Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314

Problems with AFD nominations and with copyright issues

Hi all. I am concerned that there is a problem with a massive amount of articles (50?) brought to AFD by User:Softlavender without any responsible investigation into whether or not the individual articles are actually notable. All of the articles were created by User:Niggle1892, and are of recordings by the opera singer Frederica von Stade. Softlavendar brought the issue to a discussion at WP:WikiProject Opera where another editor expressed concerns about copyright problems on those articles. However, the consensus there seems to be, aside from the issue of copyright, that the articles in question are notable. Softlavendar went ahead and nominated all of them. I'm familiar with many of these recordings, some of them are actually Grammy Award winners, so notability through a quick cursory search would have been quickly established. Some help with copyright issues, and stopping an unnecessary flood of articles into AFD would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have investigated all of the articles, and they all fail WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. They all fail all of those criteria. Criterion 1 specifically says "Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article." Significant coverage is specifically not enough for a classical-music album article. One or two awards is also specifically not enough for a classical-music album article.

In fact, the user was warned on their talkpage several months ago by Richard3120 to stop creating these articles [1], but they went right on doing so. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 is there some reason that you didn't ask Softlavender about this on her talk page before coming to the dramaboard? WP:AGF applies to long time editors as well as newbies. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I came here, because Softlavendar wasn’t getting any support from the other editors at the project, and then went ahead and nominated a ton of articles for AFD anyway. We were already discussing the issue. There was no reason to discuss it anywhere else, after all these AFDs were posted without gaining any support (rather opposition). Being familiar of the works in question, it’s clear to me due diligence was not done. This comes off as a personal vendetta and not a rational decision. It’s going to create a headache at AFD for admins.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal vendetta against whom? MarnetteD is absolutely right about WP:AGF. I didn't even read the discussion at the project thread you mention. Once I found the notability guideline, I investigated each of the articles, and they all failed all of the criteria of the guideline, so I nominated them all, and then left a brief note about the guideline on the project page. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 your post is full of assumptions and accusations for which you presented no evidence. Claiming someone is not acting rationally is a personal attack for which you should apologize. FYI admins deal with mass AFD nominations on many occasions without the need for aspirin. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Softlavender was acting with good intentions, but I agree the mass AfD nom was not great. Since all ~50 albums have similar sourcing, and since the reason given for each nomination was identical, it probably would have been better to start by nominating 1-3, then based on the consensus around those, decide whether to nominate others. The copyvio issues are worrying, but I think the notability is there in most cases. Softlavender is focused on them failing the notability criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings, but that's a Wikiproject advice essay, not a guideline. The articles do seem to pass WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.

Also, it might have been nice to reach out to Niggle1892 first, instead of dropping a house on them in the form of 50 AfD nomination notifications. They seem to respond well to constructive criticism, and to be eager to improve their article writing skills. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think sticking 50 AfD templates on Niggle1892's talk page was just plain silly. It is possible to file a single AfD with multiple articles; if Softlavender believes all 50 fail roughly the same notability guidelines, there's no reason they couldn't have been managed in a single debate. For now, I think we should just let the AfDs play out and see where we are in a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Softlavender's proposal to delete almost all of my articles about albums. (I apologize if this is the wrong place to do so, but I've never been in this situation before.) (1) I don't think it's fair to characterize my articles as puffs. I've included negative critical comments as well as positive ones - indeed, I've tried so hard to represent critics' opinions fully that I've erred on the side of reporting them in too much detail. I have no personal or commercial interest in promoting record sales - my sole aim in writing my articles was to provide something that would be of interest to people like the four or five a week who, for the past decade, had been consulting Frederica von Stade - Mahler Songs. (It was the longevity of this article that made me imagine that others in the same vein might be acceptable.) (2) My album articles have been reviewed or edited by several experienced Wikipedia contributors - including Ser Amantio di Nicolao - without anyone but Softlavender asking me to stop writing them. (3) Softlavender has written that Richard3120 left a message on my talk page advising me to desist from what I'd been doing. In fact, after redirecting one of my articles, Richard3120 advised me what I should do to make them more viable: he said that it was mentions of reviews that were "the information that should be added to the articles as soon as possible - they certainly won't be put up for deletion with a couple of trustworthy reviews in them". (Little did he know.) (4) Wikipedia has many excellent articles about popular recordings, but very few about classical recordings, and most of those that do exist seem to be little more than stubs. Speaking as a Wikipedia reader rather than a Wikipedia contributor, I would love it if there were a dozen in-depth articles about different recordings of Der Rosenkavalier that would help me to decide which would be the one I would most enjoy. My hope was that when I'd finished my own little album project - which I'd almost completed when Softlavender intervened - other people would take up the baton and develop Wikipedia into as valuable a resource for classical record enthusiasts as it is for lovers of rock, blues and jazz.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This the situation that WP:FAIT is meant to prevent. Softlavender may be right that the articles are non-notable, but didn't have concensus to proceed. There are a few of these I see as COPYVIO (eg: Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording) or Die Schöpfung & Harmoniemesse (Leonard Bernstein recording) in that while they are sourced quotes from reviewers, they are far too long, and presented in Wikivoice (not quoted) and need necessary excessive trimming, paraphrasing, and quoting to be acceptable here, though the revisions with the copyvios are likely better dealt with by revdev rather than a WP:TNT approach as other parts of these articles are fine. But more importantly, did Softlavender ever give Niggle892 the opportunity to fix these or notice these may be problematic, before the AFDs? I'm not seeing that. That, coupled with the FAIT aspect (expecting Niggle1892 to address 50 AFDs at once) is extremely wrong. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for a compromise would be to take the following steps:

