "preliminary topic ban appeal". Your petitions to Jimbo and Katherine are absurd. Meta has nothing to do with anything. This is just an ordinary topic ban (I know of only one), and a request for it to be lifted should be done in the usual way.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I apologize if I have seemed disruptive. I am appealing to Jimbo and Katherine in their individual capacities as English Wikipedia community members. I do not understand why I shouldn't have the right to ask to discuss the banned topics as part of a topic ban appeal. EllenCT (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. At this point, I'd support a general ban on EllenCT involving appeals/petitions/invocations to/of Jimbo/Katherine/WMF Staff and board members in general, broadly construed. If you want to appeal your ban, do so directly. Don't petition for support. And at this point, all this leads me to believe that the original ban should stay in place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Concur, this is some sort of evocative melodrama ploy that has not addressed the TBAN reasons at all. In fact, if anything, it argues for continuing them.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am entirely sincere. I would be happy to address the reasons you are referring to if you would specify them. EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the substance of your objections. Obviously you are angry at me. Would a voluntary sabbatical to Meta where I am free to speak be an acceptable compromise in your view? EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is moot as Ellen is essentially requesting permission to engage in WP:BANEX behavior (namely, appealing a ban). At worst, it's within the penumbras of what constitutes an appeal of a ban: petitioning those in power, such as Jimbo. As an aside, I strongly oppose a ban on making appeals to Jimbo et al. That sort of thing is outrageous and unreasonable. I don't care what the grounds for the initial topic ban were, there will never be a justification for banning people from petitioning those in power from relief unless their petitioning has become so repetitious and disruptive (i.e., due to its repetitiousness, incoherence, etc., and not due to the fact that the person is talking about the subject that led to the topic ban). Even in such case, the remedy should be a siteban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WOuld a link to aforementioned TBAN discussion be out of the question? User talk:Jimbo Wales is where I'd make a direct appeal.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand policy, appeals to Jimbo are only permitted in ArbCom-imposed topic bans.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t say anything about that on BANEX. Last I heard policy wasn’t a hammer for us to slam down on people’s toes when they do things we disagree with. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been trying to appeal to Jimbo there, and will include a link to the discussions in my WP:BANEX-aware appeal. I may take days to weeks to prepare it before posting it. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will revise in terms of WP:BANEX. EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My attempt to close this section so that I could proceed in light of WP:BANEX, which was only now brought to my attention, was reverted. EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You can't close a discussion you started. Period. One more disruptive action on your part, and I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit was swallowed in which I pointed out she petitioned Wales and Maher ~1/2 hour before posting this thread.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Originally my petitions to them were pointed to my reply to the ongoing thread above which I felt showed the strongest reason for lifting the bans. EllenCT (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Cut the aggression Bbb23, she’s not being that disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb123 is neither wrong nor correct to complain of disruption. I was proceeding under the instructions, "A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales," at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeal to Jimbo Wales which clearly contradicts WP:BANEX. That contradiction can cause perceptions of disruption when none was intended, as is the case. EllenCT (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BANEX allows you to discuss your topic ban when appealing it to AN. It does not allow you to appeal the ban to Jimbo. The first sentence on appealing to Jimbo says: "Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales." (I added emphasis)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Later it also says “A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales.” In any event it doesn’t say that ONLY an ArbCom remedy may be appealed to Jimbo. Regardless, I reckon that section is invalid: There’s no clear authority for the community to restrict Jimbo’s use of his founder powers. He can consider whatever he wants unless and until we actually have rule of law on this project. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Contextually, it's clear, and if you read the entire policy, it's also clear. I will not be responding to you again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: (EC) someone closing a discussion they started because it's going nowhere? That's the opposite of disruptive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this and move to reclose as withdrawn. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• IMHO they ought to be topic banned from anything relating to petitions too given their recent failed attempts at creating one and then not letting it drop[80][81]. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess

Hello. I'd like to invite a sysop to take part in this discussion to adjudicate by ensuring that it is done in compliance with site policies and guidelines. I'm not making a formal complaint at the moment but I have seen the need to warn another participant about a breach of WP:CANVAS and there has been some disquiet about reverting sourced content even though it was under discussion before being added to the article. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3O would be better?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The key issue of canvassing seems to have been dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MaxBrowne2 and via ANEW. The other was also I think raised but is a non issue. @No Great Shaker: there's a very good chance you're not going to get much of a response in ~2 hours. If you feel there is likely to be merit in opening an ANI thread on a specific editor, you should do so in the first instance lest you be accused of WP:Forum shoppping. In addition, if you really do change your mind and want to open an ANI, you should come back to your earlier thread and inform people that you opened the ANI complaint as well as mention on the ANI that you opened this AN. In fact if no one has responded and it's only been 2 hours you can probably remove your AN thread although do still mention your AN thread when opening the ANI thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

Argh, you know what he did... Sent me an attack email. What should I do? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He’s also site-banned and sent me that email with an alternate account. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nigos What account? Sro23 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

UHSEJISRYJY. His email definitely shows that he’s Nate Speed. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Put the email into /dev/null. Do not reply to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn’t reply to it. What’s /dev/null? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Throw it in the trash. /dev/null — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If he makes violent threats, you may wish to contact WP:EMERGENCY and/or your local police. Nate Speed is kind of known for that. Also, I regret not filing a complaint with his email provider at the time that he made a death threat against me. He's probably used that same email address to make a bunch of other death threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to this, I received a similar email from him yesterday as well. Reported it to WP:EMERGENCY and to WP:SPI. If he emails you again Nigos, do not respond to it, do not feed the trolls. Just report it to WP:EMERGENCY or to police, and to SPI or to AIV. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He asked his Reddit followers to hack Wikipedia accounts... See https://www.reddit.com/r/hacking/comments/63j9ye/someone_please_hack_these_wikipedia_accounts_for/. I had reported him to the admins there. This is getting really serious. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That was 2 years ago, the message content has been deleted and archived, and he didn't exactly get a good response to it. Revert, block, ignore. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow, they WRITE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!! D:< in casual conversations. —RainFall 09:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nate's history on the net is not a pretty read. He's been attacking several Wikia sites with socks for so many years that the Wikia staff developed specific tools that can stop him in his tracks. There are at least 5 Wikia sites that he had been hitting on a fairly regular basis. He's tried to elicit the aid of hackers (going as far as starting a GoFundMe) and he escalated to masquerading as Wikia staff to try and send a malware to a pair of the main hunters of his socks. That resulted in the two users sending in reports to the Federal Trade Commission and the FBI as well as his ISP. Blackmane (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we use those tools? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: From what I've read, Wikia requires users to create accounts. When the account is created, it sends an email for confirmation. They've developed something that somehow picks up that the creation request originates from Nate Speed and no email confirmation for account creation is sent to him so no matter how much he tries Wikia is now denied to him. The other thing that I've read is that as he hits other Wikias with his socks, the tools get deployed on those Wikias as well. Unfortunately, there is no appetite to force anonymous editors to create accounts so this isn't really a viable option. I suppose we could request edit filters be created to catch the most common types of edits that Nate S makes . As for email harassment T&S is the only avenue to address this. He has a long history with @GethN7: that spans years. Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: that's what I was also thinking about. All of his edits are similar: semi-censored vulgarities in all caps, and he sometimes censors names of infamous political groups that he thinks are bad words. So it should catch most of those kinds of edits. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He's got a number of tells and he uses them in an obsessive way so he wouldn't be hard to filter. Blackmane (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be more than enough deleted diffs for the filter to "know" what edits he usually does. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be plenty of examples indeed. I expect that the Edit filter requests board will need some recent examples of diffs to filter him out. Blackmane (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

yes; there are a lot of diffs with his content on this page already. They can also look at his deleted diffs on his other accounts. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Learn a "what's best" (WikiSoftware) and also correct my edit summary's "OzWIN" typo that should have been typed as "OzWin" @ CompuServe

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.

---

My edit summary @ CompuServe now has a RedLinked "OzWIN" that should read "OzWin"

I did an empty edit with a followup edit summary/note, so this is surely not urgent, but my reason for coming here is to learn if

• it's better that my empty edit be deleted, and the RedLinked edit summary be edited by an admin
• vs. fixing my edit summary, and then doing some type of "suppress" of my followup be done (of the kind when for some CopyVio incidents)

Thanks for your answer (and intervention) in advance.

I'm posting here since Help:Edit_summary#Fixing doesn't point to a (probably not yet existing) facility, automated or via human intervention, to edit a summary. Could it be coded? I'd guess yes; should it? That why I'm posting here for someone "at a higher pay scale" (a phrase I've heard from more than one person) to discuss. Pi314m (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a different question about your edit summaries: what is "\\*" and why are you including it at the beginning of each one? Did you know that "/* ... */" is automatically generated for section edits? Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Edit summaries can be suppressed but this isn't used (as far as I know) for accidental mistakes. They cannot be edited. Correct practice when you make a mistake like this is to make a dummy edit with the correct link, which is exactly what you did. I don't think anything further can be done. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• ^ what Bilorv said. There is no need to suppress the first edit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Move war at Puebla

A couple of editors have been thrashing the heck out of Puebla capital, Puebla City, Puebla (city), etc. Can some admin please try to figure out how to unwind and repair, and see who needs to be told to stop? Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've restored to the stable title and move protected. If someone wants a move, they can file an WP:RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor involved is have some other problems as seen here.--Moxy 🍁 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The move warrior, User:JkMastru has switched over to regular edit warring at United States. They have been blocked for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked that editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and edit warring by editor Wadaad

Editor Wadaad is currently edit warring on Somalia, [82], [83], [84]. They've been warned about their edit warring behaviour [85], [86], [87] and explicitly told that the issue was discussed and editors have actually reached a consensus on the article's talk page, they were informed of this multiple times, both on their talk page [88], as well as the article's talk page [89]. Multiple requests were made for them to perform a self-revert and discuss the changes they want to make instead to form consensus and they explicitly refused to do so on their talk page [90] as well as on the article's talk page [91].

In addition to all of this, they seem to be spewing questionable opinions about how their disregard for the previous consensus process was due to Wikipedia being populated by white males and how their lack of "knowledge of topics related to Somalia" is somehow a reason for Wadaad to disregard previous consensus reached on the talk page [92], or how another editor who disagreed with his stance is not suitable because he is Taiwanese [93]. They have previously been blocked in 2014 for the same edit warring behaviour [94]. Kzl55 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I was merely restoring the original map of Somalia (prior to Kzl55's change - the person making this complaint). He never had any broad consensus for his change. Only a single individual separatist from Somaliland (clearly biased) and a Taiwanese (again biased - see Foreign relations of Taiwan it is a similarly disputed territory) agreed with him. You cannot change the borders of a sovereign nation's territory based on the opinion of two separatists. He never reached any broad consensus from various relevant stakeholders for his change and is now trying to put me as the bad guy for his very own agenda pushing (he is from Somaliland and initiated this all). I am restoring material, I am not being disruptive. Lastly, his map does not reflect the truth, see the various maps on Somali Civil War. Wadaad (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As Wadaad hit five reverts and clearly had no intention of stopping despite a final warning from me, I've blocked them for 48 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Help!!!

Someone from IP address 217.97.101.224 wanted to reset my password. Help! Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Its the same user spamming me on simplewiki, commons and English Wikinews. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my password. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

They're just entering your username in the "forgot password" form. They can't hack into your account this way, since the emails only go to you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I'm OK with anyone trying to reset my password of anything because they're very likely to fail. Hope you didn't hurriedly switch to a weak password. Also, the IP (Special:Contribs/217.97.101.224) is currently globally blocked, but a local administrator has decided to disable [the block] on this wiki? I don't see any log for this and I'd never seen such a notice before. —Rutilant 08:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. But that user is a LTA one and is globally banned. He was also spamming talk pages on other wikis using other IP addresses. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If they're causing a global nuisance, you can report them to m:SRG. There's little we can do about it here. If they're causing a visible nuisance here, report them to WP:AIV. If they're just trying to send 'reset password' links, you can probably just ignore them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you read the notice carefully, it just describes what could happen. This notice is displayed for every global block. Local global unblocks are very rare and logged here: Special:Log/gblblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

First time seeing a globally blocked IP, then. Some blocks are marked as locally disabled: Thought it meant some blocks of the IP. Never mind. —Rutilant 08:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to compare a locally disabled global block, see this. The wording has always caused a bit of confusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am jumping at shadows...

Is anyone else noting an uptick in the number of contributors adding conservative sources to alter content on articles? I am getting a bit concerned over the attempts to hijack our neutrality pillar using the verifiability pillar.
Maybe I am just imagining it. It seems that I've been seeing all sorts of wacky edits trying to legitimize a lot of Alt-Right platforms, amongst them the deep state articles, as well as those pundits that argue the existence of that particular conspiracy theory.
Maybe I'm just channeling Heller's Catch-22 maxim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been an increase in the kind of edits you describe, but its not a recent thing. It started about 2 years ago, basically when the far-right and alt right was emboldened by their role (or at least their perceived role) in the election of Donald Trump, and his subsequent statements of false equivalence after Charlottesville. You might want to add some of the articles about these groups to your watchlist, and look out for attempts in insert their talking points (i.e. Nazism is far-left and not far-right, changing reliably sourced descriptions of groups and people to softer, less controversial ones, etc.). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. For example changing "Nazi Party" to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) implies that the Nazis were far-left because the party had "socialist" in their name. Of course they had no socialism in their party platform, if it was Fascist, and far-right. Recent removals of whitewashing: Diff of Joseph Goebbels, Diff of Erich von Manstein, Diff of Adolf Hitler, Diff of Nazi concentration camps, Diff of Nazi Germany — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Adding: the early Nazi Party members who were in favor of a more socialist platform were removed (i.e. killed) in the Night of the Long Knives — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles like Fascism and Nazism (or at least their talkpages, since the articles themselves have been permanently semi-protected) have been bombarded by editors seeking to redefine them as phenomena of the left, some because they take the "National Socialism" business literally, some because they feel that defining those movements as far-right demeans regular conservatives, others because they just want to hang all bad things on perceived political opponents. It's been going on at a high level for the past three years. There's also been a lot of editing on general alt-right topics and allied men's rights topics to try to whitewash them as something normal or innocuous. It's part of the environment right now. There are a lot of very patient editors who monitor those topics and their talkpages, who take a lot of abuse. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a little worried that Alt-Right-centered edits will be made to add biased references to smaller, lightly-monitored articles, and then use those gains as reference for other, more substantially-monitored articles.

Non-political articles that typify this sort of incremental change include the marginal OR that makes its way into continuity sections in Doctor Who articles; over time, the crush of editors wanting to note fan-observed connections within the Who-verse has stifled any comments regarding OR. Maybe that is an unfair comparison, but the process could easily serve as a template (worrying about even mentioning that, btw) for abuse.

I am concerned about the layering of less-objectional edits that end up being something of an Enabling Act, but for Wikipedia instead of government. It's probably just me; my dad used to work in disaster management; my siblings and I were raised to expect and plan for the worst outcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so other Wikipedia articles can't be cited in support of changes made elsewhere, but you have a good point. I added a large number of these articles to my watchlist a while ago, but I still constantly come across ones that I missed and need to be monitored pretty continuously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think yu misapprehended my statements; I wasn't suggesting that wiki articles would be used to cite other articles. I noted that biased citations could be inserted into lesser-watched articles which would make them less likely to be caught when used in better-monitored articles, the idea that if it is consensus in another article, it should be considered as legitimate in this article. Such a pre-existing consensus can be used to change guidelines (using the aforementioned Who-related articles and enclosing wikiproject).

I think that, in a post-Trump world, the objective truth is under attack and places like Wikipedia and Snopes are part of the front lines of those attacks. - Jack Seba1stian (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I've got you now, sorry I misunderstood your point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight: are you saying that "conservative sources" are too biased and unacceptable for use in Wikipedia? We should be using liberal sources only? n.b. in my experience, I have seen that Wikipedia articles are firmly anchored in left-leaning sources to the exclusion of any other type; this is a reflection of the general worldviews of the editors adding the sources (they're gonna add sources they themselves read, obviously, and they will not be purposely seeking out opposing viewpoints that might be at odds with their own confirmation bias.) Therefore, Wikipedia's systemic bias is reinforced as a natural consequence of a pool of preferred sources (as well as campaigns to deprecate all sorts of stuff on the right.) Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. "Left-leaning" sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post and CNN are all over Wikipedia, while it consitently and unreasonably rejects "conservative" sources like Breitbart News and Infowars. It's so unfair. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

How does that one quote go? "Reality has a liberal bias"?--WaltCip (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a valid point here. When we start discussing content in a ongoing political topic that is based on analysis, opinions/etc. of the sources, and beyond the facts, that's where the combined liberal bias of our sources and our editors shows. NYTimes, WaPost, and CNN are all valid sources on factual content and why we want these sources to be used, but their opinions tend to be slanted to the left, and moreso with WaPost and CNN, tend to shun the right. And it's very clear that the average political viewpoint of experienced WP editors tends to fall left, which support this sources being used as to discuss the reaction to the political story. These all create the bias that those trying to boister the right are trying to fight. Arguably the better solution is to simply omit those opinions, and avoid analysis and opinion on an ongoing political topic until there is enough time for the topic to no longer be of political concern and a 20/20 hindsight can be given to it (for example, we're now at a time that a fair summary of opinions on Reaganomics can be made); or if that opinion becomes news itself (eg January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation) This still may be a liberal-biased view but at least we have a much better rationale for stating that by showing that that was the long-term summation of opinions, rather than us trying to weed out the most important opinions while the political topic is going on. (This has been a point of my NOTNEWS/RECENTISM aspects that I've been trying to promote).

That said, fighting that imbalance with forced inclusion of bad sources like Breitbart is definitely not the right way to go. --Masem (t) 17:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Systemic vs. campaign-related bias

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 certainly noticed some extreme weirdness at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory after my part of that article's recent expansion from 88 to 136kb. But the attempts to hide the Mueller Report's expose of Paul Manafort's attempt to trade campaign internal polling data and a promise to carve up Eastern Ukraine for help in Midwestern Democratic strongholds was much more pronounced recently. I suppose the latter could be considered as bad as I remember from six years ago, when there was all kinds of crap from major systemic biases including paid editing from the largest political campaigns in the US. But who's really keeping count of these things?

I am asking the community, Jimbo Wales, and Katherine Maher to endorse lifting my topic ban on economics and agricultural chemicals to allow me to discuss these issues in detail. EllenCT (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo and Katherine have nothing to do with your ban, nor have any role interfering with how enwiki runs it's business. At this point, it might be worth looking into giving you a petition ban. If you want your ban lifted, convince the community it's in its best interest to lift it. Not Jimbo or the WMF executive director. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: what in your view are the advantages and disadvantages of forbidding discussion of banned topics when petitioning for appeal of a topic ban? Do you believe the community was right to forbid me from speaking on economics? And on agricultural chemicals? I have appealed to both Jimbo and Katherine in their individual capacities as members of the English Wikipedia community. EllenCT (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to have the ban overturned, you need to start the formal procedure here, making a statement. What you started here is not a valid avenue for lifting a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

An aside

What made me wonder about the uptick in conservative edits was some stuff over at the bio of Jimmy Dore. I got pulled in over a Feedback Request Service request, and...well, its been a bit like Captain Marvel, and the 300 film; all the edits seem a raging proxy fight over something else entirely. While the aforementioned tendentious discussions were involved incels and Persian nationalism respectively, the kerfuffle at Jimmy Dore is pretty much about legitimizing the deep state conspiracy theory. Dore believes in it, and its a hallmark of his fame/infamy; it is one of the ways in which he is defined and identified.
A few editors feel that - despite references to the contrary, he is not, and shouldn't be called such, because of the "negative connotation implied with the phrase 'conspiracy theory'". The edits in favor of this seem... really organized, and I am having some difficulty making headway, using policy and guidelines.
New contributors have started to weigh in who's pages appear to be solely SPA accounts pushing the conservative pov as well as the deep state narrative. I've requested for some page protection until the matter can be sorted out in talk, but that doesn't seem to be something that will occur anytime soon. Maybe more experienced eyes could take a look and separate the wheat from the chaff? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you first example is an interesting one. Per the article, CNN has describe the subject's show as "a far-left YouTube channel". And my read of the article is it's probably accurate. I haven't looked at the article history much but at least this reversion of yours [95] it strikes me from precisely what was said that the comments you removed are probably coming from someone of a similar ilk i.e. sympathetic to the far-left POV. It wouldn't surprise me if whoever added this and many of the editors causing problems in the article are similar, i.e. more extreme Bernie bro than MAGA crowd. So not really a sign of an uptick of conservative edits. And perhaps also a reminder that while the deep state conspiracy theory is particularly in vogue with some conservatives in the US at the moment, as with many conspiracy theories it transcends simple political boundaries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020 film)

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.

---

My watchlist gone a bit mad over the articles move by GinoHernandezjr, I just thought I post here for an admin to double check it's okay, it has flooded my watchlist a bit! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• I see multiple moves with no discussion or explanation, so move protection applied. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Amalthea

Did User:Amalthea (bot) stop working? As in SPI clerking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to be working again, as it edited the CCI checklist and SPI. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IPs try to Wikipedia:Vandalism

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

---

Please check IP 89.165.99.58 edits [[96]] 2 and 188.159.243.114 + ++ and 188.158.118.65 + in Book of Dede Korkut, this IP try to Wikipedia:Vandalism and dont pay attention to notes and discuss page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtirenji (talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the link being added by Rtierenji is spam. Therefore, I've reverted the user's last edit (they've been edit-warring about the link with an IP) and issued an only warning to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock User:Legacypac ?

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.

---

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

I propose that User:Legacypac be unblocked without any specific conditions other than civility, which is always required (although not always enforced). Legacypac was indefinitely blocked on 27 April 2019 for insulting User:BrownHairedGirl, basically for being reasonable rather than fanatical about the deletion of portals. (That is, BHG wasn’t being fanatical when Legacypac was, although they had sort of the same objective, of getting rid of portalcrud.) Legacypac has been blocked for more than two months and should be unblocked for time served, knowing that any future blocks are also likely to be at least for a month. If Legacypac primarily edited in article space, they would have already been unblocked with the vacuous comment that they were an “excellent content creator”. Legacypac isn’t about to apologize, and insincere apologies should not be expected, but only another chance will indicate whether Legacypac can resume making mostly constructive contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If the user wants to be unblocked, they can...wait for it...make an unblock request. We're not going to unblock them because you think they should be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon was kind enough to ask me about this on my talk page when he was mulling over this request. Here's what I wrote:[97]

A few thoughts:

• I'm a great believer in the principle that justice needs to be independent: guilt should be assessed, and punishment decided, by the community rather than bu the victim. So as the target of his attacks, I think it's best that I refrain from comment on the sentencing.
• I also don't expect him to apologise. It's just not the way he rolls.
• The final incident which led to his block was the culmination of a month or so of sniping because he is not comfortable with the sort of reasoned discussion which admits complexity or nuance, and in which facts may change. That is a part of a pattern I have seen with LP at several other venues (including AFD & CFD): he makes his mind up early in a simplistic binary way, and once he has assigned something to a category he doesn't change his mind even if it becomes clear that he has been mistaken about something possibly crucial. This makes him a disruptive type of force in some broadly-predictable circumstances. That seems to me to be the main issue which the community needs to consider: if he returns, how can he avoid the types of situation which he handles badly, and which led him down a path to that final blocakble event?. But as above, I will make observations, but I shouldn't be part of that call.

Hope that helps.

I don't have anything to add to that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is right; I see no reason to consider an appeal by someone besides the blocked user. Setting that aside for a minute, my approach to most block and ban appeals is that the sanctioned user needs to convince the community that the behavior they were sanctioned for won't repeat itself. Even if we were to consider request, I see no evidence that the incivility would cease. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• We do not consider third-party unblock appeals except in exceptional circumstances. This isn’t one. No comments on the merits of any potential appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac would need to put an unblock request himself. If he did, there's a good chance I'd support it but I'd need to look in to things before I made up my mind. Reyk _YO! 19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac needs to make a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. If Robert would like to discuss that with LP as a way to move this forward, that would be fine, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would voice opposition to Legacypac being unblocked. Every single instance of interaction I've had with him indicates the user is not the sort of user who can keep themselves from going off the rails. They are toxic, and - respectfully - I feel that if the user is unblocked, they will undoubtedly get themselves blocked again within a few months. Is there a point where we just say, 'we cannot be your therapy device' and let the person go their own way? I mean, the user's block log pretty much says it all. The user is bad for Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed, his block log pretty much says it all, with unblock entries like No administrator wants this block and general sentiment is block was too harsh or unneeded, and that "legal threats" block, about which the blocking administrator later wrote: I sincerely apologize for having made this mistake ... I appreciate that several admins ... corrected my inappropriate action. Despite that, I agree with everyone else that standard unblock procedure should be followed rather than a third-party request at AN. – Levivich 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, he needs to make the unblock request himself. I see no reason to depart from that principle here. Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the above observations. Robert does not have the standing to appeal a sanction or request relief from sanctions for Legacypac. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Would support unblock, but must come from LP  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• As a reminder, this block has already been discussed at AN, where there was consensus to continue it [98]. Given the conduct here, and especially the post-block attempts to justify why it was actually OK to use gendered abuse towards another editor, it would need to be a remarkably good unblock request IMO. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Recommend closing this thread. I see no reason for this thread to remain open. There is unanimous consensus that the user needs to make the unblock request, per usual. Robert McClennon has already tried to overturn the block [99], so this thread can be seen as a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There is also a large consensus (on that thread and by BHG above) that Legacypac would have to completely and fundamentally change his approach on Wikipedia to be unblocked and remain so. Also, while I'm at it, I'm personally tired of the disruptive and reckless influence Robert McClennon has had at ANI over the past few months, and I'd personally advise him to stay away from the noticeboards and focus on other things on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Legacypac has actually done some very good work for this project, not that I am an apologist for his behaviour, but there have been individuals who have constantly escaped indef blocks although they have attacked, harrased and insulted users in a manner that would not be tolerated in an office in RL, only because they are/were prolific content creators or FA producers. LP and I worked quite well together on some serious developments and his participation was always measured and polite. I think he should be encouraged to make his own unblock request, and if it is convincing enough, I would certainly support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• This should be closed forthwith, as any unblock request should come from LP, and should be demonstrate understanding of why they were blocked and include an assurance that they won't continue in the same vein. Really, the SO should apply here in any case, so six months before unblock request. But I disagree with the guidance at SO in this respect: frankly, whether BHG wants an apology or not is only of passing interest to me, LP should be required to apologise properly for the PA as part of the unblock request. Contrition for PAs is required if we are going to combat incivility. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A blocked user must make their own unblock request, which addresses the reasons for the block in a way that convinces a reviewer that the problems behind the block will not recur. I can't have opinion on whether I'd support such a request until I see it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Duplicate categories by User:Shadowbryan25

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

---

Hello administrators, this is an urgent message. Some newly registered user goes by the name of User:Shadowbryan25 has made a first edit on June 20, 2019. But unfortunately, the user has misused Wikipedia by adding "People from" categories. For an example Sidney Crosby's article has added "People from Halifax, Nova Scotia" but there is already "Sportspeople from Halifax, Nova Scotia". The guideline on a category's occupation is only put Sportspeople of Male actors categories only not "People from" categories. To any administrators, could you investigate all of User:Shadowbryan25's edit contributions if any article contains a people from category. Remove the People from category immediately. If Shadowbryan25 continues to restore the people from categories warn the user for a possible block. Thanks for the important message. I will be happy to an administrator for a reply. Thank you. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This doesn't look like a particularly urgent issue, and you should have tried to engage the user on their talk page before bringing the issue here. creffett (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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.

---

Dear Administrators,

The user, User:Murdikar, did make changes to one of my article : Thomas Ignatius MacWan. The user made many edits and wrote about the the person from his own opinion which was unacceptable because there was totally opposite in the press to what this user wrote on the article. User also added links in between my original texts and removed some of my text. This user has been doing so in the past also, user has been asked not to follow this but still has done it, the remarks used on my article were political and not acceptable. I would like to request you to kindly intervene and warm this User or maybe block this user because this user has been trying to bring harm to the articles on wikipedia and i dont think this user can be a good fruit to wikipedia. Total vandalism is being followed by this user. Kindly look into the matter on urgent basis. Thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The user's last edits were in March of this year, and the edits to the MacWan article were in December 2017! If there ever was a case, it's quite stale by now. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020 film)

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.

---

My watchlist gone a bit mad over the articles move by GinoHernandezjr, I just thought I post here for an admin to double check it's okay, it has flooded my watchlist a bit! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• I see multiple moves with no discussion or explanation, so move protection applied. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Archiving issues after page move

I think I did not fix the archive. The article was moved by another editor and the archives are under a different talk page name. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, I just did a one-click archiving of an old thread, and it goes to the right title of archives, but to the wrong page number. The counter has not been updated, and there is no detailed mention of an archiver or archiving in the templates of the page. Can you please post this problem at WP:VPT so someone can resolve the counter issue and perhaps also set up automatic archiving? Pinging Anthony Appleyard, who also made some alterations to the archiving of the page. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• The page is Talk:Nicotine marketing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) It was archived to Archive 1 instead of Archive 3.[100] QuackGuru (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Automatic archiving implemented. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Bosniak nationalism on Turkish Croatia article

It's about this. Santasa99 is systematicly removing any traces of Croatian history in that area, and presents the whole article in nationalistic views. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User presume to much, which feels too personal in this case!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is important to write from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

How can a new user delete articles?

LABSJAY screwed up article names of Philippine presidents, now in supposedly birth names (or made up birth names) instead of the WP:NC ones. He did this by deleting some articles to make way for moves, such as this one. How is this possible? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: its only possible when the target of a move is a page with 1 revision, and that revision is a redirect to the source of the move. It was built so that page-move vandalism could be reverted (A -> B leaves a redirect at A, but that redirect can be deleted by moving B -> A) --DannyS712 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...good to know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, part of this is a rather recent change. While everyone's been able to do this for years and years, it's only recently that such actions started getting logged as deletions. For years and years, such actions didn't get logged anywhere; if you redirected A to B and then moved B to A, your original edit simply disappeared and couldn't be recovered. The only way to know that a redirect existed there was in the article's history: the move summary for the page move edit would say "moved page A to B over redirect" instead of "moved page A to B". Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Violation of rollback rules?

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 WP:Rollback, "editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed". This is an example of that, by User:Champion. I guess they may not be a champion at rollback... since I was just making minor edits. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part, actually, I apoloigize, totally forgotten about it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha. Okay. Thank you. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

The following change to discretionary sanctions awareness requirements has been passed and enacted by motion:

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict; or
6. They have placed a {{DS/Aware}} template for the area(s) of conflict on their own talk page.

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

Please consider blocking cross-wiki socks

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.

---

• Morris hu 12333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ronray7799 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laliga0789 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peli_qazwsxedc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as recently checked on meta: meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Ronray7799@zh.wikipedia. --Techyan（Talk） 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

علاء, were you going to lock these accounts?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I think it's zhwiki issue (local), but if these account will blocked in enwiki, then I'll lock it globally --Alaa :)..! 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

علاء yes, see this and this. It may be best to lock them. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's my bad not making it clear. Actually, the only account needs block is Peli_qazwsxedc (as what I posted originally). Checkuser result says Morris Hu 12333 and Ronray7799 are  Possible but they are clearly not the same user based on their behavior. @Berean Hunter: so please block Peli_qazwsxedc and that's it, no more blocks/locks needed. I will closely monitor these users and inform other wikis if more blocks apply. --Techyan（Talk） 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

علاء, these accounts are now also locally blocked on en.wiki, and might qualify for a lock now. Pinging you as an FYI. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Peli qazwsxedc  locked --Alaa :)..! 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

m.k.m2003

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 request to be a member of Wikipedia:Rollback. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/M.k.m2003

M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, that kind of request belongs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions. creffett (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

RFPP

Is backlogged. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For how long can you be an administrator?

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 question just popped up in my mind. Shouldn't you have like 1 or 2 years at maximum being admins and then new admins get elected and you just become normal editors? Why isn't this the way Wikipedia works?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Issue over the necessity of Talk:Wikipedia/to do

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

---

I am going to break up the issue over the page in question, which is Talk:Wikipedia/to do, in a few sub-sections as there are many different issues present. I am going to first talk about what seems to be the background of the page based on looks, then I will talk about the first major issue of the page regarding its necessity in a sub-section. Afterwards I will talk about the other small problems regarding the page, in further sub-sections that will be located bellow the first sub-section. I will also state why I am placing this here, rather than on another noticeboard, in this main section.

I stumbled on the page after being a bit fidgety with the search box, when a result hint for the page in question came up. Based on its name, I was curious to know what were some of the future plans for Wikipedia. My prediction for what the page contained was somewhat correct, as it contained what seemed to be a to-do list with what changes are to be done with Wikipedia. It even talks about some of the yearly Peer Reviews and FACs. Well that is what it seems to have originally been intended for. Unfortunately however, as I will discuss in a sub-section somewhere bellow, the page was visited and overridden by other Wikipedians, as well as multiple IP users, who used the page as a to-do list for what they wanted to do on Wikipedia. Also, some of the tasks there seem convoluted and unrelated or hard to understand.

It seems that the page is originally intended for bettering the article Wikipedia, so that it can become a featured article. Thus more caution must come when changing or deleting content that is on that page; I hope you know what is the name of this website, otherwise WP:ANI is not where you should be right now. Because of that, I felt that placing the page on any 'for deletion' noticeboard would be a bit wrong, as it would require a consensus from a lot more users, especially those that are admins. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the page still necessary?

It seems that either the use of the points on the page, the page itself, or the betterment of the page Wikipedia based on what is stated in the page in question, has stopped sometime in 2012. That was when a link to the issues found with the Wikipedia article was found during a FAC discussion, where it was rejected from becoming an FA. That edit happened on December 11, 2012. Linked is the diff [101]. We can consider this as being almost 6 years and 8 months ago. That edit was also done by the user, who was the only one to make useful changes to that page in the year of 2012. The good news is that, the user User:Cbrittain10 is still active on Wikipedia (I am referring to the website here, not the article).

Due to the long length of time that has elapsed, it can be considered unclear to whether or not it clearly depicts what are some of the improvements that need to be done to the page Wikipedia. It is also unclear as to weather or not, all the tasks on the page in question, have been completed or not. Those two things must be taken into consideration; if none of the tasks have been done, the page or its contents must stay, or else we may loose out on some very valuable info on how to make the page Wikipedia a WP:FA level article again. Nevertheless, there are many other aspects that must be looked at before one can consider whether or not the page is still necessary or not. One of these aspects being, how much 'actually usefull' additions or contributions are being done to the discussions on the page Talk:Wikipedia, since if the page in question was to get deleted/removed the majority of these to-do discussions would move there. Unfortunately the abandonment issue is almost similar on that page as well. There is more contribution going on in that page, however the useful contributions happen rarely. The majority of contributions are usually undo's, reverts, or just plain spelling or grammar fixes. I looked at the Talk:Wikipedia's drop down box detailing article level status 'changes/request for changes' and the last activity listed there is of the date September 5th, 2014. On that date it says Wikipedia got demoted and/or delisted; the page Wikipedia is currently a Class-B level article.

Another major thing that worries me, if the page was to get deleted, was the amount of work that went into the page as it has been existent for almost 13 years. Now one might suggest a merge with the article talk page, however I stated in some sub-sections somewhere bellow to why I think a merge would be a bad idea. Any other issues to why I think it would not be a good idea to delete or merge may be seen in the other following sub-sections somewhere bellow. Now there are other things that I noticed about the page in concern, to be reasons to why it should be moved, merged, or deleted.

The first thing that one will easily notice on that page, is that it is a talk page of a page/article that is non-existent. According to what is stated on WP:CSD, it is one of the possible reasons for why a page can be nominated for WP:Speedy Deletion, however as I stated in the main section to why I think there should be an in depth discussion to what should happen to the page or its contents. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments or views on whether or not the page is necessary

Here other users should comment on their views as to, "whether or not the contents on the page in question is necessary or not." Please Note  : This sub-sub-section is not where the vote or decision to what should happen to the page occurs. That is in another sub-section bellow. This sub-sub-section is only intended based on the info above and in main section for whether or not the content on the page is necessarily important.

• (Submitter view) 'Content on the page may be important': I have no clue whether or not the tasks stated have been done yet or not. The tasks stated on that page do look nice, and would definitely improve the article by a lot if they have not been done yet. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What should be done to the page?

There are obviously four options, keep, merge contents to Talk:Wikipedia, move the page to Wikipedia/to do or delete. I will explain the issues and benefits of each, if they were to occur.

The first one which is 'keep' would just mean that the page should be left alone. If we are to keep the page, then there should be some major clean up and a verification process that should be done on the page, so that any tasks that have been completed be striked out. In addition, any new tasks or ideas should be added. Although in the process of keep there could be a high chance that the page could again be forgotten and eventually become abandoned like it is right now. A issue with keep is that it would go against the talk page norms where, there should not be a talk page when the page/article is non-existent. This is where the 3rd option of move comes in.

With the 'move' the issue of the talk page norm no longer holds. Regardless, there is an issue that regardless of keep or move, there must be a link posted on the Talk:Wikipedia to the page, so that it does not go into a abandoned state again. The issue of there being two places to look when looking at considerations on how to edit the page Wikipedia. This is where the merge option helps.

With the 'merge' option, the issue of the need to look at two places would not be existent. Although a new issue arises. The fact that it is a to-do list, makes the page in question be more of a informative formal way of saying what is needed to be done to the page Wikipedia, where these ideas are agreed upon by multiple users. Thus it would not make any sense for a new registered user to add something new on that to-do list, rather unconfirmed(registered) or IP users should be placing suggestions on the Talk:Wikipedia page instead. In a more clearer way, think of the to-do list as what a majority of users think would be the best for the page, where as the article talk page consists of things where ideas are placed. The likelihood that a new user, even if unconfirmed user (registered), would place a task that would be highly accepted by the community to be done to the page Wikipedia is a lot less likely than that of an confirmed user. In fact it can even be seen on the page of Talk:Wikipedia revision history that there have been vandal edits by unconfirmed users.

One may argue to why not just make Talk:Wikipedia pending changes or semi-protected? the issue is that this has been done so many times, that one may even think of comparing the log with that of the page Wikipedia or the main page itself. In fact, the most recent page protections have all been 'confirmed or auto-confirmed' protection level because of the fact that pending-changes have failed. There should be an outlet for unconfirmed users who actually want to contribute to Wikipedia via discussion. However the place where such a to-do list should be located, is a place that has a higher protection level as it would contain things that are granted to be accepted by the majority of the community.

The last option of 'delete' would usually be the best option if all the tasks on the page in question have been completed. Otherwise the 'move' or 'merge' option would be better, as some of the info contained in that page, may have been created by users who are no longer Wikipedians. Thus, the info would get lost.