1. With SoftLavender's consent, mass-close the AfD noms per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 1 (nominator withdrawal), this is a non-prejudicial close so they can be re-nom'd later if needed.
2. Discuss with Niggle1892 and others, preferably on an appropriate project page.
3. Following discussion, if consensus says that some or all of the albums should be deleted under similar notability criteria, open a single mass-AfD per Ritchie333's suggestion.

I don't think that SoftLavender is necessarily in the wrong here, but since there has been significant concerns about their actions I think it would be best to follow a sort of BRD cycle here by closing the noms and discussing further. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. The 50 AfD noms are totally unwieldy, and we need some centralized discussion. What's happening now is that those who care to participate in the deletion discussions are copy-pasting their comments over and over, so that we have 50 largely parallel discussions, which is totally intractable. Colin M (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. Many of these albums clearly pass WP:NALBUM (grammy-nominated, subject of multiple reviews, articles, etc.) Note that the noms are all copypasted with the sole rationale "Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings." Additionally, those "criteria" are merely an essay while WP:NALBUM is an official guideline. It's impossible to give each nomination careful consideration when so many have been nominated en masse like this. A very poor move. If nothing else, the nominator should at least withdraw the AfDs that have zero !votes so far, without prejudice to renominating (at most two or three at a time) after the remaining AfDs have closed. In the meantime, I'm going to start participating in the 50 AfDs, carefully examining the articles and doing WP:BEFORE before making a judgement. I wish the nominator had done this, especially since there was an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Opera in which most of the participants disputed the rationale as well as an ongoing discussion on the "criteria" at WikiProject Classical music here . Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on the proposals or the legitmacy of the articles on notability grounds, but if you want to get rid of articles with copyright violations, just blank them and list them at Copyright Problems. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Masem's well-thought out proposal. @Softlavender: I too would request that you withdraw your AfD nominations so the user has a chance to address any shortcomings in the articles and/or effectively respond. As Masem said, WP:FAIT applies here and, IMHO, so does WP:BITE. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that is User:Creffpublic's proposal you see above, it's not mine, but I do fully agree with it as it matches what I think should have been done to start. :) --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(inject response). No, I meant what I said. What you posted is what I support. While that's largely what was said by User:Creffpublic, your thoughts were more specific to the situation/resolution of the matter + WP:AGF. Buffs (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you to everyone who has advised me how to make my articles better. After thinking about what has been said, I've cut out all my paraphrased reviews and replaced them with notes directing readers to their sources. I hope to improve my articles by adding a few short quotes from critics, but this will necessarily take some time - I have something like 150 reviews to work through, and it's obviously vital that the selection of excerpts is scrupulously fair to the reviewed, the reviewers and the readers. Some editors have suggested that I should remove track listings too, but I still think that these have some modest value - they're helpful for readers for whom, like my partially-sighted father, the tiny print on a CD booklet is just too small to see, and they're a handy way of providing links to other articles about different composers, librettists and compositions. On a related matter, I've only created one article on Wikipedia apart from those at issue here, namely a biography of Roly Drower. I noticed that Softlavender, who of course it was who put all my album articles into AfD, wrote about the Drower article too on Drmies's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Don't_know_what_to_do_about_this. On September 18, she wrote "Roly Drower appears to be a vanity article on a deceased loved one, who was notable only locally on the Isle of Man. All of this user's article creations are seriously problematic. Need someone to pull the trigger on some or all of them. Thanks." Later the same day, she wrote: "I agree that AfD is probably the best route. I would prefer that someone else do that on the bio article, if someone feels to...thanks..."[sic]. I thought I might explain that I am not a member of Drower's family and have never thought of him as a "loved one". I was a contemporary of his at university, where he and his friend David Jewitt were the outstanding graduates of the class of 1979. Googling them lately out of curiosity as to what had become of them, I thought that a pair of articles about the two of them would be a worthwhile study in contrast and similarity. The portrait that I painted of Drower was very much warts-and-all, mentioning his failure to take advantage of his elite schooling, his failure to complete his Ph.D., the failure of his marriage and his failure in the high-profile, internationally reported court case that was the tragic climax of his environmental activism. I wasn't attempting a belated funerary eulogy.Niggle1892 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to strip out the entire review (eg like you did here [2]), you are allowed to use short quotes (which generally means a short phrase, or maybe a sentence) as long as you include that in quotation marks and have immediate sourcing afterwards, and you can paraphrase and summarize other parts. See how most film articles cover the critical reception. --Masem (t) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging advice. The reason that I stripped out the reviews entirely is that constructing fifty collages of quotes, summaries and paraphrases from some very long, complicated and mutually contradictory reviews would take many weeks even if I had no other business to attend to. I imagined that leaving things as they were for that length of time might be a serious issue for people who were concerned about copyright - assuming, that is, that the articles aren't all deleted anyway (in which case I'm hoping for a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the creator of the most Wikipedia entries ever erased in one go!).Niggle1892 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the AFDs were based on an essay that was in direct contradiction to WP:GNG and WP:V. Also, quotes from reviews in even featured articles are often several sentences or small paragraphs not just one sentence, provided they are in quotation marks and have an inline citation. regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Misguided AfD page