I think I should stop there, as this seems to be getting a bit too long. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User vote and comments on what should happen to the page!

Vote here in this sub-sub-section as to what should happen to the page. The current options are, 'Keep', 'Move' to Wikipedia/to do, 'Merge' with Talk:Wikipedia, or 'Delete'. Optional is if you want to also vote at the same time for any protection levels on any of the pages that are being discussed or are in question. If you would like to add an alternative option, please add a sub-sub-section to the sub-section, that this sub-sub-section is in. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• (Submitter) 'Move'  : Better to keep in two places so that the difference from idea, and needed to be added is clearer. Also with two different pages, there can be two different protections. Comment to this vote of mine if clarity is needed. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on Talk:Wikipedia? And what administrative action were you hoping for? El_C 05:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Because if it is considered for either move, merge, or delete, or a change in protection privileges... they require admin privileges to do. Also, the talk page Talk:Wikipedia, does not seem to have enough activity to reach any consensus at all. To be honest if I were to put it there, the chance that anyone who participates in such discussion there, would forget or would want to change their mind about their mind about such discussion by the time many users have stated something. Basically consensus in my opinion would not reach. Another reason is the fact that it relates to a page that is about this project, if it were any ordinary page, I would have maybe even done a CSD. It's just because its related to Wikipedia is the reason why I placed it here. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should launch an RfC on Talk:Wikipedia with those options clearly expressed. This is not what this noticeboard is for, I'm afraid. El_C 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a command similar to how sections here are automatically moved to ANI, for RfC???? I wish to move this section and its sub/sub-sub sections there with the structure intact. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Subject requests changes

Can someone neutral take a look at Talk:Mohamed Sheikh, Baron Sheikh#Request for edits and the letter submitted by the subject and take any necessary action? The subject is a member of the upper house of the British Parliament. (Declaration: I am a member of the same party as the subject.) Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Dibs! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody please remove the protection of Lisk

Hi guys, would you please be able to remove the protection of Lisk ? I want to create a disambiguation page there, which clearly belongs there and is completely unrelated to the articles that got deleted over the years. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Vogel, would you mind drafting the disambiguation page in your userspace? Once you do that, an admin can just move it to mainspace and remove the protection in the process. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely you can trust me more than that? :) Done: Draft:Lisk. Would you please be able to move it? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Aside from that being normal procedure (sorry), this ensures that nobody come in and write a cryptocurrency article in the mean time. I didn't have any idea how long it would be until you saw this message; if you hadn't checked back in for a day or two, there would have been plenty of time for a new spam article to appear. If you use a watchlist, please watch this page in case someone replaces it with a cryptocurrency article. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I was only joking, I know the procedure :)

Thanks for your help!

Yes, I maintain an unhealthily massive watchlist... Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I thought I'd ask, but I don't maintain one myself; I have tendencies toward edit-warring (it was the reason for the one for-cause block I've gotten), so I have to restrict myself to avoid it, and I find that it's a lot more tempting to war when I'm looking at the watchlist and seeing lots of edits I might disagree with. Easier to be oblivious than to fight the urge to revert. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Strategy Survey

I stumbled across this on a project talk page and thought it warranted wider publicity. As part of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process, nine distinct working groups are running surveys of the broader Wikimedia communities on areas that are likely of interest to all of us on enwiki.

The surveys are located here. The working groups, and topic areas being surveyed, are: Advocacy, Capacity Building, Community Health, Diversity, Partnerships, Product & Technology, Resource Allocation, Revenue Stream, Roles & Responsibilities.

I know the dates here make it sound like this is over already, but a working group member indicated that at least the Community Health one, and it sounds like all of them, will be open till next Friday.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: per this post on meta, the surveys are all open till the end of July. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

IP block issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T189362

I have 'account creation' and 'IP block exempt' status, but have just been blocked from creating an account at Coventry University, where I recently started work as Wikimedian in Residence, and am using an IP address in the range 194.66.32.0/19.

Can anyone explain why this has happened, given my user rights, and help me to overcome it? Is there a better venue to ask in? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

194.66.32.0/19 is blocked with “account creation blocked”. Amending the block to allow account creation ought resolve this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption does not allow account creation. (and discussion here) ST47 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I've commented on the Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody do that, please? Maybe user:JamesBWatson, who applied the original block? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to unblock an IP with edits like these. However, I don't see any evidence of abuse from accounts created via this IP, so I would agree with dropping the block to "anon only". Could a checkuser such as TonyBallioni or Berean Hunter confirm if there is a problem with turning off ACB, and if there isn't, recommend this course of action? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't something done to make account-requests super fast for a desired blocked range? Someguy1221 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that such edits are troubling; and clearly some action (hopefully including a prompt report to the University) was needed. But it was well over a year ago; the block is for two years and affects over 30K students and staff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy, try to create an account now and let us know if it works. It should.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: As far as I can see, the only change you have made to the block is to remove the "anon. only" flag, which will mean that Andy won't be able to edit from the IP address at all, and still won't be able to create accounts. I guess this was a mistake, but I am pinging you rather than trying to correct it just in case there is some rational explanation that I don't know about. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hanging on per James' comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I think you are looking at one that I converted into a hardblock (the troublemaker) but that isn't it. :) Andy, go ahead and try to make an account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thank you; I'm not in Coventry until Monday; I'll try then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy, have you tried this yet?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alas no, I didn't get chance today. I'll try on Wednesday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Yes, that worked. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

General solutions for event coordinators

Thank you Ritchie333 for pinging me. In general, when an event coordinator finds themselves behind a standing rangeblock there are a couple of potential solutions.

• If they don't know which IPs may be in use, or there are many, then they may email a checkuser ahead of time and if there are no problems, the checkuser can quietly turn the block off for an event. The coordinator may email the CU when it is over and they will restore the block.

• If they know particular IPs that they will be using, perhaps long term, then the better solution is to give that info to a checkuser so that they may create a pinhole block which should allow those specific IPs account creation ability. That is, a block on a specific IP overrides a rangeblock and account creation should be allowed.

Bluerasberry has had problems like this before so pinging him as an FYI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• The override sounds interesting. Just to confirm: assuming I am an admin hit by a range-ACB, can I simply additionally block my own IP non-ACB to override the account creation limitation? [I am unable to try this at the moment, but it sounds like a useful trick]. —Kusma (t·c) 14:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It should technically, yes, but admins should be careful about unblocking their own IPs. If you allowed yourself anon editing privileges on a hardblocked range, that might get you in trouble depending on the circumstances. You wouldn't want to leave an impression of IP socking AND you unblocked the IP yourself. For ACB, you probably wouldn't have any trouble. The best practice would be to contact the blocking admin or a checkuser to ask if it is alright. That way someone would know about it.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure I have had this discussion lots of times. When it happens to me I do workarounds like getting people to register on their phone's cell connection which will have another IP address. The solution that I want is that people with event coordinator rights should be able to make accounts which can immediately do live editing. I forget why this does not happen but confirm that I experience it.

If anyone makes a proposal to address the issue then I would jump into that. Probably the best place for this is the event coordinator talk page. I have faith that talking through the issues will bring a solution. The problem seems recurrent and long term but actually I think that every iteration of the discussion fixes some aspect of it and makes progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• For admins making rangeblocks, you can detect pinhole blocks on discrete IP addresses as described above by using Stalk toy thanks to Pathoschild. This tool also allows you to see overlapping rangeblocks and blocks on other wikis including proxy blocks...useful for detecting crosswiki abuse. In this example, you can see overlapping rangeblocks by JamesBWatson and a discrete IP block by Yamaguchi in the same range. If James had set a hardblock then Yamaguchi's anonblock could be exploited so James could remove that one to prevent it from happening.

• This example shows crosswiki proxy blocks where the proxies are dynamic and shifting IP addresses regularly, making that a good candidate for a rangeblock. Chuck Entz's rangeblock on Wiktionary is set to expire in about two weeks but he can feel assured that it is still an active proxy range by seeing the blocks on other projects. Of course, he can use SQL and Musikanimal's Proxy API Checker to confirm that. I did on July 2. For admins that find that tool useful, please endorse SQL's proposal on meta to keep his project going. Nevermind the last bit as they have approved it today.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Workaround

If you create accounts for your event using the Program & Events Dashboard you should avoid this issue (as the creations will be routed through the dashboard server, which is not on a blocked ip address). This is self-service, but you would want to set it up in advance of your event. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but this isn't about stand alone events, but all my work as a Wikimedian in Residence - for instance, today I helped an individual set up an account and start editing; and advised a second, separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: again this is a workaround - but what you could do is create a very long independent event in PED - let it run all year for example. You don't have to use it for article tracking, assignment, etc - you could use it just for signup and account creation. Getting ipblock-exempt to not freeze up on account creation is certainly ideal, just trying to help you do something while you wait! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm missing something, but can't the block be lifted, the account be created, and then the block re-enforced straight after? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: This is not about the creation of a single account, but that I'll be running a number of internal and public events at the university, over the next two years. The wider question of whether a 30K-strong organisation should be blocked for (coincidentaly) two years as a result of the actions of one vandal would be worthy of discussion, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for clarifying. Thought it wasn't as simple as that! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Enforced BRD vs. Consensus required

Hi all, I've been in a disagreement with Awilley for this for months, and I think this should be resolved by community consensus. As many people know, Coffee templated most of the American politics articles with consensus required, and basically made it the standard in the topic area. Awilley has basically undone this and replaced it with Enforced BRD, which he is encouraging any admin who has used consensus required to replace it with, even if it is a new sanction

All that said, this has been going on long enough, that I think having a poll of the community on this question is needed so admins can see what the general view of the community is here on the sanctions process. I'm proposing three options:

• Option 1: administrators are encouraged to use the Enforced BRD sanction to the exclusion of the consensus required sanction
• Option 2 administrators are encouraged to used consensus required to the exclusion of Enforced BRD
• Options 3 administrators are encouraged to use their individual discretion on each article they put under page-level sanctions and there is no preferred remedy in any given topic area.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 I prefer consensus required, and think it makes more sense than "Enforced BRD", but I also get that some don't like it. That's okay: the whole point of the discretionary sanctions system is that individual administrators are allowed to judge articles on their merits. As I said elsewhere today, I'm much less likely to sanction someone if they are on a consensus required article because all they have to do is agree to use the talk page to come to agreement. In my view, Enforced BRD encourages disruption and edit warring, and personally as an admin, I find it difficult to to figure out what is going on so I just ignore any page with it as a sanction, which is fine. I'm also more likely to just not put a page under page-level sanctions at all than I am to put EBRD on it, or even use standard 1RR.
  I think administrators should be trusted to use their judgement as to what the situation entails, and that there really shouldn't be a preferred sanction. During the "Coffee-era" admins didn't use CR if they didn't want to, and that's fine, but they should be allowed to use it or any sanction they think works (including Enforced BRD or no page-level sanction at all.) Having one sanction be the standard didn't serve us well when one admin did it, and I don't think it serves us well if another is doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: Can you link to the pages that describe "Enforced BRD" and "Consensus required"? Sandstein 18:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Sandstein, here is Awilley's description of the differences User:Awilley/Consensus Required vs Enforced BRD, which is written very pro-Enforced BRD. My view of it is that it encourages people to ignore talk page discussions once 24 hours are up, while CR focuses on consensus, which is what we should be going for. At the same time, I do get that in the Coffee-era it was controversial, so I don't think it should be the standard. I just think that it should be an option and that administrators should feel free to use it if they think it is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: Do not systematically use page-level sanctions. In my experience, they generate more enforcement overhead than they are worth for most articles. Most issues can be solved with user-level sanctions or full protection / semiprotection. There are some rare cases where page-level sanctions work, but I don't think we should use them across hundreds of pages. Sandstein 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd actually agree with this and was part of my thinking with "option 3". I almost included "or remedy at all" in it, and guess I should have now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 WP:ACDS refers multiple times to administrator flexibility. Option 3 seems to be the option most in line with the intent of WP:ACDS. Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Each system has its own merits and drawbacks. Administrator discretion is I think the best way to go. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Coffee originally formulated the Consensus Required rule to eliminate the following scenario common in articles with just vanilla 1RR: Editor A adds contentious material to an article; Editor B reverts (using thier 1RR); Editor A reverts (using their 1RR), leaving the article in a non-consensus state. Please read the diff. Coffee's motivation was to "reduce the unnecessary workload faced by [content] editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, [etc.]" Ironically the sanction has had the opposite effect, increasing the workload for content editors by forcing them to gain explicit talkpage consensus for any modification they want to make that might be objectionable to any partisan POV-pushing editor on either "side" of the aisle. It has enabled a generation of peanut-gallery POV pushers who consistently show up on the talk page to vote, argue, and stonewall for their side, but who never take the time to do any actual editing of the article other than the occasional "challenge" revert. Nor did Coffee (I suspect) anticipate the ambiguities (see point #7 in my essay) or the extra mental load (point #5) that would be added by Consensus Required.
  In framing the BRD rule I found myself having to make a compromise: I needed to
  1. Help return a degree of normalcy to the topic area while still blocking the 1RR loophole that Coffee was trying to eliminate
  2. Still have a sanction strict enough to be palatable to admins accustomed to Consensus Required. (At that the time the only way to remove CR was by obtaining a consensus of admins, since Coffee retired after placing the sanctions.)

Enough history. Of the above options, my first choice would be Option 4 (Sandstein). A page-level sanction adversely affects all users editing the page. I think a better approach is to place sanctions only on the "problem editors" whose edit warring led to the page being sanctioned in the first place. I actually think the CR sanction would be a fabulous sanction for individual editors who routinely revert against consensus. My second choice would probably be Option 1 since BRD is slightly better than CR, and uniformity throughout the topic area would take a mental load off the brave editors who still work there. ~Awilley (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree with Sandstein. I, as well, had come to realize that it's best to use these sparingly. Certainly, less systemically than topic|1RR, per se. I do, however, disagree with Awilley that enforced BRD is "slightly better" than CR — that line of argument has never been established to my satisfaction. Anyway, I think it's best to leave this up to admin discretion (Option 3). El_C 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - other options have benefits and drawbacks. Each option might work better on a specific article. Option 3 gives admins flexibility to apply the best approach. Option 1 could create stagnant articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru: Curious: how would Option 1 create stagnant articles? (I could see that argument being made for option 2 perhaps.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • New edits can easily be reverted if BRD is strictly enforced. But it depends on the situation. I reverted back to consensus and then another editor reverted me and cited BRD. I stated there was misleading content and I was largely ignored. I may start a RfC to fix the original research and other problematic content. I never seen an admin enforce V policy. If that happened editors would be blocked and banned very rapidly. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 and Option 4 - In other words, admins should not systematically apply page-level sanctions in the first place, but when they do, they should look closely at the previous editorial behavior on the page, and apply the sanction which makes the most sense. It would be best, in general, if an admin applying a sanction would restore the page to the status quo ante before doing so, whichever version of DS sanction tey are about to apply. In my experience, the vast majority of disruption on AP pages comes from editors attempting to change a long-standing consensus version, so reverting to that version would roll back the clock while DS sanctions have the opportunity to work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 Copy this whole discussion (proposals, votes, and responses to votes) to the village pump for proposals, since this kind of discussion doesn't belong at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Inclined to agree. The non-admin perspective is going to be under-represented on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  I chose here, because this is normally the place other than AE that discretionary sanctions are discussed and it is also an appropriate venue for dispute resolution, which at this point this is. I don't think VPP or VPR would be appropriate as there is no policy that's trying to be set, but rather the community view on a specific type of sanctions. Additionally, this issue has been discussed here before (pre-Awilley changing all of Coffee's sanctions), so it seemed like it has precedent. This board and ANI both have plenty of non-admin comments, so I don't think that's a good argument, and since it's already here, I would oppose moving it: it'd be an exercise in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and would likely receive less attention and not be resolved as quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have placed a neutral pointer to this discussion on VPP, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you BMK. I think that is a good idea while keeping this discussion visible here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 5, option 4, or option 3, in that order, for the reasons given by others above. Thanks to BMK for the pointer, it helps, but I thought the portal thread and other recent threads showed consensus for holding policy-level discussions elsewhere (and "should we have CR or EBRD on all pages in a topic area" is a policy-level discussion even if it's not about making a change to a WP:PAG). Substantively, I very much agree with Sandstein about sanctioning just the problematic editors, rather than creating unusual rules that all editors must abide by. It's what I think of when I think of WP:NOTBURO. – Levivich 00:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• A non-admin perspective. Feel free to ignore if I'm too far out of scope, I don't wish to distract from the core discussion; but I'm otherwise agnostic.
  A legitimate question is, "Why do we need different process rules for different highly contentious articles?" The only justifiable division is between highly contentious articles and everything else; the considerations at all contentious articles are the same, or close enough. It seems to me the current "flexibility" exists only because we don't want to require admins to use a single common system whether it's what they would prefer or not, and it seems to me that's a bug, not a feature. All of us are required to adapt, and freedom from adaptation should not be a perk for inducing more editors to take up the mop. We can entertain ongoing discussions about what's the optimum system indefinitely as far as I'm concerned, but there should never be more than one system in force at a given time. The whole ACDS thing needs to be overhauled, maybe even eliminated. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I think the general answer to the question "Why do we need different process rules for different highly contentious articles?" is that the nature of the behavior can differ from article to article. Not all content disputes are equal, and admins should be able to select the DS which best fits the circumstance of the editing history of each article, without having "one size fits all". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I know that's the general answer, which is why I said , or close enough. Any such benefit should be weighed fairly against its costs; at this juncture I'll assume that the costs don't need enumeration. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I really don't understand: what "costs" are you talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Absent any indication that the community is interested in such a discussion, I don't think this is the place or time for that. I've seen too many discussions derailed because editors are unwilling or unable to limit scope. It was worth a feeler, but no more at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC) How is it "derailing" a discussion if you say that using specific sanctions for specific situations has a cost, and then aren't willing to discuss what those costs are? It seems relevant to me, but if you now don't think it is, would you please strike through your previous comments concerning "costs"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC) No. I've explained myself adequately. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC) It's quite clear that you don't want to discuss this any more, but... no, you have not "explained yourself adequately", which is why I asked for an explanation in the first place. Perhaps the next time you bring up something in a notice board discussion, you might think about whether you're prepared to follow through with it. In any event, I'm collapsing this non-discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: Since this is collapsed already I'll add my 5 cents. Every page-level sanction has costs and benefits. Semi-protection reduces vandalism but also blocks constructive editing from IPs. 1RR reduces the complexity and intensity of edit wars, but also makes editing more difficult, forcing all editors to track their reverts, and can make it more difficult to revert somebody who adds a lot of new, poor quality material to an article in multiple edit sessions. Consensus Required eliminates 1RR gaming, but it adds another layer of complexity to editing, forces unwieldy talk page discussions, and it can be a turnoff for editors less invested in the topic area. BRD encourages people to use the talk page, but it also adds more complexity for users who already have rule fatigue. Full protection stops edit wars cold, but also freezes article development. ~Awilley (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC) The overall discussion is about which sanction -- if any -- is preferable, so my question to Mandruss was: what costs does he see in each course of action? His original comment seemed to be saying that multiple choices weren't necessary because of the costs involved, which begs the question of which sanction he saw as the least costly - a question he refused to respond to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer Option 3 from a non-admin point of view, as I think it presents the rules the most clearly to the users who may be involved in the edit war. This isn't just about admin actions, this should be focused on presenting users who may not be familiar with the encyclopaedia the norms by which they can be sanctioned, and I think the consensus required does that best. SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6. @TonyBallioni:, you say above that in your opinion an admin should be able to use Consensus Required or any sanction they think works, including Enforced BRD or no page-level sanction at all. I agree. But there's no option above that lets me decide to use no sanction at all. If I should look at a page and decide it shouldn't have a page-level sanction, then that's only something that happens in my head. It does not in any way prevent another admin from applying CR or whatever an hour later. They'd probably want to respect the decision taken by another admin, but they can't, because they don't know about it. IMO we should institute "no page-level sanction" as a formal alternative, and have a template for it. If A puts this on a talkpage, and B wants to have an actual page sanction, B would presumably go to A's talkpage and they can discuss it. (PS, speaking more personally, I hate all page-level sanctions except possibly 1RR. I think they're only good for gotcha AE reports.) Bishonen | talk 11:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