Could a willing admin address please address the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L Richards? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There was an issue with punctuation (AFD didn't match article name), and an issue with AFD being tricky in general if you're not using Twinkle, and an issue with a lack of a deletion rationale. I'm trying to help them on their user talk page. In the mean time, I deleted the misnamed/malformed/incomplete AFD page, and removed the template from the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Something doesn't quite track here. I only briefly read the deletion page before it was deleted by Floq, but I could swear it said that User:Mrdavid1729 was the subject of the article. Now flashback more than 2 years, where User:Richardsdl!! also claims that they are the subject (and were apparently confirmed as such by OTRS [3]). Lost account? Or something fishy? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal if someone forgets about their old account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh for sure, just wanted to make sure that it actually was the same person and not some elaborate troll. I was just at a loss for why, after waiting nearly three years, this guy was once again up in arms over his article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your posts. First, a reminder that "This guy...once again up in arms..." is a person, just like you. You don't know him and there may be dynamics in his life of which you are unaware. I gave up trying to get this page deleted because of the inordinate frustration a technically-incompetent person encounters when trying to do anything --no matter how earnestly-- in Wikipedia, because someone will come along and delete it for an innocent error. In response to the posts: 1. I am indeed the page subject. I forgot my old login and created a new one. 2. I followed the multi-step Wikipedia instructions on how to nominate a page for deletion to the maximum of my ability to understand the directions. I can't do any better. 3. I added a rationale to the page the instructions said to, but the rationale was deleted. My rationale is that I am a private, non-notable person who doesn't deserve a page. There are other security reasons not able to be discussed here that have lead even my employer to wash me from their webpages. You can observe for yourself at the following pages that my photo is gone and I'm reduced to a single line bio: https://polisci.uconn.edu/people/faculty/ https://polisci.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/our-team-all/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/joint-faculty/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ I sincerely thank anyone for their help.Mrdavid1729 (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mrdavid1729: Thank you for clarifying the issue here. I have gone ahead and started a new deletion discussion (accessible here) per the relevant Wikipedia notability guideline: WP:NACADEMIC. There is no guarantee that the article will be deleted, but a process about a week long will now being where editors will determine whether the article is in fact notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 24 September 2019

I very much appreciate that help! I'm OK with the decision process --it will be what it will be-- it's just terribly frustrating for a novice to navigate Wiki. Thank you. -David Mrdavid1729 (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Unreviewed AfC-acceptances in New Pages Feed

Few AfC acceptances listed in New Pages Feed are in Un-reviewed status, even if they are accepted by AfC reviewers who are Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewers (not as like the articles supposed to be in 'Autopatrolled' status). Any solution? I posted a query with an example on the same in AfC talk page, which went almost unresolved. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The 5 examples listed at your query were all accepted by an editor without autopatrol. Do you have any examples of someone with autopatrol whose AfC accepts are being listed as unreviewed in the New Pages Feed? Otherwise things are working as designed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:CASSIOPEIA's AfC-acceptance: Deborra Richardson is the right example. In the query (which I mentioned in my prev. post here), the posts between me and User:CASSIOPEIA can be reffered for more details. Its just below the line of division soon after my chat with User:Nosebagbear. (The reason behind the line was just to create a division between query & clarification) --Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gpkp, I must not be following. The fact that your accepts are autopatrolled and CASSIOPEIACASSIOPEIA's are not means everything is working correctly. You have the autopatrol PERM and they don't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, User:CASSIOPEIA has the autopatroll PERM verify. User:CASSIOPEIA got the autopatrolled flag on ′17:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)′ and User:CASSIOPEIA AfC-accepted Deborra Richardson on ′03:15, September 21, 2019‎′.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 11:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for ban and article lock in RJ Nieto article

Requesting for ban/block of Object404 for insisting on preserving contentious content on RJ Nieto which are poorly sourced and cited. The article has sections that use citations irrelevant or not even discussing what it supposed to be a reference to. The article also cites Facebook posts and a website memebuster which both fails as reliable sources as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Yet Object404 insists that memebuster is a "reliable source" refering to a Talk page he himself created. He argues that memebuster has been "cited by CNN" but that doesn't make it reliable. News outlets cite blogs but that does not mean they are verified sources. News outlets also cite social media posts of random people. Memebuster is a blog written by anonymous people of unknown credentials. I have edited the article to remove poorly sourced and contentious materials but Object404 insists on preserving the contentious and poorly sourced version of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNDeSCRiPT (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Although this may be a BLP case, this seems way too premature for a block/ban. It doesn't even seem to be a discussion ripe for AN yet. AFAICT, it only involved a single revert. And they did point to a discussion which suggested memebuster may be an RS although in an unrelated talk page and with only one other participant I don't think it really establishes anything. It's possible Object404 was the editor who originally added the info, I'm not sure, but that was over a year ago. I don't zero recent attempt to discuss BLP with Object404. Heck they don't even seem to have been notified of this thread as the big boxes say you must do although I appreciate they are easier to miss on mobile. I suggest Object404 is reminded of our strong sourcing requirements and the need for being conservative and to discuss significant concerns before info is added /back for BLPs, and further help is sought at either WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N if need be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I wrote the above without looking at the disputed content, since it didn't seem necessary. Now that I've look at it, it seems even clearer cut a case of not something for AN. While it's true Facebook was cited, these sometimes seem to be posts by the subject themselves and are used simply as additional citations for when the posts have been criticised as covered in RS. Often quoting the original post in such instances, so it can be viewed in entirety, is fair enough and in any case can be discussed somewhere appropriate and doesn't seem the sort of problem requiring urgent removal. Some of the other cases I'm not so sure but still I didn't see anything close to being of concern from a single revert. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nil Eine. NoNDeSCRiPT has been repeatedly deleting properly cited content. -Object404 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you guys take a look at the content he has been repeatedly deleting? He's been doing this for sometime now. -Object404 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you should be the one investigated. You re-reverted the article again when the administrator clearly stated that some of the statements are purely cited on Facebook alone, are considered original research and memebuster is not a reliable source. The discussion page you provided as a "proof" is insubstantial as it is only written by you per se (anecdotal evidence / also original research). Plus the Template in RJ Nieto article already prescribed that "contentious and libelous" content may be removed especially the poorly cited ones. So by insisting on reverting poorly cited version, and contentious content on a living person's article, you are both edit-warring and overstepping Wikipedia rules. As far as I can remember, the last time I edited the article (which was months ago) I've put some citation needed tags on the questionable content but until now the content remain uncited and poorly uncited. The article is clearly libelous. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The page has now been locked due to continued edit warring. As I said in the first instance, this problem needs to be solved via discussion seeking help at BLPN or RSN if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See talk page, Nondescript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RJ_Nieto#Social_Media_Entries_As_Citation -Object404 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Both of you need to stop Discuss it on the talk page and let others join in via RfC. This is not the appropriate venue. A request for a ban over this is significant overkill. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion in need of admin attention

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 discussion is in urgent need of attention from one or more uninvolved administrators. Its becoming unwieldy and TLDR. I seriously doubt further discussion is likely to add clarity or strength to any consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TLDR: the ANI report is about these three diffs from 8 days ago [4] [5] [6] and these two from August [7] [8]. I don't really see the urgency. There's a lot of discussion in those threads; it'll take time for a closer to review. – Levivich 06:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's currently in the process of being closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Heads Up: Neo-Nazi auto-confirmed trolls

 Handled

There has been some recent vandalism from neo-Nazi auto-confirmed troll accounts at Gas Chamber and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege in case anybody with access to the magic 8 ball wants to have a look for possible sleeper accounts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Some LTA or another. Blocked a sleeper. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Protecting an editor's user page or user space per their request

Hi, fellow admins! I have a few questions and thoughts regarding the situation where users request pre-emptive protection of their user page, or to subpages within their user space (excluding their user talk page), where no active vandalism, abuse, or disruption is actively in progress or occurring at the time of their request. A request was made today on RFPP by an editor who requested extended confirmed protection be applied onto their user page, where it has never been the subject to any vandalism or abuse, because he would like it restricted to only be able to be edited by extended confirmed editors. I responded by telling the user that ECP may not be doable due to policy, but that would go double check and review it to be absolutely sure. I'm certain that I've applied semi-protection onto user pages pre-emptively per their request in the past, and I honestly don't see a problem with it if the user is established and trustworthy, and hasn't had issues with violating WP:UPNOT.