That is a problem with the DS system...it only allows for the escalation of sanctions. Even if I just wanted to have 1RR on a page I couldn't prevent another admin from adding consensus required or something on top of that. And since we're on the subject, there are a lot of things that I don't like about 1RR as a page-level sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• A slight aside, but regarding the Coffee scenario mentioned above, I actually raised this point many moons ago, here, but the thread passed by without further comment. When taken literally, 3RR (and indeed 1RR) are the opposite of BRD because if two parties both use up all of their available reverts, then it's the bold edit that remains rather than the previous status quo. I think it might be useful to refashion 3RR and 1RR so that an initial bold action is also included in the "revert" tallies. That would I suppose bring it more in line with the "consensus required" paradigm.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Wow, 2015. Incidentally that's the same problem I discuss at User:Awilley/Consensus_Required_vs_Enforced_BRD#A_common_scenario and half the function of the "Enforced BRD" sanction is to remedy that. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - The fact that one admin basically made up an extremely meager "alternative" to "consensus required" (i.e. actual enforced BRD), had the audacity to term it "BRD enforced", then apparently made it a personal crusade to systematically implement it is astounding. Shocking, truly. I'm extremely against this utterly-broken and ineffective sanction. I raised the fact that this sanction seemed asinine after witnessing a flow-blown edit war play out, allowable under this sanction. And the admin responsible actually said that this was intended under this sanction. Bizarre. We, as a system, should absolutely not stand behind this dreadful restriction. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC
• Option 3 IMO the most reasonable solution. By and large admins can be trusted to use their discretion, but any admin can make a GF error sometimes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - page-level sanctions should only be infrequently used, not a standard tool. Within that strict sub-set, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Admins always using the same method could be reasonably viewed as doing so poorly. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, and really not Option 1. I think the D in BRD is a key part of what makes WP different from other platforms. Surely the longer the D, the better the outcome? D also wears down the drive-by POVs and it helps gather information for revealing SOCKS; ultimately, when the D does not work and an Admin (or other ANI/ArbCom process) is called for, having a long D helps them understand the situation? Option 1, doesn't fee like "Enforced BRD", it feels like "BRD-lite" or "Temp-BRD"; surely Option 1 is an incentive to stop having the D (or just give a minor explanation), and just watch the clock for the 24-hours to pass; feels like a great tool for a sock-farm (who could even automate their reverts)? Britishfinance (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: a couple points:

1. I think there's a misunderstanding about how WP:BRD is supposed to work, probably because we always abbreviate it as "BRD". In reality it's supposed to be a relatively fast repetitive process as demonstrated by the title of the page Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as well as the last paragraph of the introduction (beginning "Cycle: To avoid bogging down in discussion...", and throughout the page (see WP:NOTSTUCK). It's supposed to be B-R-D-B-R-D not B-R-${\overline {\rm {D}}}$.
2. Regarding long D being helpful for admins: From this admin's point of view, having a long (usually convoluted) D is not paricularly helpful. I usually find the article history to be much more informative and actionable if somebody's pushing a POV.
3. Re "watch the clock for the 24-hours to pass": Again, from an administrative perspective, 1RR gaming is one of the easiest behaviors to identify and sanction. By contrast, talkpage stonewalling and WP:IDHT behaviors are notoriously hard to sanction. I sanction people for ignoring consensus or disrupting an article, not for expressing their views on a talk page.
4. Responding to your point about long discussions wearing down drive-by POV pushers: the requirement to post to the talk page at all is usually sufficient for that. The problem I am concerned with is having the emotionally invested and tenacious POV pushers wearing down the neutral editors who have better things to do with their time than to engage in circular discussions with people who are immune to logical argument.
5. Re "the longer the D the better the outcome": That has not been my experience. I think a more efficient path to "consensus" is through a combination of editing and discussion, and I think the outcome is better when content has gone through several iterations of editing, tweaking, and refining from both "sides" as opposed to a proposal and !vote on the talk page.

Apologies if this was TLDR ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, more bold edits made during discussion before a consensus has been reached can lead to hard feelings about the editor ignoring the consensus-building process. It also takes advantage of editors who don't want to edit the article until a consensus is reached should a new bold change be made and a no-consensus result ensue. Although it would be appropriate to restore the previous status quo, this would continue the edit warring cycle if done by an editor who disagrees with the change. I think the approaches described at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle § Bold (again) are more fruitful. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely true, and BRD is explicit that edits made during discussion should be taking into account the objections voiced by the other party. I wish more editors would follow the advice in the "Bold (again)" section you linked. ~Awilley (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4, although it does not exclude option 3. The problem is usually not with the content (i.e. specific pages), but with people. Not using page-level sanctions also makes life of admins much easier. Also, that was really a bad idea by Coffee. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

fb90 range

This range should NOT be blocked for one year, as it could cause collateral damage. 114.124.234.199 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Which range should not be blocked? fb90 is nowhere near enough detail, please provide a full IPv6 address or CIDR range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Educated guess: 2607:FB90::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). It doesn't have a great reputation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, check the block log there. It just came off what was basically a 2.25 year block. 1 year was conservative in this particular case. I just matched the previous block settings and set for a year knowing. If it expires July 2020, it’ll be reblocked then as well by someone. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: but 1 year's too long 36.69.145.7 (talk)

In April 2017 Graham87 blocked it for a year, to expire in April 2018. In September 2017, he extended it until April 2019. The block expired on 12 April 2019 and within less than 24 hours, Drmies had already reblocked it for three months. It then expired 4 days ago, and, as expected, the disruption immediately reoccurred. This is quite possibly the single most disruptive IPv6 range on en.wiki. Blocking it for a year was conservative given the history here. We're talking less than 5 days unblocked within 2.25 years. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of: Resysop criteria: RfC on principles

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Resysop_criteria:_RfC_on_principles. All are invited to participate TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm auto-confirmed, but don't seem to have access to edit a semi-locked page

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

---

Hello, user Nizolan recommended that I place my request here; happy to move it elsewhere if appropriate—though Nizolan also recommended that I specify that WP:PERM/C is inappropriate because I'm already a member of the group.

I want to edit the Keanu_Reeves page to reflect the actual name of is character in a particular movie. I am auto-confirmed and should be able to edit this semi-locked page, but it appears locked to me. Would appreciate help. Thank you, 12XU12XU (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you seeing? I don't see any problem with that article's protection settings, despite some weirdness of it having been moved to the MediaWiki Talk namespace at one point. The protection settings appear to be correct, and using one of my bot accounts, it looks like I should be able to edit it. Can you provide a screenshot? Are you using a proxy to edit? (Tor has higher autoconfirmed requirements, but I doubt you're using it, since you don't have IP Block Exemption...) ST47 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you try again? I've added a temporary manual confirmation to your account (which should not be necessary). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikiemirati

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.

---

Wikiemirati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hola. It would appear that user:wikiemirati has been indeffed for Sock Puppetry and his/her appeal declined. I know Socks are naughty and all, and they were a bit naive in the way they used two accounts, but the guy/gal had over 3,000 edits as Wikiemirati and 164 as the sock, which they said is the ID they use on public machines. I've seen way more egregious behaviours reported and discussed here, with initial sanctions like 24 hour blocks. As far as I can see, this is the only naughty thing they've done - is this action not a tad draconian? Not even asking for a friend, they are not even aware that I'm raising this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This should more properly be at WP:AN, but @Bbb23:, the blocking admin. The discussion about this has been blanked by the user, and they are now "retired".  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad, moved it. He was semi-retired AFAIK... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Righteous block. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple EC from ANI) As always, if Wikiemirati wants to get unblocked they're welcome to make an appeal. It seems unwise for them to do so at this time, since they don't seem to be in a good frame of mind to do so [102] but it's up to them. The community is not going to discuss an appeal by some random third party.

As a general point, a large number of editors use multiple accounts fully legitimately including for security reasons, such as one for public machines and one for devices they trust, without issue. When doing so, these editors always ensure they properly declare their alternative accounts. Calling the alternative account "Nil Einne public" is often a good first step, but there are many options.

If an editor feels there is some risk of their real life identity being connected to their account by the government or some such, and so they cannot connect their accounts publicly, informing an arbcom member or similar would be one option if they feel that's safe. Either way, it is imperative that the editor do not edit the same articles or in any way that their accounts could be connected via public data, since that's their whole point of not making it public. And frankly dodgy government agents have far more time, resources and lack of concern of being right so if any editor is on such a situation, they need to take very great care. In other words, an editor cannot claim they are unable to public link their accounts due to a legal risk, while simultaneously failing to properly separate how they use their accounts.

Therefore if an editor fails to publicly connect their accounts, and edits the same article with multiple accounts, this is always going to be viewed poorly. When the editor not only edits the same articles, but does so in a way where people could easily thing they are 2 different editors especially since their user page description of the 2 different accounts each mention a different aspect of their personal biography, this is going to be viewed even more poorly. When the editor's defence to this misbehaviour is "it was obvious I was the same person even though I participated in the same discussion under different names with user profiles with different info and never disclosed anywhere I was the same editor", well .....

Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Although consensus is not simply counting votes, in reality for a lot of poorly participate discussions, or even no discussion, a single editor pretending to be 2 different editors to participate in the same discussion or support the same edit can actually have a very significant effect on what happens in an article. Therefore IMO it's one of the most serious forms of misbehaviour that exists on wikipedia. Not as bad as copyvios, intentional outing or serious harassment but still, not some minor thing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The normal rules of notifying the editor needs to be followed if you're going to start a discussion on them at AN, no matter whether the editor is retired and also blocked so would need to post on their talk page asking for any comments on their part to be posted here. I normally do so myself when I find it has not been done but frankly I can't be bothered in this instance. Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's bad behaviour. It's just that it's the first time and it didn't seem to me to represent, say, a long-standing pattern of destructive behaviour that has been warned before. We just went straight to destruct and *poof* user gone. And, in fact, the reason this 'random third party' even thought to bring up the discussion is that the user is one of very few who contribute to UAE articles - just the sort of poorly participated in space in WP where small numbers of people can make - and do make - incredibly negative contributions that are not contested or even where a small number of collaborators - you don't even need to sock - can gang up and game consensus. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wait till it happens to you. You'll soon change your tune. it is one of the worst abuses editors can use against the project. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bottom line is the user needs to make their own unblock request (or second unblock request), in line with WP:GAB. Unless the user takes full responsibility for all of their violations and missteps and overlaps, and manages to assure admins that socking or undisclosed alternate accounts will not happen again, they will stay blocked. This thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Aethelwolf Emsworth

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.

---

• Copied from Aethelwolf Emsworth's talk page:

To the Wikipedia community.

On 28 June 2018 I was blocked indefinitely by a check-user for having violated a two-months topic ban by using undisclosed multiple accounts. I ask the community of Wikipedia to give me a second chance, giving consent to an unblock.

“Aethelwolf Emsworth” is my oldest and main account, active since 2013, with a lot of contributions. I have no past history of blocks with all but one of the accounts that I used. The account with a history of blocks is “Wddan”, with which I had conflicts with another editor and with which I often had a battleground attitude. I recognise that I had an aggressive attitude towards this other user (FrankCesco26), which culminated in a series of edit wars (and related blocks), which ultimately led to a two-months topic ban. The latter, imposed on both of us, was a decision of the community. Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.

I apologise for the battleground behaviour that I had towards the user FrankCesco26; I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. A few months ago I wrote a private email of apologies to him in order to make peace and, if unblocked, I would not continue my past battleground attitude, neither towards him nor towards any other editor.

I apologise for the use and misuse of multiple accounts. I explained in detail the reason of the practice (which I started in 2016) and the reasons of all the accounts (five in total) in this appeal, specifying that my intentions were not originally malicious and I kept the activities of the accounts separated. The purpose of the accounts was to focus on different sub-topics; another reason was to experiment new nicknames, as I tend to get tired of them. The major alternative account was “Eckhardt Etheling”, active since 2016 and with which I provided significant contributions, often in cooperation with other longstanding editors; I started “Wddan” in 2017 with the aim of focusing on another subset of topics; I started “Arcane Square” in 2017 to connect from a public line, and then I abandoned it (it was a dead account); I started “Amorphophallus Titanum” in June 2018, during the topic ban, to deal with a controversial article. If unblocked, I would not continue using multiple accounts, I would restrict my activities to “Aethelwolf Emsworth”.

Both with “Aethelwolf Emsworth” and “Eckhardt Etheling” I have also provided a lot of contributions to Wikimedia Commons, by uploading images created by myself, or appropriately licensed images from Flickr, Panoramio, or other websites from which I requested appropriate permissions. I have always been an enthusiastic contributor since I believe in the distribution of – reliably and academically sourced – knowledge. Contributing to Wikipedia, always trying to provide high quality edits, occupied much of my spare time, and I would like to resume this activity. Contributing to Wikipedia is like leaving traces of oneself in the project, and I would like them to be honourable, not a shame.

Being excluded from Wikipedia (or any human project) and losing the trust of others is a hurting experience; I have suffered seriously, mentally, from this experience. I understand the difficulty that others could have in restoring their trust in me after my mistakes. Please, consider with clemency my appeal to be unblocked, and assume good faith. Please, give me a chance. You have my word that I have learnt from my mistakes and I will not indulge in the same misconduct which led to the block.

Other talk pages:

• User talk:Eckhardt Etheling
• User talk:Wddan

Aethelwolf Emsworth

---

• As I have noted on his talk page, I performed a check and did not see any signs of socking. I also note that he has made useful contributions to Commons during his block which follows the advice given in the standard offer.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock I read through the previous block appeals on the editor's Talk page, and they've made a great deal of progress from their initial wikilawyering when the block first happened. I think this is a reasonable opportunity for WP:ROPE. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. I am a big fan of contribs to other projects during a block/ban, and would normally be inclined to accept these as positive. My problem is that, while there are 1500 Commons contribs between the three accounts, less than 200 are since last June, and the bulk of those are only beginning this April, and few if any of those appear to involve interacting with other editors rather than just editing. That’s not to say the Commons stuff is valueless, but it’s not what I’m normally looking for when pointed to contribs elsewhere. The pointing to those contribs, actually, hurts the request’s credibility in my eyes. But I’m not ready to oppose just on that. As to the request itself, I think it’s all good words, and there aren’t indica of more socking, which normally makes this a standard offer situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock User has identified the problem and averred to not repeat the behavior. Has made constructive edits and should be a net positive. WP:second chance  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock Editor seems to understand why they were blocked. Miniapolis 22:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock to give them another chance. The appeal looks promising, I hope the user abides by it. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Schazjmd and Miniapolis. Best case, they understood why they were blocked and abandon their behavior, making good edits that improve the project. Worst case, they'll get blocked again. WP:ROPE indeed. Regards SoWhy 06:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock The unblock request shows an understanding and WP:ROPE. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock- this looks like a textbook use of WP:OFFER. There's going to be plenty of scrutiny of their behaviour so there's not much that could go wrong if they decide to start being a pest again, which I doubt. Reyk _YO! 07:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Deserves a second chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Everyone deserves a second chance, Given no socking has occurred and given they understand why they were blocked I fully support unblocking. –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, but very much with an eye on Mendaliv's remarks. If AE's appeal is successful, they could do worse than take them into account in their future interactions here: show Mendaliv (and by that token, myself, I suppose) what hasn't been shown quite as well as it could've been on other projects.
  TL;DR Having said all that, it's a well-crafted unblock request which at least suggests that though and care has gone into it. That can only be a good sign. ——SerialNumber54129 16:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Had to movePyroto_Mountain

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 wanted to let the admins know that I was checking Pyroto Mountain and discovered that whoever wrote it copied it word for word from [ https://breakintochat.com/wiki/Pyroto_Mountain] which is another wiki. That didn't look right, so I pulled the page and will re-write it so that it's not word for word. Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: The other wiki has a creative commons notice, so it should be OK if we attribute the source with a link. Are you sure of which came first?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't really check the other wiki as my firewall at work will not allow it. However I can see that the majority of the text that's copyrighted came here [103] on July 10 2007.

So I'm not sure who came first right now. Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill, The page copied from us, so no attribution is necessary. Wikis tend to copy from us, so always check the pages history if you're running earwig. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Money emoji. I assume earwig is an gadget right ? Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill, Right, earwig is a tool used to scan article for copyvios. Sorry I took a bit to respond. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Abuse of the refund policy

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, not sure if this is the right avenue, but I just wanted to notify that there may be potential abuse of the refund policy in the next few hours/days following a comment from a user in this Facebook thread in the context of the recent Williamson incident. I'd suggest rejecting any refund requests made immediately or near immediately after a given donation. Thanks. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely only the WMF would know preciely when a donation was given. In any case, no-one gets special treatment and / or exemption from policy for donating. Round objects to 'em. ——SerialNumber54129 17:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Brad R. Torgersen is a live article. What does this have to do with any REFUND requests? Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: That's waht I thought too  :) but it's not WP:REFUND but donated money refund. I.e., make a tiny donation, request a refund and it'll cost the WMF more to process than it was worth. Man, what a brain these knuckle draggers have. ——SerialNumber54129 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: emailed you the screenshot. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• We should be wary of over-reacting to every bit of off-wiki spitballing. In any case, unless I have missed my chance at raking in the moolah offering my financial expertise, wikipedia admins/volunteers have no role in handling of the donations and/or refund requests. An heads-up to the concerned WMF group (anyone know which one?) should be sufficient. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed, if it's about donated money, this can be closed since we (the volunteers/admins/etc) have nothing to do with this. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Is that what was referred to, letcreate123? Primefac (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was. Apologies for the confusion and time-waste. --letcreate123 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, you had me worried there for a moment. --kingboyk (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Ayurveda

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Ayurveda&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ayurveda&action=history

• You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.

• You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.