However, I hadn't actually looked into this situation before, policy-wise. I had just granted these requests because I saw that other admins had always done the same thing; they were perfectly okay with applying pre-emptive page protection (usually always semi-protection) onto a page within an editor's own user space (but not their user talk page) if they simply requested it. I feel has been (or has become) the general "norm" regarding this situation and these requests. However, reading WP:UPROT (which references the closing statements on this discussion) state that any kind of pre-emptive or "automatic" protection of any pages within an editor's user space is not allowed, and that at least some level of need must exist before we can approve such user requests. I just feel like the general "norm", from what I've seen admins do consistently over many years, differs from what's stated within policy, and where I'd like to get input and thoughts from others and discuss this.

Do you agree that this is also what you observe when users make such requests? Should we perhaps be open to consider starting a discussion as to whether or not consensus may have changed in this area, and whether or not pre-emptive user-requested protection of pages within own user space should be okay? If so, what protection levels (or "maximum" protection level) can they pre-emptively request? Any kind of thoughts or input about this would be awesome and highly appreciated. I guess I kind of realized, following this request I received on RFPP, that I hadn't actually reviewed the policy on this, and I had been following what felt to be the "norm" and from what I've observed other admins do, and my thoughts went from there...

I'm going to decline the extended confirmed protection request on RFPP, but I'm going to be open to considering whether or not to start a discussion and proposal that semi-protection be fair to request and apply to someone's own user space pre-emptively (excluding their user talk page), but that'll depend on how this discussion goes and the input that others provide here. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking only for me, I fully protected my userpage (and have a very strong editnotice if someone thinks to try to edit it) just because of my personal preference. I have no strong feeling, just to note that at least I didn't think I was doing anything untoward when I did it in my userspace (and I have no intention of ever unprotecting it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - Good point. This is something that I know a handful of admins have done. Shoot, I self-protect pages within my own user space pre-emptively a lot (in order to prevent LTA abuse, vandalism, and other shenanigans that I often receive). I don't take issue with the admins who have done this. What I do take issue with is the fact that we consistently, routinely, and usually apply protection to user pages pre-emptively without much thought, and that policy states that we cannot do so. We self-protect pages within our own user space and a handful of us do so with full protection, then we turn around and tell editors "no" when they request a lesser-level of the exact same thing. That's not right of us to do that..... Either we have to stop this trend full-stop, or we need to open a discussion to have the relevant policies in this situation updated to reflect the changing consensus and norms, and how we actually handle it. I'm honestly thinking that the later is the right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't mind full or semi protecting non-talk pages in my userspace, that see abuse. Those two options are generally good enough for me - and there's no real reason to use any other levels. Occasionally, I might TE protect a bot toggle or something. That being said - I generally hold off unless there's a history of - or at least a likelyhood of abuse. SQL^{Query me!} 03:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully-protected my user page because it has seen vandalism, not recently but in the past when I first became an admin and I think admin user pages are likely targets for vandals. I think I would refuse to protect a user page unless there has been vandalism (more than once) and then it would only be temporarily protected from unconfirmed or IP editors. You could call that a double standard and I couldn't deny that. I think admin user pages are more often targets. And if it is a persistent vandal, it is often better to give a short block to the vandal rather than protecting a user page.

I think extended confirmed protection should be limited to areas under sanctions and that would not include user pages. But I'll admit that I only protect highly vandalized articles when I come across them on the noticeboards or alerts to my talk page and am not used to responding to editors' requests to protect user pages on RFPP. I'm surprised to read from you, Oshwah, that it is typical for admins to grant editor requests to protect user pages if they haven't been vandalized. I didn't think it was okay to provide pre-emptive protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz - It may be possible that my thoughts don't reflect what others have seen or believe, and that I'm just crazy. :-P This is why I wanted to start a discussion about it here and ask. I'd rather speak up about it and bring collective thoughts to the table than sit silent. My observations led me to believe the opposite, and that granting pre-emptive protection to user pages and user space was okay if it was requested and it was reasonable. But define "reasonable", and this is where I (and likely many others) will likely differ in that definition... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I personally decline protection unless there has been vandalism. If the user has been subject to harassment or vandalism in the past and requests preemptive protection of a new page in their userspace, I will grant it since there's no need to wait until the troll inevitably returns and trashes that page too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be preemptively protected. I would happily protect any page for a limited period if a problem had been demonstrated, but it would not help to start a trend where, instead of collecting user rights, people can collect user space protection. I have seen useful wikignoming of user pages, in fact I've done it. Obviously anyone who substantively changes other user's pages should be firmly opposed, but this is a wiki! Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My own opinion, as cited at my essay User:MelanieN/Page protection: User talk pages can be protected briefly if they are under attack. A person’s main user page should not usually need protection, since they are automatically semi-protected by a filter. User pages and user talk pages do not get protected just because the user asks for it; there must be a demonstrated need.