There is a notice for editing the article. The admin who created it has since left Wikipedia. Should the notices be expunged or removed? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Related general questions

That brings up a more general question: what is the proper venue to request that discretionary sanctions for a particular article be removed or changed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that discretionary sanction editnotices should be rethought to deal with the problem of Banner blindness. Rather than all that text when one goes to edit (which is easily ignored because of its volume} a huge "1RR" (for instance), with a link to the page with all the explanatory text, would be much more effective, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we use the banner to modify some style on the page, say enclose the edit box in a thick red line that will indicate something important is happening? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That would normally be framed as an appeal at AE (or ARCA if you wish). I'd use the appeal template, fill it out as best you can, and explain why the sanction is invalid or no longer necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

ds alert silly question

Can one be issued by a non admin? Asking for a friend.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts specifically states that any editor can issue alerts. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yep. DS Alerts aren't considered sanctions or warnings, and theoretically it wouldn't be improper for anyone to give one to anybody. They're just supposed to be a notice. Heck, you could give me one. Obviously this could be abused, but disruptive alerting would probably net you a sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm and Mendaliv: had a memory lapse.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What I've been wondering is that, would such DE fall under the DS itself or an unilateral administrative sanction? --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, I think that it should be interpreted as falling under the discretionary sanctions because if broadly construed discretionary sanctions do not apply to the sanctions themselves, I'm not sure what they would apply to, except explicitly named articles. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it would depend on context. If a participant in a dispute for one of the areas in question were to start sending out unnecessary awareness messages, this could reasonably be construed as an extension of the dispute and so within the scope of discretionary sanctions. If some newbie just learns about discretionary sanctions and thinks it would be a good idea to go through articles related to a given area and blanket warn editors of those articles, I feel this lies more under the general category of disruptive editing, and so the usual methods of handling disruption apply. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Might have posted a small dilemma, guess we can see it unravel on-wiki, if that ever happens. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The rules on issuing alerts are themselves part of DS, so admins have the option of issuing sanctions under DS for inappropriate alerting. They could also bring it to a discussion here if they preferred, for whatever reason, or possibly block as a normal admin action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Standard offer request - Elisa Rolle

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.

---

Elisa.rolle (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely last year, has appealed to take the standard offer on the grounds they do not wish to create new articles (which is how they originally got blocked over copyright concerns) but update existing ones with sources. She gave an example of Eda Lord Dixon as an article to work on, which she started in September 2017‎ and does not appear to have any blatant problems with close paraphrasing.

If you support or oppose an unblock, please say so and clarify why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Here or there?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Also to clarify: Ritchie333, you might accidentally give people the impression that this is somehow connected to WP:FRAMGATE, and that there might be some behavioural issue on behalf of the blocing admin to be considered? Perhaps you could catagorically state that that is not the case, as one does not build up a block log such as this without there being some smoke to the fire. I note five indefinite blocks by four admins, and one of which includes the removal of talk page access for disruptive editing. ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify I think Fram acted within the bounds of administrator discretion. I think there is a discussion on Elisa's talk page about six months ago where I politely discussed an unblock with Fram, but Elisa was not interested so we agreed to drop the issue and leave the block in place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram has taken 28,107 administrator actions. If Fram were taking 1 action per day, that would be 76 years' worth of administrator actions. Can I suggest that we, as a rule, assume discussions outside of WP:FRAMGATE/WT:FRAMGATE/an ArbCom page are not being instigated by the Fram Ban events unless somebody actually says otherwise? AGK ■ 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Well, quite; except that no-one has suggested that it is. ——SerialNumber54129 17:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: you were the one who introduced FramGate into the conversation 😉  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I know. But AGK "suggested" that we don't assume everything is connected to framgate; I merely pointed out that no-one had. Yes, I mentioned it: but that's not the same "assuming all discussions outside of" etc etc as AGK says. R333 knew wot I meant. Bizarre that the arbcommie didn't  :) ——SerialNumber54129 08:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: My interpretation was that, in response to your comment "you might accidentally give people the impression that this is somehow connected to WP:FRAMGATE, and that there might be some behavioural issue on behalf of the blocing admin to be considered? Perhaps you could catagorically state that that is not the case", AGK replied "Can I suggest that we, as a rule, assume discussions outside of WP:FRAMGATE/WT:FRAMGATE/an ArbCom page are not being instigated by the Fram Ban events unless somebody actually says otherwise". i.e. AGK was saying that in their opinion there's no need for Ritchie to make any comment about Fram at all on a thread of this nature, and that it isn't necessary for him or any other editor commenting on Fram's past blocks to state anything in regard to FRAMGATE. AGK can correct me if I'm mistaken, but it looks like they're not just suggesting we don't assume things are connected to Framgate, they're also suggesting that we don't need to mention it at all, since nobody would reasonably assume it was connected. I don't think this is a very important issue, but since we're discussing it we might as well establish what the actual situation is! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly right. I'm not sure how we got crossed wires here. AGK ■ 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Second chance. I don't think the problems will repeat, and we will gain a constructive editor. (Had a discussion with GMG via email that changed my mind.) (Fram not a factor in my choice)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot-- must adhere to 1RR and not manually archive.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of thoroughness, we should document "no more copyvio's" I know it's a given, but we should be clear.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to SchroCat and WBG's opposes, she was blocked for those issues, and if unblocked must adhere to 1) no copyvio's, 2) 1RR, 3) no manual archives of talk page contents. These problems have hopefully been dealt with and the user know understands that such behavior is unacceptable. While caution is understandable and necessary, this is what 2nd chances are for.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on the unblock, but the no manual archive and 1RR are a must. Elisa’s history on this project is one of only talking to people who sing her praises, and ignoring criticism, even constructive. Communication is required, and these restrictions will force it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Ritchie333 did the right thing in bringing this here for review. While the talk page is the normal process for unblocks, a reviewing admin may bring it to AN if they feel uncomfortable making the call unilaterally. The split reaction to this request shows why an admin unilaterally handling the request either way would have been a bad idea. Elisa is a polarizing figure, and any action on this either way would have caused a fuss. This is a situation where community review is helpful and not added bureaucracy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have no clue as to why this is being dealt over here. The last time we tried this, an unilateral admin block got converted into a CBan. Still, to copy my comments from her t/p:- I am opposing any unblock request unless Elissa elucidates about (1) whether she finds anything wrong with her prior behavior, when in disagreement with other users, (2) if yes, how does she plan to rectify it and (3) her understandings of WP:CANVASS. Also, any unblock shall include an indefinite 1RR restriction. Nothing in her unblock requests (so far) cover her edit-warring tendencies and/or battleground behaviour, when subject to scrutiny for legitimate reasons. 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs)

It's being "dealt over here" because that is the procedure documented in Wikipedia:Standard offer#How does it work?. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it is documented over an essay, do you even read what you cite? The standard offer applies to community-based indefinite blocks and bans .... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I'll be.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, not to make a big deal out of it, but I have always understood that single admin blocks have to be 'community based' because the community grants the block button permission, which is used to effectuate consensus. And bans are generally community based. And Standard Offer discussions occur, here or AN/I (almost always here) when an admin does not want to unblock on appeal on their own, and have to occur here if there is there is a ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We actually make the Standard Offer in non-community based blocks. First time I've seen one brought here, but the alternative is for admins to achieve consensus and grant/decline SO blocks on the appealant's talk page. I think this is better here than the other way.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The downside is that if a discussion fails to achieve consensus to unblock, that gets turned to a community-enforced site-ban pending which the editor needs to mandatorily take the community into confidence (rather than a single admin), before any return. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that's a bad thing.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. A commitment to work in different areas gives a good indication they they wish for a clean start and to work in different topic areas. Apply the conditions Tony mentions, of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Unblock conditional on the above proposed editing restrictions. There have been some issues in the past, but I think that they can be overcome. As always, it's on the editor what they do with the rope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• The problems are well documented and it should be easy to see if they recur, so I'd support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Copyright guru Diannaa opposes unblock, and her judgment is way better than mine on the subject, so I'm switching to Oppose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I asked Winged Blades of Godric to be specific about their concerns and they were unable or unwilling to provide the information they are concerned about. See here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I guessed that she was competent enough to maneuver through t/p history (which I pointed to her) but the inability is not much surprising, either. See this thread over here t/p, wherein I had provided the relevant diffs of Elisa's battleground behavior and an affinity for inappropriate canvassing. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment)Winged Blades of Godric, that first passive-aggressive sentence was rather uncivil and inappropriate to the discussion. creffett (talk)

  Winged Blades of Godric the burden is on you to show an issue. Was it so hard to dig up what you thought was the problem? Obviously, you were able to provide examples quite quickly, but you want the rest of us to do the work for you and assume what you might find offensive or problematic. Thank you for finally responding. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Meh. You might try going after the other editors who have supported sanctions w/o any diffs, too. When her entire t/p history is a fine exhibit of non-collaborative battleground behavior, providing diffs is an unnecessary luxury. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric I'm not worried about other editors right now. I'm trying to have a discussion with you to understand what your issues were. So why did this edit, for example, bother you so much? Why is this one considered snarky? These two are very low level expressions of frustration, IMO. I wouldn't be bothered by these, for example. Please ping me if you respond. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  The second diff is relatively benign but adds to the scenario, esp. the assumption in the edit-sum that the editor knew she is retired but yet, is indulging in such stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 20:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  One of the last people who was systematic in engaging with the sub-standard work Elisa.rolle has pedalled on the project was Fram. Thanks to T&S we are now in a situation where editors are now afraid to deal with serial copyright violators in any focussed or systematic manner, as they too will disappear into the night. T&S have initiated a climate of fear for anyone who wants to try and track editors who should not be on the project at all. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, per Dlohcierekim, specifically: "Second chance. I don't think the problems will repeat, and we will gain a constructive editor... must adhere to 1RR and not manually archive... we should document "no more copyvio's". --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Unblock - I believe in second chances, They've identified where they went wrong and have stated they'll steer clear from article creations for now so I see no reason why they should remain blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock with 1RR restriction and mentoring on copyvio concerns. Elisa needs to understand that our copyvio policies are not up for debate, they are the law, and WP has to follow the law. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. Before this block, Elisa.rolle was a useful contributor to the project, if occasionally a little too sloppy with copyright. The indefinite block was excessive and the unblock request indicates that she intends to be more careful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. She seems willing to learn from past mistakes and be a constructive editor. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. It looks like I'll be in a minority of one two, but this was a disruptive editor with no grasp of copyright, too free-and-easy with the revert button, and a bad case of ICANTHEARYOU. This piece of polemicis just an extended personal attack. This and this are enough for me to oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• It was buried in his comment, but I think WBG also opposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• So he did. Thanks BMK. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support I’m seeing a lot of voices I respect in the support column (though I also have respect for the folks in the oppose column). The worries I’d normally have are assuaged by their support. I agree with the conditions on an unblock, provided they will expire after a reasonable time (I have often voiced my frustration with undocumented and permanent editing restrictions). I think we should plan on these ad hoc unblock conditions expiring in six months, or permit them to be revisited in six months with a presumption that they’ll be lifted unless there is consensus to maintain them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  In light of the new opposes, I am now going to condition my support on someone, or a few someones, stepping up as a sort of surety for Elisa—basically someone that’s going to take responsibility for her edits and will directly support her remedying the CCI problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  A point of policy: WP:CBAN states that if this request fails the indef converts to a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock, On the condition that she helps out with her massive CCI. She doesn't need to help out that much, but offering guidance on it would be helpful.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 22:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus christ, my jaw dropped when I saw that list Nosebagbear (talk)

You think that's bad? Look at this. Keep in mind, aside from about 5 other people or so, I'm the only person who really works on CCIs on the entire site.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 22:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how CCI works, but is she even allowed to participate? Also, what's the criteria for inclusion on that list? Is it just every page she's ever edited, or is that a list of stuff that's likely/confirmed problematic? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

CCIs can only be investigated by people who have a good understanding of copyvio policies, so I don't think Elisa should go near that. AFAIK it is simply a log of every article she has edited, how many times, and how much text was added. I've done a quick sweep and found a couple of G12s, but most of it was okay. If a bunch of us here dive in and deal with it, we should make light work of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting that she edit the CCi directly, but that she help with resolving the problem. I'm just not comfortable with unblocking someone -- even with the stipulations listed above -- who has caused such a large problem in the past, without requiring that she help with the clean up before going about general editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• How about this - what if Elisa Rolle is unblocked specifically so that she can clear up that CCI mess, and once she has done so to the satisfaction of the community, then she can be unblocked in general, subject to the stipulations mentioned above? I'm really not in favor of editors making a large number of copyright problems and being given a second chance without doing something about them. This is also in light of her having copyright issues on Commons as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Given that the suggestion that any unblock be tied to clearing up the copyright mess hasn't really been taken up, and therefore has no chance of being passed, I think that opposing the unblock is the only reasonable option, especially given the comments below, particularly Diannaa's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional but non-draconian support - that is a staggering CCI file. I think the idea that she has to resolve it to community satisfaction before doing anything else would be an impossibly stringent condition, even if it would be nice. The normal conditions (1RR et al), plus at least a good-faith effort to look over pages 1-40 (the undone ones) would show effort and awareness without going OTT Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm seeing many people ask about CCI here. For info on what to do at CCI, please read User:Money emoji/Money's guide to CCI 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 23:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I've never interacted with Elise.Rolle but she showed up on on my watchlist, turning an article into an overly long list complete with linked pages. I glanced at some of the articles she started and found issues that needed addressing but never said anything. I also have CCI on watch and was aware of the extensive CCI file, so was a little surprised to see such overwhelming support here. I won't support or oppose (though I'm leaning oppose). Generally it does show good faith and helps enormously for the article creator to help tackle a file of that size. There aren't enough people working at CCI, and cleaning files takes years, decades. Each sentence has to be checked against each source - it's intensive and thankless work. Often it's easier to stub down or delete articles, but there were issue when some of Elise's articles were sent to AfD, something else to take into consideration. At the least someone who is familiar with CCI, how to avoid close paraphrasing, etc. should be willing to work closely with her. The unblock request indicates the desire to use specific sources for specific articles, but in my view there should be some sort of probation period where any articles created are checked closely. Fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  I've been wondering about the point Mendaliv made above, that the indef will convert to a community ban if this succeeds (I wasn't sure). Does anyone know whether Elisa.rolle has been made aware of the arcane differences between indef & community ban? In the least, I think someone should explain it to her. For some reason this situation is leaving a bit of a bad taste for me. On the one hand it's best to have the person who creates articles to be involved in the clean up (for a variety of reasons) which is a strong incentive to allow her to continue editing; on the other hand tackling such a large CCI file really does need someone willing to pitch in and help her. And that requires someone with time & experience in copyvio cleanup. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Victoria, the only practical difference is that a CBAN requires a discussion like this to unblock, and Elisa was already controversial enough that no admin was going to unblock without an AN discussion, so there is zero practical change in her situation if this isn't accepted. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Truth has not been told. It is patently obvious that Elisa.rolle's text in the appeal is of two entirely different standards. The editor appears incapable of writing anything but seriously flawed English, then the text switches gears to something flawless. The editor plainly has a fundamental lack of English competence driving the irresistibility of copying others' text. That this is a feature of the appeal process itself is astonishing, to put it mildly. If it counts, I strongly oppose the appeal and, in doing so, believe there is certainly no loss to the encyclopaedia. sirlanz 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• It is hard for editors who do not have a mastery or a source's language to take information from that source and word it properly in an article so that no copyright violations are made. However, the tides of the project are changing. Editor interactions, and not project accuracy, seem to be the priority now, so sure why not unblock? If Elisa fills the project again with copyright violations or errors, who cares? Just as long as nobody is rude to her when they clean up the mess. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Also to clarify - I do not actually support an unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, why not unblock. The new normal is to protect people who have poor writing skills, have a long-ish pattern of not wanting to understand our policies, have had some sort of interaction with Fram, and are keen on reducing the alleged gender gap. It's a new form of unblockable, and who gives a crap about policies or competence. I note the rapid influx above of a group of WiR members within 90 minutes - presumably all watchers of the appellant's talk page. I'm tempted to make a visit to a branch of William Hill because there are two likely scenarios here: a reblock before long or a block of someone deemed to be a harasser simply for keeping an eye on things. Blocks are cheap, as people have said, and the integrity of the project (including CCI stuff) is no longer of much significance. Incompetence is highly rewarded, as evidence by WMUK last week, so let's reinforce the trend and demonstrate to the WMF that we are capable of being nice, even if daft. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I was being rather sarcastic above. I don't want to see the block overturned but am rapidly coming to the conclusion that tolerating such people and being kind etc trumps any number of problematic behaviours and that attaching oneself to the WiR Project pretty much guarantees some vocal support for such daft actions. If that is indeed the new normal then, yes, unblock and I'll watch from the sidelines as the project goes to hell in a handcart. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock - entirely per Sitush. -- Begoon 08:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• ...and also per Sitush's clarification, if that was in doubt. -- Begoon 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I rarely oppose an unblock and only do so with reluctance but having had a limited interaction with this editor I don't think they have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit. [104] The article in question that she is ranting about was appalling. It contained quotes from works of fiction as citations, contained numerous factual errors that weren't supported by the citation and a number of unreliable sources that were blogs or SPS. Whilst attempting to clean it up, Elisa embarked on the edit war that resulted in her block, refused to discuss, presumed that material was being removed for bad faith reasons and elicited other members of WiR to support her in edit warring to preserve an article that was frankly crap and should have been deleted. The final straw was abusing her talk page with a mass ping as a rallying call whilst blocked. Some members of WiR have encouraged this bad behaviour and I see they are once again acting en masse to ask for her unblock. They would be better served encouraging her to stop the behaviour that lead to her block and stop telling her she is a brilliant editor. I am minded to oppose because from the responses I've seen so far I really doubt she gets it. WCM_email 10:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Dear God, no per WCM. I'm seeing massive issues in their editing history and an unblock request that doesn't even begin to acknowledge the damage done. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wee Curry Monster. There's no way this is going to end well. Reyk _YO! 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I want to clarify something, because above people are saying things like "well the WMF's Trust and Safety's new rule is you can be incompetent as you like as long as you play nice". If I had to pick an editor I have previously managed that has similar parallels to Elisa, it would be Winkelvi, who is definitely nowhere near the same demographic. I spent numerous occasions trying to unravel Winkelvi's disruption, assume good faith at their end, see a way forward, and try and trade off an indefinite block against some sort of other restrictions. Ultimately it didn't work out, and Winkelvi got the boot, but I don't think we're at that stage with Elisa yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uh, that's not how I remember it. You blocked Winkelvi for a relatively minor infraction (and for an edit that undoubtedly improved the encyclopedia), and immediately came to the noticeboard, where Winkelvi was community banned in short order. You realize if this unblock approval fails, Elisa.Rolle will also be community banned? Shame on you for misrepresenting that situation. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I'm referring to things much earlier than that, such as this attempt to replace a 3 month block with a 1RR restriction in March 2017, and before that this review and unblock in January 2016. I reviewed the late 2018 block at AN because I felt it would be controversial and might be reduced to "time served". As for "You realize if this unblock approval fails, Elisa.Rolle will also be community banned?" - indeed I do. Haven't we just had a couple of weeks of people getting absolutely hysterical because the WMF imposed a ban when the community should have been doing it? So here is the community deciding whether or not to ban someone, making the Wikipedia consensus system work as it is designed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I don't see a net benefit to the encyclopedia in unblocking. The user lacks competence to edit and they have shown no real understanding of how serious their copyvios have been.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock: Anyone who calls this a second chance is mistaken; this would be a fourth chance, as the user has been blocked three times in the past for violations of the copyright policy. What's going to be different this time? And so far I don't see anybody volunteering to monitor her contribs (this would be an absolute necessity, given the scope of the problem). I am not volunteering to do it; I don't have time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diannaa. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Noting that the polemic SchroCat highlighits led to two further indefinite blocks, and, rather than seemingly having learned anything from the experience (and of the community's expectations, for that matter), it was shortly followed with this business: there will be always someone saying 3,4,5 indef blocks (even if 1 or 2 of them are questionable?) Then block her again fir whatever reason they coukd think, which I think illustrates the depth of their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, the lack of WP:AGF towards community norms and those promoting them, and the WP:IDHT regarding their breach of those policies and guidelines. They literally do not appear to understand that what they did was wrong and that it was they that were at fault for not conforming to Wikipedia, not Wikipedia's fault for not conforming to them. Furthermore, not understanding this after five indefinte blocks is verging even further into the WP:CIR territory which has been mentioned already. I fear that, fundamentally, they became a time sink: yes they were prolific, but it seems to have been a matter of quantity over quality, and required the time and effort of many editors to "tidy up" after them. Indeed, I imagine that had they been slightly less prolofic they may have reduced the copyright violations to the extent that they would not now be in this position.
  The bottom line must be that—per WP:GAB—to successfully appeal a block, one must understand what you did and why you have been blocked; I see neither, unfortunately, in this request. ——SerialNumber54129 16:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diannaa. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diannaa and Serial Number 54129. The editor was blocked for copyvio in July 2017, which was conditionally lifted 4 days later, then blocked again for copyvio in January 2018. With an extensive discussion getting the editor to acknowledge the problem and agree not to do it again, the block was lifted. Those were the opportunities to show that they understood the problem with their editing and to stop doing it. In March 2018 discussion, Elisa.rolle stated I understand than this is the last chance unblock. That "last chance unblock" was followed by a block for disruptive editing and a block for "extensive copyvio". I don't see any new comprehension in the latest block appeal to justify another opportunity. Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Sitush and Diannaa. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose unblock per opposers, especially Sitush, User:Serial Number 54129 and Diannaa. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock- (edit conflict) I usually am inclined to AGF with editors when they have problems. But copyvio concerns are difficult to clean up (my latest editing is primarily removing copyvio). Diannaa is one of -if not the- best when it comes to copyvio cleanup. If she is against unblocking, I must be too. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - given the degree of disruption that she caused in the past - copyvios particularly, but the other behaviour as well as pointed by other editors above - to the point that per User:Schazjmd she acknowledged the last unblock as "the last chance unblock", I think I would have high expectations of an unblock request here. They're not close to being met. Kahastok talk 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock How many last chances do disruptive editors get? Why does this person get so much leeway when the documented issues are so pervasive and damaging to Wikipedia that they have 4 separate indefinite blocks? In my opinion the benefits do not outweigh the risks in letting this editor return. Nobody's work is that indispensable. Valeince (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock per Valeince. "Last chance" has to mean something. Buffs (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Long history of copyright violations and combative behavior, and having looked at Eda Lord Dixon, future productivity seems marginal when offset by the copyediting necessary to deal with her inability to write grammatical English. I think she would be better off contributing to her native-language Wikipedia. Choess (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Diannaa. Hut 8.5 21:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I don't know anything about this editor and I'm a huge believer in second chances. I usually support giving anyone an opportunity to come back and redeem themselves. But I admire the work of Diannaa even more and I trust her opinion more on copyright violations than my own sympathies towards a blocked editor. Cleaning up copyright violations is a thankless job and I would advocate denying anyone who causes more work for our limited pool of editors and admins a chance to create more work for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Response(s) from Elisa.rolle