This is policy per WP:Protection policy and I can't seen any need to change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN - I think you're absolutely right, despite my thoughts on this situation that I expressed initially. I'm open to applying protection to user space following a request, but having thought about this more in depth since opening this discussion, I believe that protecting users from further abuse, threats, vandalism, and trolling was my underlying reason for being so open to accepting user requests so loosely (other than what I observed to be the "norm"); the requests mainly came from people who needed it. Others have mentioned that past abuse is enough grounds to grant their request, as there is a need and there is a possibility that it'll happen again if they participate in areas that result in retaliation and trolling, such as recent changes patrolling. I think that this is the way that I've felt all along, but haven't self-reflected or self-evaluated upon, since I went with what I thought was the "norm" and what I believed to have observed. I'm happy that I created this discussion and expressed my thoughts and observations. This is an open project with the principle that you can edit anything, and (like you said) there's already an edit filter in place to prevent the typical disruption from occurring onto the user space. Thank you for your input here; it's helping me to self-evaluate my initial thoughts and opinion, and I appreciate it very much. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that once a user in good standing has received abuse, any reasonable request for protection from the user should be accepted. By reasonable, I mean there should be a plausible reason to think protection is useful. A couple of random vandals would not qualify as abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq - I agree; that's a perfectly reasonable threshold to use when deciding whether or not protection to another editor's user page is appropriate. Thank you for providing your thoughts and input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I protect pages in user-space only if there has already been disruption (so there must be the "demonstrated need"), not preemptively. I also try to keep it short, especially on user talk-pages....all more ore less complying with policy. Lectonar (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to protect on request but no longer do so. As MelanieN pointed out WP:Protection policy exists and is clear. WP:Protection policy#User talk pages "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." and WP:Protection policy#User pages "Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed and IP users." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a fan of preemptive protection in the general case. That said, I've observed one exception to the policy today which seems to enjoy consensus: WP:RIP protecting. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm happy to leave it to admin discretion. Most admins prefer to see some vandalism first, but I see no reason to make this a rule - we have enough rulescreep as it is. Likewise, if an admin merrily protects all userpages upon request, I'm not going to worry my noggin about it. YMMV. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but admin discretion isn't supported per WP:ECP. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nonsense, admin discretion is always applicable for virtually any admin action. There is nothing in ECP to say otherwise. It only states "where semi... (is) ineffective" and the admin must determine that. What is the threshold for effectiveness? etc. KillerChihuahua 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  I would say it has to have been at least attempted, not just "I request it". Buffs (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I strenuously oppose any protection of any page where it isn't warranted. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, not "well, I can protect things under my control"...no you shouldn't. WP:OWN addresses this in detail. High vandalism or pages crucial to WP operation = fine. But an emphatic no on ECP! There are VERY specific reasons that ECP should be invoked and they are spelled out at WP:ECP. ECP should NEVER be a first resort, but a last resort when all else has failed. Every time we invoke some sort of page protection, it takes away from "anyone can edit." Now, if we collectively change our minds about that, fine. I would support it, but a discussion here does not change policy. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs You are aware that this is a discussion about User pages, not namespace pages. Other than a collaborative effort to a future article, what reason would you have to be editing pages in another users space? Why would you feel so "strenuously" about it? — Ched (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: I'm aware.

• WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."
• WP:PP: "Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings. Extended confirmed protection may be applied by an administrator at their discretion when creation-protecting a page."

No where in our policies is what is described permitted. In fact, by such omission, it is specifically excluded. As stated above, if we change our policies, I'm not all that against adding an exception for User pages within some narrow guidelines, but it still needs to be spelled out as an exception and the circumstances under which we're making an exception. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not an admin thinks that protecting their own pages is within admin discretion, the optics are bad. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and is granted so that the admin may help the encyclopedia by carrying out tasks for which the community is not willing to grant permission to all editors. An admin protecting his own pages or pages he has been actively editing, no matter what the provocation, is not appropriate. If protection is needed for a page where an admin may have a conflict of interest, then another uninvolved admin should be asked to look at the situation and decide whether protection is appropriate. I also think admins should also avoid protecting any page that has not been the subject of recent vandalism, disruptive edits, or edit warring. - Donald Albury 21:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"An admin protecting his own pages or pages he has been actively editing, no matter what the provocation, is not appropriate" (emphasis mine). I have a pretty thick skin, but I doubt there would be many members of the community who would think it was inappropriate for me to protect my own user space when a serial sock is detailing their rape fantasies involving me on my talk page, or when an administrator's family members are being explicitly threatened. To say it's always inappropriate makes me think you've never actually experienced the depth of abuse that can be levied upon some of our admin corp and functionaries. If anyone thinks I'm going to just allow such threats to be levied at me and wait for another admin to come save me from my "conflict of interest", they're wrong. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd second that. I've literally been accused of murder here on WP. If I'd been an admin, WP:IAR and a page protection would have been up instantly. That's reasonable and NOT what we're talking about here. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UT