I want to set up a seperate section for ER's response(s) so they can be separated from the discussion and more visible with better flow-through.

copyvio: I think I read a comment of an opposer saying that if the block was lifted, I was probably to edit few more time, few things and then abandoon the project. If I read correctly that was a negative thing according to the commenter. Sorry I do not see the comment anymore, but I'm sure I read it today. I do not think the "abandoning the project" part would happen, but yes, the first part is correct, but I do not see it as a negative thing. I also read someone else saying that the fast pace I was contributing was part of the issue, and that if I was slower the output of my experience would have been different. With this last comment I completely agree. I do not want to engage in from the scratch article because, as Mr Ernie said, it's difficult for a non-native English speaker to grasp the concept of paraphrasing and it's more likely to incur in copyvio for close paraphrasing. Moreover I do not want to contribute much, at a fast pace, because I want to be careful with what I'm contributing. Limiting the number of edits, and their extension, seems to be a good approach. Moreover, as I said, I would be comforable in using source in Public Domain, again in a limited way, i.e. source tagged as Public Domain clearly published before 1923, but not other sources (if not maybe consulting with an expert user). Therefore also this is limiting my range of action, after all, public domain source before 1923 on my field of expertize (women and LGBTQ history) are not so many.

edit warring: I did not state it since this was not part of the current block, but of the previous one and I had already agreed with Tony Ballioni to a 1RR for six months. Indeed it is my intention to not use the revert at all. If I see a vandalism (and it has to be a vandalism and not a contribution I do not agree with), it was my intention to ask to some other expert user to have a look and decide what to do. I know this is moving the effort to someone else, but I hope vandalism on the articles I'm monitoring will not happen often. Moreover it's my intention to not contest anymore the RfD on my articles. If an RfD will happen, I will let other users decide if it's worth to contest it or no. Again this will prevent further more the chance of edit warring.

battling: I think I answered above, but maybe I can add that Tony Ballioni put in place a bot that is archiving my talk page every 7 days. Again it's my intention to let the bot active and to not manually archive my talk page. moreover, it's my intention to use my talk page just to communicate for above point, asking for help on specific topic (or maybe for that I will use the specific user talk page). I should specify that when I said I'm a completely different user, I was true: in January of this year something happened in my life that was at the same time devastating but it also relieved me of a lot of stress, so, yes, I'm sort of subdued now, but maybe that is a good thing linked to this point. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

Break 1

• I realize this has been closed and that by posting here I'm probably breaking every rule in the book - I'll take the consequences. To be clear: I don't disagree with the result given the large CCI file, but had I been in Elisa.rolle's shoes I would have wanted to someone to explain very clearly that moving the unblock request most likely would result in a community ban with page tagging etc. I would have wanted the choice to rescind the request and keep the status quo. I very much hope this wasn't sold to her as a slam-dunk, easily done now that the blocking admin is not with us - sorry, sensitive wiki-politics but the elephant in the room. I also would have wished the person/s assisting with the unblock to find willing helper/s to assist with clean up. In my view this was poorly done and could have been avoided. At the least, as a gesture of goodwill can we place {{no index}} tags on her talk page, find the archives and have those no indexed as well? Happy to have this comment blanked if it's too out of line. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Victoriaearle, I'm very concerned about the way this unfolded, and I've asked that it be reopened. I'll write up more shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking as what appears to have been the only person never to have encountered this editor before, and as someone who neither supported nor opposed, I agree with User:Victoriaearle. The comments here which led to the request being filed give the clear impression that unblocking is sure to happen and the review would just be a formal rubber-stamping, whereas it's obvious just looking at the list of previous warnings in Elisa.rolle's talk history that without a very detailed addressing of previous concerns this was very unlikely to succeed, and there doesn't appear to have been any explanation that in these circumstances unblock requests are a one-shot deal and a failed appeal would make further appeals much more difficult. I have no issue with the close itself—this was a crystal-clear "no consensus to unblock"—but I do feel Ritchie333 needs to be far more careful when it comes to giving blocked editors false hopes. ‑ Iridescent 15:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Tony wrote above that no admin would have unblocked Elisa without a community discussion, but that's not correct. I was considering unblocking in August 2018 after Tony's one-month block, but Elisa decided to sit it out rather than appeal. See this discussion, where I explained my concerns about that block, which I think should not have happened. While sitting it out, Elisa posted on her talk page suggestions for articles about women. Fram found that one of these posts, dated 18 August 2018 and addressed to SusunW, had copied text from this museum webpage, which is why it's revdeleted; admins see here. The post contained suggestions about articles about women, e.g. "Martha Symons Boies: "She arrived in laramie, Wyoming in a horse drawn cart with her children in 1868. She became the first woman in the world appointed as a balliff. ..." The mistake Elisa made was that she didn't include quotation marks. Fram then blocked her indefinitely.
  When I saw Elissa's current unblock request, I began reviewing her edits with a view to unblocking, but then Ritchie brought it here. Ritchie did so after asking Elisa whether she wanted him to do that, and she agreed, but she agreed without realizing that an AN discussion might lead to a community ban, which no single admin could undo. That should have been explained to her. The question now is whether Elisa has added copyvios to articles after last being warned not to, or whether she is being banned now for something she had already stopped doing, apart from that one post on her talk page in August 2018. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, she hasn't added copyvios to articles since she was blocked, but has managed to add one to her talk page, which is just as bad or even worse. She was blocked by Fram for continuing to add copyvios to WP. Given the long list of violations, the polemical talk page, the edit warring and IDONTHEARYOU approach, I'm not sure anything should be done about the close. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hi, Sarah. Thanks for the ping. Sorry for being overly broad: a better way of phrasing it would have been, taking an appeal of this sort to AN would be the norm for someone with as many blocks and as many other issues as Elisa, especially given how controversial past blocks were. As I mentioned above, the only practical difference between a ban and an indef is that a ban formalizes the requirement for review at AN, which given the level of opposition here, makes sense going forward, even if it could have been explained better to Elisa. An individual admin unblocking over this consensus without seeking a new one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tony, the problem is that, as a matter of fact, I was going to unblock her, unless I found something in her edits that clearly spoke against it. Had Ritchie not said anything, she would now almost certainly be unblocked. I was considering accompanying the unblock with an offer to keep an eye on her for the next year or so, and help her to rewrite anything she had difficulty summarizing. So we have moved from a likely unblock and informal mentorship to a community ban in less than 48 hours, because Ritchie did not explain to Elisa what she was agreeing to when he offered to post here. That doesn't seem fair. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest, if you had unblocked her I suspect someone would have taken it here for review and she would have been banned under a different heading. That talk page is watched so closely by people on both “sides” that pretty much any action taken was going to end up here. That’s my reading of the situation at least. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this. As I said on Elisa's talk page, I was happy to unblock but I suspect had I done so I would have had a lynch mob on my talk page. The only sane and fair option seemed to take it to here and see what the community said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi TonyBallioni, I didn't get chance to reply to you last night - I'd already logged out and this morning the ban had been enacted. Sarah and I are probably coming at this from different perspectives: but my concern last night and now, is essentially what Iridescent said. Elisa should have been given the option not to follow through with this action. She should have had the consequences explained to her very clearly. I'm not an admin, a ten year veteran, and I don't quite understand the arcane rules. We can do better and I think we should do better. Anyway, in the least in case she edits under her real name she's entitled to privacy. I can't remember whether talk pages are now automatically no indexed, but to be sure I've tagged her pages. Not wanting to relitigate here, but we must keep in mind that behind each computer screen sits a person with real feelings and these discussions are brutal and frankly this could have been avoided. Victoria (tk) 16:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: User talkpages are "automatically noindexed via a software setting" on enwiki. I agree with the rest of your comment, fwiw. Abecedare (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping SlimVirgin I have been following the situation even if I did not comment. As a non-admin, I do not even know if I am allowed to comment here, but it seemed to me, that any invite to have the community provide input would result in the foregone conclusion that unfolded. I understand the reluctance of many for her continued involvement in the project, but also am aware of circumstances that have changed for her and the enormous resource she could be for the project. Difficult as it is, and personally believing that her circumstances and attitude have changed, the bright line is that there is no way to assure the community that copyvios would not be reintroduced, which is a legitimate concern; that might only have been mitigated by a mentorship such as you proposed. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• The mistake Elisa made was that she didn't include quotation marks. I don't believe that is accurate. The edit copied the whole "The Thirteen Honored Women" list and text from this webpage and pasted it onto wikipedia. I'll yield to subject experts like Diannaa or Moonriddengirl but IMO that is as clear-cut a copyvio as it gets, and even including quotation marks wouldn't let it qualify as fair use. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's mildly bizarre—not to say disquietening—to hear that a couple of quotation marks could have made ~400 words of verbatim text suddenly OK. I do not understand this. ——SerialNumber54129 16:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • (+1) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Re: quotation marks, I didn't mean it quite as flippantly as that. I do take your point. But had she added attribution and quotation marks, it would have made a big difference. Bear in mind that the museum website wanted to promote those women. I suspect the original author would be upset to learn that Elisa was indefinitely blocked for reproducing those words on her own talk page in the hope they would lead to Wikipedia articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Sarah, I believe we do editors and the project a disservice when we minimize the problems with their edits or try to come up with speculative reasons on why clear-cut violations of our policies may have been ok. Better to be be polite but clear with them on how the edits are problematic and how those problems can and cannot be resolved. I am not familiar with Elisa.rolle's editing and have not participated in any related discussion but if before her blocks experienced users had been telling her that copyright violations could be resolved by adding quotation marks then, as Victoriaearle said in relation to the unlock request, the problem perhaps lies as much with our processes as with the editor, who would have been justifiable confused by the misinformation. Perhaps we all need to think about how polite honesty can be preferable to paternalistic coddling/enabling of problematic editing. Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• I made the first oppose! vote (up above) and raised this very line of reasoning over the first two lines of my statement:- that if the discussion ended in a No-Consensus, she ends up CBanned. This review-by-community is a gamble that can easily backfire and I found it ethically unfair for her to end up in such a state, w/o being explicitly warned of the consequences. Ritchie instead cited me an essay (that did not say what he thought it to have said) and later attacked me over other venues. I expect that Elisa viewed my comments and she did not raise any issue, either. So, nothing more to look over here. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• In reviewing Elisa's talk page, I see not a single mention of WP:CBAN in the discussion prior to this thread being opened at AN. It's obvious the editor wasn't aware of this risk. While WBG raised it (kudos for that), at the time he made that comment, it seemed like this was going to consensus to unblock. So if I were Elisa, at that point, I wouldn't have pulled back. (Also, she may not have fully understood what WBG was saying.) Then–boom–the wind shifts and it's a CBAN. I was stupefied when I saw this almost happen to Lpac, and it's my personal feeling that of all the arcane, byzantine rules on Wikipedia, the unsuccessful-unblock-request-turns-into-CBAN rule is the most Kafkaesque, bizarre, unfair, "gotcha" rule of them all. In no other aspect of the world is there a rule that if you appeal, and your appeal is denied, your punishment gets worse. That's crazy! The whole rule should be repealed. And barring that, there should be a DS-like "awareness" requirement where, before you can be subject to the "unsuccessful-appeal-CBAN", you get a template on your talk page that clearly spells out the risks you are taking by requesting the appeal. – Levivich 16:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not true re: "no other aspect of the world", eg: at least some bits of the UK. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Levivich, it's not going to be repealed. It actually does make sense when one thinks about it; the alternative is that if someone appeals and one admin supports the appeal and a hundred people oppose it, the blocked editor returns to the status quo ante of "any admin can unblock" and can ask that one admin to do so, disregarding the hundred opposers, and still be within policy. My issue is that unless one really stops to think about it this isn't at all intuitive, and people lodging appeals don't have it made clear to them that they run this risk. (FWIW, I have no idea where you live, but certainly where I live In no other aspect of the world is there a rule that if you appeal, and your appeal is denied, your punishment gets worse isn't at all the case; appeals courts will fairly regularly increase sentences if they feel either that the appeal was vexatious or that the original judge was too lenient.) In this case the problem was exacerbated, in my opinion, by someone in good faith egging Elisa.rolle on to request an unblock in such a way as to give the impression that the unblock was certain to be granted and that the appeal was just a formality, which is understandably likely to have caused her unnecessary distress—at an absolute minimum, she should have been warned "people are going to raise the issues that got you blocked and you need to be prepared to explain why it won't happen again". ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thx Si and Iri. I live in the US, where appeals courts generally can't increase a sentence; I should have said, no where else is the increase an automatic consequence of an unsuccessful appeal. If an editor were to post a block review to challenge a block, and the review results in an increase of the block length, that's a whole world away from an editor requesting a WP:Standard offer and the denial of that request turning into an automatic "life sentence" (community ban). I understand the rationale–that a single admin cannot unilaterally unblock when the community has decided not to unblock–and I also understand that even if we didn't have such a rule, that would be what would happen in practice anyway, because few admin would overrule consensus by performing a unilateral unblock when community consensus was against it (right?). So, Iri's right, the rule won't be repealed, it's actually a natural outcome of the interaction of individual admin actions and community-based actions in these situations. Iri-gardless, I think we make it a requirement that in order to appeal a block to the community, the appealing editor must post on their talk page something like, "I am requesting a community appeal and I understand that if my request is not granted, my block will become a WP:CBAN." If we see an editor post that themselves, then we know they understand the risks. If they don't make that post, then we close the appeal request as malformed. This will prevent well-meaning third-parties from unintentionally walking editors into a bear trap. – Levivich 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Levivich: I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The penalty has not been increased; she was indefinitely unable to edit and she is still indefinitely unable to edit. Neither restriction is infinite, and I would have supported a request that actually acknowledged the problems and set out why they would not recur. I think the community is generally supportive of such requests. The difference between an indefinite block and a CBAN is that an indef can be appealed to any admin while a CBAN can only be appealed to the community. That's perfectly normal in every jurisdiction I'm aware of; once you've appealed to the supreme court, you can't then appeal to a magistrate; once you've appealed to the community, you can't appeal to an individual admin. GoldenRing (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

        GoldenRing, when the Supreme Court denies an appeal, the lower courts still retain jurisdiction–then can still, for example, reduce the sentence. I think the penalty has been increased, from a situation where any admin could have unblocked, to a situation where no admin can unblock. There was at least one admin who was considering unblocking; now there are zero admin who can take that action. Thus, the editor is in a significantly worse position now than they were before the unblock request: instead of convincing one person, they now have to convince dozens. If blocked editors are going to take this risk, they should do it with eyes wide open. Otherwise, like I said, it's a "gotcha". – Levivich 20:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

        Opposing an unblock doesn't have to mean supporting a CBAN; had I !voted, I would have !voted oppose unblock based on this request but not opposed to an admin granting a future unblock request or something like that. Is that an option? Does everyone !voting know that's an option? – Levivich 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion about the copyvios. At Ritchie333's request, Jimfbleak deleted Isabel Pell yesterday (created by Elisa in August 2017) as copied from andrejkoymasky.com. But that page states "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure about this one, which is why I tagged it rather than just deleted it. It looked like a copy of the WP article but I couldn't prove it. I plan to copyedit the article offline and restore it when I get an opportunity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ritchie333, the page says at the bottom "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". SarahSV ^(talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I would say "don't know why I missed that the first time" but I do know why because in response to MoneyEmoji's comment above, I had a look at Elisa's CCI and went through about 50 or so articles, and probably just missed it. The vast majority had no copyvio concerns at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Ritchie333, first, sorry that I keep fixing the indenting, but I've been trying to follow RexxS's advice about accessibility, and switching from asterisks to colons apparently causes problems for screenreaders. Anyway, thank you for looking at those articles. One of my concerns is that there actually isn't as much of a problem as people assume just because that copyvio page was created. If your findings are confirming that, what can we do to fix this situation? In my view, the ban should be undone and the discussion reopened. Would you support that? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So, there are a lot of issues here, but I’ll try to address them as best I can:

1. Anyone who has ever met Ritchie knows that he wanted to unblock here: it’s a content editor in WiR. He’s naturally biased to unblock. The odds of him trying to get a “pocket ban” here are pretty low.
2. Elisa was de facto banned anyway: a sympathetic admin who wanted to unblock thought that AN review was needed. All a ban does is require another AN review. Yes, Sarah was willing to unblock but any look at that talk page and the fallout here shows it would have ended up at AN one way it another. Ritchie chose the one that was most respectful of the status quo, which is typically what admins try to do.
3. Iri’s point that Ritchie didn’t do a good job explaining it is fair, but it’s also complicated. Despite having blocked her, I was honestly neutral here. I thought the pro-Elisa crowd would swarm AN and she’d be unblocked within 24 hours, so I can see why Ritchie may have viewed it that way. Additionally, if you explain to someone a declined AN appeal equals a ban, you open yourself up to accusations of bullying people into not appealing by saying “Think twice, you may be banned.”
4. Regardless of any missteps, the community consensus on this is clear: Elisa should remain blocked. Anyone reopening this now or unblocking now over procedural concerns are missing the forest for the trees, imo. The fact that there was this strong opposition to an unblock also proves Ritchie right is seeking wider review.