All I am saying is that an admin should ask another admin to protect their user pages (or other pages where they are involved) rather than doing so themselves. Non-admins cannot protect their own pages, why should admins do so? If one of your personal pages is being attacked, there surely is another admin who will be willing to protect it. But, leave that judgment up to someone else. - Donald Albury 23:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No thank you. There's nothing in policy or practice that requires me to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• We give people wide latitude over their user pages, and any half-reasonable request to protect seems to be in line with that. User talk pages would only be protected against ongoing trolling or vandalism. That's also in line with how admins have historically managed their own pages (and admins are just users with extra rights, not special people). I am OK with semiprotection of user pages, but not user talk pages unless they are subjects of long term abuse. Thanks, Oshwah, for bringing a genuinely interesting and novel question here. Guy (help!) 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG - You're welcome, and I appreciate the gratitude and the kind words. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please revoke all permissions from this account

I have no use for them as I have no intention of returning to editing and will be scrambling the password on this account shortly. Mélencron (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, sadly. We're sorry to see you go. GAB^gab 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is heartbreaking. You have done fantastic work in the elections sphere Mélencron. I hope you will reconsider before scrambling your password. - MrX 🖋 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite IP address blocks

Hello, fellow administrators! It's that time of the year again! :-) I try to post a yearly reminder to this noticeboard for all admins, and ask that you take a few moments and go through the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses and ranges, locate any indefinite blocks that you've placed, and review them. If there are accidental blocks that you've placed on any IP addresses or ranges indefinitely (heh, I know that I've done this a few times in the past), please take a moment to remove those blocks. If there are indefinite IP address or range blocks that you've placed intentionally, please review them and verify whether or not the indefinite duration is still necessary. Obviously, if they're not, you'll want to either set the duration to expire at some point in time, or remove the block completely. Taking the time to review the indefinite IP and range blocks you've placed will help assure that we only apply and maintain blocks and other sanctions and restrictions if they're correct, accurate, and necessary, and avoid collateral damage and having any old or outdated blocks affect innocent users. Thanks for taking the time to do this, and I wish everyone an excellent day and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Oshwah! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo - No problem; always happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There are a number there created by Admins who are no longer around or are no longer Admins, including a couple who are blocked. User:Xeno you're obviously still around, do you want to comment on yours or just let other Admins deal with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Except the one placed at request of the school district administrator, these all appear to be modifications of existing indef blocks (mostly converting talk page protection to talk page restriction). I personally have no issue with those being lifted, but you might want to check with the original blocking administrator.

Also in general I have no issue with other administrators modifying my past administrative actions, except those marked as done in an arbitration capacity (in which, consult the current committee). –xeno^talk 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about title blacklist

Someone asked at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge (which is the wrong place, but that's neither here nor there) for Draft:Bad Apple!! to be moved to Bad Apple!!. The problem seems to be the double exclamation marks match an entry in the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Is there some reason why I shouldn't complete this move for the person? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's matching an entry that is meant for generic vandalism page moves. If that's the legitimate name for the article, then it's totally fine to move it to that title. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done by JJMC89. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete request

Dear sysop, I got a request:

Can you delete the user page User:AbdulZakir? Reason: Spam-only account: Spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. It looks like everything has been taken care of. By the way, on English Wikipedia, you can report spam-only accounts to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In the future, you can request page deletions by applying a speedy deletion tag on the page if its actually meets at least one of the criteria. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for topic ban

This notification is to report behaviour by Snooganssnoogans (S) on the Brexit article and request a topic ban.

A few days ago I had an edit to that article reverted several times by S. I took it to the relevant talk page and the discussion about it is here. I added my edit was back in, there being a clear majority in my favour. 4:1, no-one was on S's side. I made the point that S had lied in his or her edit summary of one of the reversions. [here]. This falsehood continued in the discussion. When S said "There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject." s/he was referring to this But editors didn't decide one way or another - there was an even split, followed by administrator judication.

Brexit is a highly contentious subject, which makes it one over which editors must pay special attention to fairness and their allowing information to be presented which they disagree with. Unfortunately, with the edit under discussion there, S appeared to disagree with that concept, writing that "a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included..." But the working paper was not just a snappy judgement by whoever, it was a survey undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore. the fact that it came to a conclusion contrary to information already presented in the article and supported by academic surveys (forecasts) is not relevant. Wikipedia is all about fairness and balance. We all know this.