Yes, this was a difficult situation, and the thing you do when there’s a difficult situation is seek community consensus. We have that now, and while there may have been mistakes along the way, the outcome still remains fairly clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This. I would have done the same; an unblock request where I thought there might be merit but where I thought there might be significant opposition, I would bring it to the community for review. @SlimVirgin: If you thought the outcome of review here was obvious but you were prepared to unblock anyway, aren't you saying that you were prepared to override community consensus and unblock with an (effective) supervote? If you know what the outcome of review would be, deliberately avoiding that review doesn't relieve you of the obligation to seek consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Tony, you say you're neutral but then use the word "swarm" to describe support for Elisa, and add that typically admins don't do what I was about to do, which implies criticism of me. But in fact, admins do typically unblock in response to talk-page requests, and in this case I had witnessed how the 2018 block unfolded: first yours, then removal of talk-page access, then the IRR deal, then Fram's indefinite. I thought how it happened was unfair, which is why I noticed this unblock request and wanted to respond positively. GoldenRing, I'm sorry, I don't understand your question; would you mind rephrasing? I didn't think the outcome was obvious, and I don't believe I've said that anywhere. In fact, I'm surprised by this outcome. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Apologies, I read the discussion above and remembered you saying that the outcome was a "forgone conclusion" when actually it was someone else. Nonetheless, the community's view on this is very clear; aren't you saying that you'd have preferred a quiet unblock that the community would have opposed if asked? Why is seeking consensus wrong just because you don't like the outcome? GoldenRing (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, thank you for the apology. I appreciate that. What I had hoped to do was unblock and offer to help Elisa with summarizing and paraphrasing. I wanted first to investigate her editing so that I knew what I was offering, but before I had a chance to do it, this AN had opened. The speed with which these things are decided is often a problem. Not everyone can be instantly available, so lots of voices are lost when dispute resolution moves too fast. I didn't realize there would be this opposition, and I still wonder how much of it is based on fact. Are there really lots of copyvios, or has the opening of the CCI at Fram's request given the impression that there are lots? I don't know the answer to that. Ritchie has indicated that he hasn't found anything so far, but looking through the whole thing is a massive job. What I do think is that less than 48 hours is not long enough to hear from enough people who might have supported a different way forward. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, The really bad thing is, looking over that CCI right now, many of articles cite offline books.... and earwigs copyvio detector, which is what many people use, isn't going to pick up on those books. Many of the articles people have checked off still have the potential of being violations, and the people who are checking those off don't know that. In this case, if the CCI is to be cleared out as best as possible, all of the articles that Elisa created must be deleted and all of her edits must be reverted, no matter what Earwig says. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, you seem to know something about copyright-violation investigations, so I'm hoping you can explain them to me. Elisa started editing in March 2017; she has made 17,643 edits, 10,777 in mainspace. In March 2018, at Fram's request, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Elisa.rolle was opened. You wrote above: "Endorse Unblock, On the condition that she helps out with her massive CCI." That page is a list of her mainspace edits, is that right? I'm looking at it, and I can see 10 ticks, one not to do with her, and others to do with quotations needing to be trimmed. A few don't say what they were. Is there evidence of a significant copyvio problem, or are we assuming there is because it happened a few times when she started editing? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, To answer your questions, Yes, that is a list of all her major mainspace edits. If it's just a simple check/tick, that means there was a copyvio and it's now been removed. On the topic of whether or not we know if her edits deserve a CCI that big, I don't know. She has committed a fair amount of vios, but some I can't see because I'm not an admin. There is evidence of a copyvio problem, but I couldn't tell you how significant it is, as the person who knows the most about the case is..... Fram. I'll go to commons to ask if he knows anything, although I'm not sure how active he is there. And on what I was saying about how "All her edits need to be reverted!" I could be wrong, its possible that she only copied from online sources. I jumped the gun a bit there, it probably isn't that bad, or not as bad As this. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

And fram is blocked on commons, so the only way to know for sure is if Fram is contacted through email. ugh..... 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, I have started looking through Elisa's deleted contributions. The first deleted article I looked at had a couple of sentences lifted from the source, but not enough to delete the whole thing (based on what I've seen so far). Fram can be contacted on Meta, by the way. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Thanks, I'll ask there. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, for example, Elisa created Edith Dolan Riley in one edit in October 2018. It was 438 words readable prose size, based on two sources, Women of the West (1928), which is in the public domain, and this page from archiveswest.orbiscascade.org, which is CC0. Based on a brief look, Elisa didn't copy the sources word for word, except for a couple of sentences, but even if she had, it would not have been a copyright violation. Yet Fram deleted the article on 15 March 2019; his edit summary said it was a copyright violation of the archiveswest page. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, a book published in 1928 is not necessarily in the public domain. The cutoff currently is 1924. For works published between 1924 through 1963, you would need to prove that the copyright was never renewed for us to accept the book as being in the public domain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Women of the West (1928) was uploaded to archive.org in 2013 with the comment "Copyright either not claimed or not renewed. Item is in the public domain." It isn't clear to me whether the uploader is someone associated with the University of Connecticut Libraries, which is described as the contributor. The uploader describes himself as an archivist. But it's understandable that Elisa assumed it was PD based on that information. In addition, Fram didn't delete Edith Dolan Riley because of Women of the West, but on the grounds that it was a copyvio of this page, which is CC0. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I looked at that page. She would have increased the chances of avoiding deletion if she would have mentioned the license as part of her citation. But the deleting admin needs to carefully check also. It wasn't a deletion nomination either; it was a summary deletion by Fram. More better to nominate, giving an extra set of eyes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, I know that Elisa did have issues with copyright, because I've seen them for myself in her deleted contribs. But I wonder whether there was also a "shoot first" mentality because she had had those issues. I'd like us to give her the chance to show that she gets it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

• Did not !vote in the above, but I wonder, if she got a 'copyvio overseer' from one of the supportive editors, as was proposed, would we go ahead and unban? I guess I would like to believe that if a renewed appeal could address concerns we would, but our current system leaves that all really fuzzy, perhaps unknowable (or, unintentionally, perhaps, the close does). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  That's right on point. A lot of oppose !votes were per Diannaa, and Diannaa wrote And so far I don't see anybody volunteering to monitor her contribs ..., so if somebody in fact did volunteer to monitor her contribs, that might have changed other editors' opinions. Echoing recent concerns about threads being closed too fast: 24 or 48 hrs is too fast (esp. for a CBAN). – Levivich 21:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Standard offer says: "Discussion usually takes a few days." That would allow people to see that the consensus had moved to a ban, and an offer could then be made to help her. Perhaps several editors would have offered to do that, and consensus might have shifted. Instead, the discussion was closed. I asked Yunshui to reopen, and I'm very surprised that he didn't. Usually if another admin asks for a discussion like this to be reopened, it happens. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  @SlimVirgin: Point of clarification: There was no consensus to ban, there was a consensus that she shouldn't be unblocked. In fact, the policy is that when there is no consensus for an unblock, the block converts to a ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • SV: Another 'defect' of our system, if you will, is when to close -- do you spare feelings when all these people keep saying bad things about the person, or do you close off cooler reflection, discussion, and mercy? Perhaps unanswerable. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Alan, I agree that it's difficult. I favour not keeping hurtful threads open longer than necessary. In this case, there was support for an unblock, but the tide turned partly because of Diannaa's post, which was negative but suggested a way forward: "... I don't see anybody volunteering to monitor her contribs (this would be an absolute necessity, given the scope of the problem)." In my view, the discussion should have been left open long enough to allow the initial supporters to see what was happening and comment again, and perhaps offer to help, but several are in North America, and the thread was closed during the very early morning their time (10:34 UTC). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse ban: We duly considered this case and the community did not reach a consensus that the block should be lifted. There is nothing irregular about this. This is how the CBAN policy works. At no point did Elisa Rolle request that this be withdrawn. It's not our place in this walled garden to exempt discussions about unblocking a blocked editor from this well-settled policy. Yes, I would've been fine with an unblock with conditions, but I'm not fine with the AN/ANI brigade dictating changes to the banning policy because they don't like it all of a sudden. Open an unban discussion if you want one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• In fairness, and not directed at anyone in particular, I opened this thread because I'm not at all an AN regular <cough> <cough> and I'm clueless. I wanted to post a follow up question this morning and it had been closed. That surprised me. Now I regret my actions. <hangs head in shame, walks away from AN for another decade>. Victoria (tk) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle, I think what you did is reasonable. I'm not an AN regular either, but I can't see how we have reached community consensus after only 2 days. We give articles 7 days at AfD. An actual human person behind the keyboard should get at least the same consideration. I think that SlimVirgin was right to ask that this be reopened by Yunshui. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, 2 days is a whiplash for people to be informed and make informed replies. Also, I don’t think elisa.rollle really understands what is being asked of her. I think the discussion needs to be either reopened, or restarted after someone needs to work up a clear set of guidelines and ask if she will agree to follow them and to be mentored. Copyvio is obviously a problem, but it’s a very common problem from middle schools that the boardroom, and so the solution is education and the ability, not condemnation. If elisa.rolle wants to try, then we should assist. If she does not cooperate, then we have necessary data. Either way, there was a rush to judgement here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• 24 hours minimum is policy. This was about as by the book as they come, both in bringing it here and in closing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I cannot believe I just read a comment downplaying the importance of not exposing the Project via copyvio's. While I believe this will not be a problem moving forward, other members of the community realize the importance of not exposing the Project via copyvio's and do not share my optimism. While I wish the block appeal had not been closed so soon, I doubt the outcome would have become favorable.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) And until Feb. 2018 that 24 hour minimum was just advisory. My take on this discussion is that things went very, very south such that the outcome was all but guaranteed to be "no consensus", which would've defaulted to a ban. Like, I would have no objection to reopening if it looked like there was a realistic chance of a consensus being reached. But with 22 opposes, many of which included quite reasoned arguments, I really don't see any hope of a consensus to unblock being reached. And I don't see claims such as "I would've opposed an unblock but also opposed a CBAN" as being valid: The whole point of the policy is that, if someone remains blocked after the community takes up whether he or she should be unblocked, then no admin should be able to unilaterally unblock. That's a CBAN. Period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mendaliv: You've made a lot of posts about this "declining a standard offer turns into a community ban" idea, but it seems pretty clear that a lot of people did not expect that result, and I'd never heard of it either. Was there a discussion that explicitly came to that conclusion? Or is this an apparent implication by synthesizing wording from multiple different pages? Have there been past examples where the standard offer was declined, there wasn't any new misbehavior from the editor in the meantime, and they nevertheless got the full Userpage Tags of Shame treatment? I had a quick look and didn't find any, but maybe I missed something? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, yes. This is well established policy, was mentioned in the discussion itself, and has been the norm for years. Individual admins cannot overrule the community, which is why the policy reads that way. I’d have to go through the archives, but even placing the banner after this isn’t rare. I also think it’s inappropriate for you as an arbitrator to be throwing your weight around here, and yes, that is what you are doing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Russavia in 2014 is the quickest example of the banner I can find but I know I’ve seen it on other cases since 2017. Anyway, point remains: this has been policy and practice since at least 2014, and by then it was already established. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The policy has been in place since at least 2007 ([105]; I can’t find the discussion itself offhand, but even without one it’s been modified by locatable discussions in the years since, so one can’t credibly claim it’s not policy). The earliest iterations even call for the account to be added to Wikipedia:List of banned users (MfD’d in 2014). This is an entrenched, accepted, regular policy and there is no cause for deviating from it here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would be the equivalent of saying individual administrators could overrule the community. Literally all a ban does is require appeal be made at AN. The only reason to not have this be a ban is so that she wouldn’t have to appeal to AN again, which is already strongly discouraged policy since Fram “isn’t available” (see the section on unblock requests under WP:NEVERUNBLOCK.) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

All I have to say is that it’s in the plain text of WP:CBAN and has been for a very long time. I’ve seen people try to counter it before by arguing that they oppose a CBAN while opposing an unblock, but that’s contrary to the letter and spirit of the banning policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so there wasn't an explicit decision about this interpretation, and this is the result of drawing conclusions from the combination of "a standard offer involves a discussion" and "a discussion that declines to unblock counts as 'due consideration'"?

Russavia was apparently socking during his unblock request, so (among other reasons) that's not really a comparable case. This idea is surprising, I think, because the point of the "standard offer" concept is to be lightweight; it's not written or typically presented as a high-stakes exercise.

Sorry Tony, not following that one. One of the weirder experiences of joining arbcom is that all of a sudden you can't say boo without someone assuming you said it for Secret Cabal Reasons, but in fact I was just reading AN (I know, I know, first mistake) and saw something that I had a question about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so there wasn't an explicit decision about this interpretation, and this is the result of drawing conclusions from the combination of "a standard offer involves a discussion" and "a discussion that declines to unblock counts as 'due consideration'"? No, this isn't a combination of anything. This thread was a request for an unblock that was submitted for the community's consideration, period. WP:SO isn't a policy, guideline, or process: It's an essay that describes a rule of thumb for when the community will often consider granting relief from indefinite sanctions. The community duly considered that request, and not only was there no consensus to unblock, the closing admin assessed that there was consensus against unblocking. That is a community ban. I think the misunderstanding here lies in viewing this as more than (or something other than) an unblock request that was submitted to the community for review. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is very sad. There is something odd going on here. All this fuss over one editor. I have to point out the reference to WP:Women in red in the above comments. Just do a search for "alleged gender gap" to find it in all the wordage above. Stunned, I am, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What is your point? - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that BeenAroundAWhile is suggesting that because WIR was mentioned, it's an example of "anti-woman fervor". Others may come to a different conclusion. I may, of course, be wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see, thanks. If you're right then BeenAroundAWhile is barking up the wrong tree. I for one couldn't care less what gender someone might be, many people on WP do not even disclose it, and "all this fuss about one editor" is pretty much how discussions at AN, ANI etc tend to go because they are community discussions about the person in question. I don't see how it could be otherwise in a situation where someone is asking to be unblocked. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed, it is rather assuming baid fath en masse. ——SerialNumber54129 12:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
          • 100% agree. I'm tired of people trying to use WiR, a project that works on gender gap as the "boogie (wo)man." Yes, Elisa contributed to WIR and she had a knack for finding information that was very specific to her interest in LGBT studies, which I think is valuable. I can understand her having trouble with copyright as she's not a native English speaker and copyright is difficult enough as it is. However, just because someone works on a project shouldn't be a reason to bludgeon other editors with it. Of course the people in her project are going to be familiar with her. Most of the people on Wiki I know from working with WiR. I don't think this had anything to do with her gender, either, like Sitush says. I think the people who opposed above are genuinely concerned about copyright--as they should be. However, I really do think that Elisa was ready to move forward and correct her mistakes and work with other editors to clean them up. If this had been open longer, I would have weighed in with my !vote. But I was offline for the end part of the discussion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
            • If I had seen any indication that she had understood what a big problem copyright violations are and had a sensible plan for how to avoid them, I would have supported this request. I didn't. I saw someone who just about managed to answer some questions about copyright by parroting the policy back. No doubt there are language issues in there somewhere, but I just wasn't convinced this would end well. Others have mentioned issues with battleground and edit warring that also should have been addressed; I didn't get as far as looking at these, but if they are problems, they also ought to have been addressed in the unblock request. Personally, I would not have brought this request to AN; I would have just declined it. But clearly Ritchie thought there was merit in it and, as I've said above, once he thought that, bringing it here was the right thing to do. GoldenRing (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• If a well established editor/admin wants to do the work Montanabw suggested, then that seems to be the only way forward. Once you and ER have all your proposals and ducks in a row (ie., you have addressed the majority of concerns raised) you can bring it here and if you think it should be done relatively soon explain why and ask for dispensation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Break 3

A quick stroll through the AN archives will find many, many instances of the exact process used here; an admin sees an SO request from a user who has been indeffed by a single admin, doesn't want to grant it themselves, so brings it to AN for review. The resulting discussion doesn't result in an unblock and so the user is site-banned. A very quick sample:

• This discussion was never even closed. The user is now effectively sitebanned.
• This discussion explicitly considered a CBAN and endorsed it.
• This discussion didn't explicitly consider a TBAN but is now effectively a siteban (I believe this was before the requirement for such discussions to be open 24 hours).
• This discussion converted an indef into a CBAN.

These are only the ones I came across while searching the archives for something else. Since this is perfectly normal, I'm not clear why such a fuss is being made about this user in particular. Someone should close this and be done with it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support close: As I've said, this is normal procedure that isn't going to get wikilawyered out of. I supported lifting the indef, but I recognize that there would not have been consensus to unblock no matter how long this discussion remained open. The best thing for us to do is to move on from this discussion, and permit Elisa Rolle to move on herself and prepare for the next SO request that I'm sure she'll make. As I've mentioned recently in a few threads, an effective way to prepare for this would be to contribute to other WMF wikis during the downtime, which could include other language Wikipedias, Wiktionary, Commons, Wikisource, or others. Show a genuine interest in contributing and an ability to work with others. Provide evidence that the problems that led to the block and ban are resolved. This is not hard to do, it just takes time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Huh? Is "effectively sitebanned" different from "sitebanned"? I'm not finding these examples convincing of anything...
  • First discussion stayed open for two weeks, so why can't this discussion be open more than 48 hrs?
  • Second discussion had a subthread entiteld Proposal: Community Ban, so I'm not sure how that's analogous to this discussion
  • Third discussion was SNOW closed after four votes in just six hours, and, as GR states, never discussed CBAN or siteban. It's a terrible close–is anyone reading this really OK with a community site ban based on four !votes in six hours?
  • Fourth discussion, GR says "converted an indef into a CBAN", but what's that conclusion based on? The thread wasn't closed. From my reading, most of the commenters supported or were at least OK with the idea of an unblock. CBAN and siteban weren't discussed AFAICS. And this thread was from five years ago.

If anything, these four threads demonstrate just how inconsistent and haphazard these discussions have been in the past. – Levivich 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This is a random selection, there are many, many more available in the archives. My point with these was that what happened here is what happens to many, many editors. Some discussions are open for a long time, some for a few hours (now a 24-hour minimum, but that's a recent development). Some discussions are heavily trafficked, others only have a few comments. Some explicitly consider a CBAN, others just decline to unblock (and yes, "effectively sitebanned" is the same as "sitebanned" here). To your last bullet, if you don't understand this, you don't understand our banning policy; Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" (from WP:CBAN). Kiko4564 remained indefinitely blocked after a discussion of their block here, therefore, according to the policy, they are sitebanned, whether the discussion was formally closed or not. GoldenRing (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the archives provide plenty of examples that go the other way; a user posts a good unblock request which an admin brings to the community and they are unblocked. A good example can be found further down this page right now. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, My point with these was that what happened here is what happens to many, many editors. So what you're saying is there's a longstanding unaddressed problem? :-) What I see as "the points" here are:

1. Did the editor requesting unblock, and the editors !voting, know that an unsuccessful standard offer request would lead to a CBAN? (Which is not the same question as, "Is it stated in policy?")
2. Was ~41 hours long enough? (Which is not the same question as, "Is it greater than the minimum stated in policy?")
3. Should the close have been re-opened when an editor requested it because they wanted to participate in the discussion? (Which is not the same question as, "Was the close within policy?")

Several veteran editors in good standing have indicated their answers to those questions are No, No, and Yes. – Levivich 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: #1, this is just wikilawyering irrelevant distinctions to past practice. Re: #2, it's the closing admin's discretion once it's past 24 hours; unless you can make a case that the closing admin abused that discretion, the close is valid. Re: #3, the person requesting to participate had !voted already, and it was within the closing admin's discretion to close. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically this. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people blocked, who want to be unblocked, to be familiar with the banningblocking policy. We don't require that every discussion start with an essay on what the applicable policy might be. GoldenRing (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, what? Why would people who are blocked be familiar with the banning policy? Those are two different things. WP:BANPOL addresses interaction bans, page bans, topic bans, and site bans. I don't see any such restriction against this editor listed at WP:EDR. Her block log shows she was blocked (not banned) for WP:COPYVIO, and that page doesn't even have the word "ban" in it, never mind a link to BANPOL. WP:GAB and WP:APPEAL don't say that an unsuccessful unblock request may lead to a community siteban (and don't link to WP:BANPOL) AFAICS. WP:SO doesn't say that, either, and while it does link to BANPOL, why would an editor who isn't banned follow that link? She was explicitly advised to read SO and GAB; she wasn't advised to read BANPOL or anything else. An editor in that position might have no idea at all that a site ban was a possible outcome. That's why I described it as a "gotcha" policy. – Levivich 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: FWIW, I agree that Elisa.rolle wasn't very well-advised here; Berean Hunter gives an excellent example of how it should be done here. Nonetheless, we expect people to go looking for relevant policy rather than using ignorance as a defense. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Except the person is indefinitely excluded from Wikipedia before the discussion and indefinitely excluded form Wikipedia after the discussion whether it's called a block or a ban. But sure, SOFIXIT and edit the SO essay to be clearer in the way you think it should be clearer, and go further propose notice provision to be adopted in C:BAN, etc and Block, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)”Gotcha” implies that it’s an added penalty or something nonsensical like that. The fact that a community denial of an unblock request makes that block into a ban is no such thing. It is merely a memorialization of the community’s consideration of the block, such that it’s no longer appropriate for an uninvolved admin to unilaterally overturn it based on a typical unblock request. This is the most basic of concepts that every admin should understand as deeply as they do the consensus model: Once the community has refused to unblock someone, you don’t get to defy that discussion and do whatever you want. As we were long fond of saying in response to efforts to ban a sockpuppeteer, such a person was already de facto banned anyway. Even if this weren’t a formalized ban, Elisa would be de facto banned as a result of this discussion.
Honestly the strangest thing about these arguments isn’t that they’re nonstarters (and have been for as long as editors have made them) but that such experienced editors are making them. Particularly the insinuation in another comment that this rule was made up. If you think it’s unfair that WP:SO (which is an essay) doesn’t mention the banning policy, you should be bold and edit the essay. If you think 24 hours is too short for a ban discussion, you should start a new RfC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been BOLD and edited the essay. GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• • A group of people willing to help Elisa are discussing on my talk page how to form a mentoring collaboration, which we intend to propose when we have it worked out. Whether it's proposed as part of this thread or a new one probably doesn't matter. I remained concerned about the way the discussion was closed and that Yunshui hasn't responded to requests to undo it. Perhaps now that it's Monday he will be back online and will comment here. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: What's the usual (minimum) amount of time to appeal a CBan? I'm guessing 12 months; does that sound reasonable? ——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: everything depends on the context. In this case, we intend to propose something as soon as we can get it worked out. (Several of us don't regard this as a valid close because of the speed of it, but that's arguably a separate issue.) SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SarahSV here; there is no minimum time to appeal a siteban. The only thing that is necessary is to show that the restriction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Six months is generally considered a working rule-of-thumb minimum, but I think this is only because WP:SO suggests it and it seems a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop a bit, either by developing some skills or by developing a better level of maturity (not suggesting this is the issue in this case). I'd usually struggle to think of a situation where a second appeal within days of one being declined is a good idea, but perhaps having a group of established editors agreeing to mentor you is one. The risk is that an appeal which might gain consensus in a few months might equally fail now for no reason other than that it's considered "too soon", but might equally make a third appeal in a few months fail "because nothing's changed since the last appeal". I'm not saying that's fair or right, just that that's the risk another appeal now would be taking. GoldenRing (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)why can't this discussion be open more than 48 hrs? The minimum is 24 hours, and there was ample reason to close it when it was closed. There was no consensus to unblock, and it had become clear that no consensus to unblock would be reached no matter how long this discussion was left open. It is time to move on from this discussion. To persist in wikilawyering—and that's what all this procedural wrangling is at this point—is honestly unfair to Elisa in that it will only serve to give a false sense of hope, and when it fails to produce results (as it has here), a false sense of injustice. In fact, it is downright cruel at this point. The CBAN policy states very clearly: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". This in practice means that an AN/ANI discussion that closes in "no consensus to unblock", "consensus against unblock", or "consensus to indefinitely block" are all community bans. Historically, this required logging at the list of banned users (before that list was MfD'd). This is a policy that has been in place for more than ten years. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mendaliv, you say above The CBAN policy states very clearly: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". This in practice means that an AN/ANI discussion that closes in "no consensus to unblock", "consensus against unblock", or "consensus to indefinitely block" are all community bans. Historically, this required logging at the list of banned users (before that list was MfD'd). This is a policy that has been in place for more than ten years. The reason I started this discussion, very much out of process, is that as a plain vanilla content editor who's been around awhile but obviously doesn't spend enough time reading noticeboards, I did not know that and I tried to get it clarified. To reiterate like a broken record (and please forgive me for crankiness), the question I posed is whether Elisa.rolle was informed of the above? I don't wish to wikilawyer, relitigate, butt into AN as an unwelcome guest, etc., but it seems that those in the know might have explained the process to her before this landed here. I'm agnostic re Elise.rolle (was leaning oppose, with the hope that someone with a little more energy than I have might step up to help and teach because in the end it's the best way forward for the project) but if you all knew there was no chance of a the standard offer being granted why was she encouraged to ask? Why would any person want to subject themselves to this? I get that this is all rhetorical and please feel free to ignore this rant. Victoria (tk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoriaearle, my post above was not directed at you personally, I apologize if you took it that way. if you all knew there was no chance of a the standard offer being granted why was she encouraged to ask? I had no idea there was no chance. I was asked about the process for requesting an unblock and gave the information. Unblocks upon request to the community under the standard offer are common. And moreover, I supported the unblock above. Certainly, there were a number of people who !voted in the discussion above who thought there was a chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought an unblock would work out, and WiR is/was irrelevant to that opinion.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion at WT:BAN about some of the topics in the continuing chatter on this thread. Please take a look. Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Length_of_CBAN_discussions_and_the_"appeal_CBAN" --Izno (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

All of this should be closed, heck, should've been closed a heartbeat after the first post after closure. Start a new section if people want a do-over with a new reasoning, the above -actual- discussion is clear. Arkon (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Winterysteppe

I just blocked Motizun (talk · contribs · count) as a sock of Winterysteppe, an LTA. Motizun created a very large number of new pages, mostly drafts. I used massdelete and deleted 90 of them, but massdelete doesn't work beyond a certain date, what it calls "recent changes". Does someone know of a way to delete the others without doing them manually? It seems like all I've been doing today is manually deleting pages of LTAs. I've reached my limit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Bbb23/d-batch and add a bunch of wikilinks as a list of what you want to delete. I think I had to do this for the last Winterysteppe sock. I’ll also ping a steward to get the lock setup. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

d-batch is an admin's best friend. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to add the wikilinks easily? There are over 300 to be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

When I have to d-batch a large list of pages, I'll generally use either x-tools (as Tony did below) or just select "created pages" in their Special:Contributions. Then, it's just a matter of converting them all to wikilinks (which I generally do with a formula in Excel) and paste it into one my junk subpages. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

XTools has an option to download as a table of Wikitext, which is what I did. No excel required. Again, not sure if you can find a way to do it for drafts, but it works for articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hot damn, you learn something new every day. In fairness, most of the time when I use d-batch it's on a page like WP:TFD/H so they're already links. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: you could also just copy-paste the list from Special:contribs into VisualEditor, which smartly recognizes the wikilinks and formats them as such. SD0001 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what I hear, Primefac, but there is almost no instructions on how or when to use it. I really think there should be more guidance on d-batch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: WP:ADMINGUIDE/D. — regards, Revi 20:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nuke did not work or me.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nuke isn't what we're referring to, it's Twinkle's d-batch module. Primefac (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, -revi. I read all of the administrator guides back in 2015 but somehow I missed some of the details of this one. I was only familiar with Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Modules for administrators. Thank you for the reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bbb23, I took the liberty of creating the subpage for you based on the x-tools of the articles they created. Not sure if there is a way to run xtools to include drafts (MusikAnimal may know that.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Bbb23: Just select the desired namespace at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages. Live drafts for Motizun, including redirects: [106] — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: This whole thing ought to be easier. I used the tool you suggested and after several tries, I got it to show the same list you did. I guess there's no way to include more than one name space, e.g., Draft and Draft talk? I don't see why the tool (or some tool) doesn't allow me then to just delete either the entire list or selected ones (like massdelete, which is a pretty easy tool to use, even if it is severely limited). I have to use the download drop-down to get a list, which I then have to transform into wikilinks and then have to put in that d-batch subpage. And that's just to delete those 27 pages. I think I'll wait until a single tool is developed that allows me to do what I want. That said, I truly appreciate everyone trying to help, and I apologize for being such a difficult pupil.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Until a tool is written, you could use the following simple trick rather than delete pages manually: Open Special:contribs for the user you want to massdelete, check "Only show edits that are page creations", set the limit to a high number like 500. Then open the browser console (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+J in Chrome), and paste the following command:

'*[[' + $('.mw-contributions-title').get().map(e => e.title).join(']]\n*[[') + ']]'

, and hit enter. Voila! this should give a formatted wikitext list with all the contribs page titles in the view. You can then paste this into a d-batch subpage. SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: I understood "voila". I just looked at the new pages and someone's been cleaning up because what was over 300 is now under 50. Still, morbid curiosity led me to open the browser console. Pretty colors, but the console and the command looked like similar gibberish, so I closed the console without doing more. Maybe if there were still 300 pages I would have continued, but it is a little scary to do anything that I completely don't understand technically.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm gonna copy that script to my tools. Tahnks.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Sorry if I'm intruding on the bloodfest, but do any of these tools calculate the likelihood of potential content, and save to other editors' userspace?
  No, I didn't think they did. ——SerialNumber54129 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I thought there was another instruction here which I followed. I dropped the "Live drafts for Motizun" list onto my sandbox and used D-batch. Seemed to go well. Please check my work. This is a marvelous tool I'm glad to learn about.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: That edit just wiped out several substantially detailed Marvel Cinematic Universe draft pages: for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Thor: Love and Thunder and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Is there any way to get those back? Cause those were draft pages that saw hard work out into it by other editors that weren’t the one that was just blocked. Rusted AutoParts 18:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Absolutely. Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Thor: Love and Thunder, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Any others?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. I think I got them all.18:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m still seeing them as deleted. Draft:Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Draft:Thor: Love and Thunder and Draft:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I think I caused confusion though, I didn’t put the full titles of the specific drafts in my first comment. Apologies. Rusted AutoParts 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course it could take some time for them to reappear so apologies if I’m pestering @Dlohcierekim:. Rusted AutoParts 18:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. As there are articles, I did not expect collateral damage in drafts. Thanks for the help.18:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Australian Cyphoidbomb troll

Hi all, would someone mind handling any necessary reversions and deletions related to disruptions created by 114.72.97.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please? For whatever reason, someone using various Australian IPs has been trolling me. I asked that an edit filter be set up so as to prevent them from pinging me with [[User:Cyphoidbomb]] but I guess it's not working anymore. Or maybe it was still in test mode or something. I dunno. Anyway, I'd prefer to ignore the troll. Some other IPs they've used:

• 49.176.19.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.199.101.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.185.0.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Among others. Could also be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KaranSharma0445/Archive, but only because of this edit where the IP user calls himself Karan Sharma. Could be unrelated, though. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm kinda surprised nobody else took up the challenge to paste this guy. I was pinged again today and I handled it, which is not ideal. C'mon colleagues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

We have currently a middle-size backlog at WP:RFPP - 30 unanswered requests and about 20 hours delay. Whoever has time, help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Caught up again as of now; stay tuned for further developments :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Bosniak nationalism on Turkish Croatia article

Stil, this problem isn't solved

It's about this. Santasa99 is systematicly removing any traces of Croatian history in that area, and presents the whole article in nationalistic views. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

To make matters worse, nationalistic POV is now protected. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: recruitment finished for moderation of harmful content on Wikipedia research study

The Berkman Klein Center, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, is studying content moderation practices by the Wikipedia community by interviewing Wikipedia content editors and administrators.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_content_moderation_on_English_Wikipedia

We posted a similar message on the Administrators Noticeboard in May, and since then we’ve spoken with 10 editors. Thank you to those who have volunteered to participate thus far.

We’re searching for five more editors and admins with a range of experience to be interviewed about the processes and guidelines for content revision, content deletion, and quality control of English Wikipedia.

The interviews will particularly focus on gaining an understanding of the community’s overall approach and decision making about handling harmful content both on articles and talk pages. We are interested in understanding how this works from your direct experience and your knowledge of the experiences of other editors and admins.

The ultimate goal of the interviews is to help the Wikimedia Foundation identify the strengths and gaps in the community’s efforts to moderate harmful content and to improve the quality of content and positivity of conduct on the platform.

Our preference is to conduct the conversations through video chat or over the phone. However, we can accommodate the preferences of those who would feel more comfortable answering questions through email; we’d much rather communicate with editors over their preferred medium than not at all! Our preference is to record the conversations for those who are willing. However, all the answers we receive from the interviews will be aggregated; no answers will be associated with specific editors’ names or pseudonyms in communications with the Wikimedia Foundation or public reporting. Any specific examples or anecdotes mentioned in interviews will only be included in the report with prior permission of the interviewee. You will also be free to skip any questions and to end the interview at any time.

If you are willing to participate in a 20-25 minute conversation to help the Berkman Klein Center and Wikimedia Foundation understand more about harmful content on Wikipedia, contact Casey Tilton at ctiltoncyber.harvard.edu or leave a note on his user talk page. Catilton (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What is "harmful content"? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's specified on the linked page: illegal speech, harmful speech, vandalism, and other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

All of which is perfectly acceptable of course...with the exception of other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community which is somewhat disconcertingly vague. ——SerialNumber54129 18:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, this is a legitimate piece of research aiming to establish what we think other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community should mean, not a typical WMF "verdict first, trial later" exercise aimed at inventing a "consensus" for the WMF's preferred position by cherry-picking participants they guess will support them. The Berkman Klein Center is a legitimate research institution at Harvard; this appears to be genuine research, not yet another attempt by Jan Eissfeldt to find a pretext to grant himself superpowers. ‑ Iridescent 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've just participated in this - I didn't pick out any sign it was too ordained. I did get the feeling that they'd had some early pickups from the WMF but were listening to some conflicting viewpoints from editors and taking them on well. I also had some sympathy as Casey had the misfortune to start the interviews about the time FRAMBAN kicked off. If a DS Admin could do it that would fill in something I wanted to, but couldn't, talk about effectively. I'd say there might be an issue with the WMF mis-using results, but that the actual research looks interesting and worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Update - Thank you to the editors who volunteered to be interviewed. We were able to recruit enough to meet the goal. Catilton (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I can provide diffs of failed verification content going back years. Policy on Wikipedia is not being consistently enforced. I can also provide diffs of an editor being blocked for adding sourced content but the admin claimed it was not sourced content. A good case study is when an article is redirected. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Can/should I decline an unblock request from the same user more than once?

I declined an unblock request today. The user has filed a new request - their 3rd - which as far as I am concerned adds absolutely nothing new. I am minded to decline, and reblock without talk page access. Is that permissible or should I wait for another admin to review the request? --kingboyk (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking: "by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block." I'd say there that it adds nothing new and advise the next admin to revoke talk access. —Cryptic 00:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thanks for setting me straight - much appreciated. --kingboyk (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

But of course, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The point of the convention is that if you previously denied a request, you might be biased against the user when reviewing their next request, so you should let someone else handle it. If an editor keeps respamming the same unblock request in an attempt to WP:ADMINSHOP, that convention does not apply. Regards SoWhy 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That's worth bearing in mind, thank you.

In the case in question it hadn't quite reached that level. I left a note with my thoughts and another admin has declined the block and revoked talk page access. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I would go somewhere between Cryptic and SoWhy. If the blocked user makes the same request that was previously declined (by you, or by anyone else), I would revoke TPA myself (some exceptions might apply as every case is a bit different). There's nothing to prevent a declining admin from revoking TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What I've done a number of times in cases like this is... I've declined an unblock, the blocked editor has then posted a new tendentious unblock request, and I've then revoked TPA (with a note that the next reviewing admin can reinstate it if they see fit, without needing to ask me). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

please check my edit for rule violations

Book censorship in China please review my recent edit. self-reporting myself to minimize problems. The reference I removed from the article is defamatory to a wiki:BLP. I am unsure if my edit comment adequately describes the problem or violates the rules.the reference provided by another user which I deleted is about forum posts describing an official in a defamatory manner. The forum posts were made around the time that the communist party removed the term limits on presidency, a similar event that took place in the book animal farm surrounding a certain derogatory term which is also a character within animal farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.7.235 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What? I mean, A) I'm not sure this is an AN issue; but then B) statements cited to reliable sources are not BLP violations just because you disagree with them; and C) most of the new content you added is original research. Remember per WP:BLP, material must be removed that may be defamatory if untrue. There is an argument that what was found on the Wikipedia article was unclear with respect to reality, but you have made no argument that the source was stating anything false, which would preclude defamation. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

statements must be supported by evidence. Animal Farm is not banned in china. It is available on loan from the leading state university in the country, PKU publishes articles about the symbolic meaning in the book, for which i provided references, something you cant do with a banned book, instead it will be in Law enforcement officer restricted file if its an analysis of a banned book in mainland China. I dont disagree with the facts presented in the reference I deleted. The problem is that Squealer (Animal Farm) is referred to using the common derogatory term consisting of two three letter words to simply refer to President Xi in the forum posts described in the reference. This is why it was censored, as it would be on wikipedia. Furthermore it doesn't actually support the statement that Animal Farm is banned. wikipedia:NOR is often used incorrectly. All posts are original research however the meaning of NOR is that you cant present novel interpretations of raw data or synthesize conclusions from various sources that do not specifically connect ideas. Animal Farm is available on loan, read and discussed in mainland chinese universities, something that cannot be done with banned books hence I provide positive confirmation that it is freely available. It is up to the other editor to provide a reference that supports the conclusion that it is banned in the country. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You constructed new content that is based on search results and catalog listings to contradict another statement in the article. That is original research, and you will not be able to argue your way around it. I agree that distilling the content from The Independent to "Animal Farm is banned" is inaccurate, but that can be resolved by rewording, and is not an issue for administrative attention. As for BLP again, if a public figure is being insulted on social media, and those insults are getting news coverage, it would not be a BLP violation to describe what has been covered (aside from possible due weight issues), but that's not even what's happening at the article you edited - you're arguing for some kind of 4th-hand BLP violation, where the forum posts being referenced by the news article being referenced by the news article being referenced by Wikipedia contain insults against President Xi therefore it's derogatory... no. If you're here to debate how policies should be written, this is definitely the wrong page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

resolved? 49.198.7.235 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)