So there were major problems with S's arguments.

Now all this would be something not unheard of it were not for the following. Other editors have raised the question of WP:OWN in relation to S. Octoberwoodland did so in the discussion linked above, while the comments of PaleCloudedWhite in the same place also relate to it. Futhermore, PCW drew attention to this unsolicited post by another editor on his Talk page, which says: "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article (WP:OWN). Just look at his talk page to get an idea of his conception of a collaborative encyclopedia. The only way to shut him up would be to make a consensus building talk, as I think that most people agree that the Brexit page cannot only rely on academic studies..."

Not surprisingly, S refuted the idea of him or her being involved in WP:OWN, but then said "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." - which kind of flies in the face of that refutation.

I also draw attention to the last comment on the Talk discussion about my edit, wbich says: "Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." " Surely Wikipedians should not have to put up with the kind of behaviour being talked about? It is wearing. It puts good editors off of Wiki, sometimes permanently.

A day or so ago, in that same discussion, I wrote: "I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported." S duly "obliged" with more reversions. I had by then read a lot of S's talk page, which shows this (discussion with an Admin about avoiding a ban) and a multitude of 3RR warnings.

I am of course far from being the only editor who has had edits to the Brexit article reverted by S. Asarlaí has also experienced it. See here. And I should add that IMO Asarlaí's contributions are exemplary, far superior to mine.

I would like it to be possible to make good edits to the Brexit article without there being any risk of reversion for spurious reasons by S.

Two more edits by me were reverted by S overnight. One in particular I am bringing to attention. This is the comparison. S uses wording in his or her edit summary which frankly I find distasteful. But much more important is the problem with the reversion. A study which makes a forecast of something is a forecast. It cannot be anything else, no matter how reputable the people or organisation responsible. So the phraseology "It forecasted that Brexit would ..." (my words) is correct. Whereas the statement "The study found that Brexit would..." (S's words) cannot be anything other than incorrect, because the study is a forecast, and therefore saying that something would happen, when it is only what the study says, is a misrepresention. This may be considered a minor point - I disagree. I wouldn't and couldn't of course make the following point in the article, due to SYNTH , (although if I noticed an RS that made the point I'd include it) but there were a multitude of pre- and post-referendum forecasts and studies which said that a pro-Brexit vote would be next to cataclysmic. Yet employment in Britain has as it stands right now never been higher. So study after study turned out to be so much waste paper. And therefore to say that something will or would be the case in the future wrt. Brexit is itself a contentious thing to say. But saying something is forecasted, no problem with that. I have not taken this to Talk:Brexit as talk discussions take up a lot of time. This has, too, but it's far more important.

I feel that there is a major issue with S. By coincidence, at the very top of this noticeboard, in this discussion, yet another editor is alleging harassment by S. And that's on top of all that I have already written about. How many reports are needed? There are probably more that I haven't seen. I regret that I have to ask for a topic ban on Snooganssnoogans for Brexit-related articles. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't examined all the points raised, but it's hard to fault the revert by Snooganssnoogans at 12:07, 12 September 2019. The edit summary was "remove partisan commentary used as a rebuttal to academic research" and examining the edit suggests that summary is very accurate. From the ref, "new analysis was conducted by researchers at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands, rated the world’s top university for agricultural research". The ref also said that a fisherman who had founded the Fishing for Leave group, disagreed. Articles should be based on the best available sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't time to post anything of substance, but would request that this thread is not closed down quickly without thorough examination of the situation. As I have stated on the article talk page, my belief is that Snooganssnoogans is only interested in the Brexit article presenting a negative view of Brexit, and is hostile to material contrary to that perspective. I suspect that there are several editors who no longer edit the article due to the aggressive stance of Snooganssnoogans, who, in my view, edits the article so it is not "Brexit", but rather "Wikipedia's assessment on whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Significant investigation would be needed to check that, but on this one point (which I found by looking at recent edits), it is standard procedure for an article to state X where X is an assertion backed by academic research from (according to the ref) a leading authority on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is rich. In a recent RfC, PaleCloudedWhite argued that a peer-reviewed study on this topic should be excluded.[9] However, when a working paper on the very same subject that reached an opposite conclusion was being considered for inclusion on the talk page, PaleCloudedWhite failed to stick to his principled position and he did not advocate for the exclusion of the working paper.[10] A principled consistent editor would stick to the same position, regardless of whether the research in question reached a pro- or anti-Brexit conclusion. One example why editing on the Brexit article is dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article. Yes, the Brexit article is, overall, negative towards Brexit. When the government's own research shows the likelihood of massive disruptions to trade, interruptions in the supplies of key medicines and food, and inflation, and every single mainstream economist puts the impact at between 5% and 10% shrinkage of the UK economy, and when there's a risk of reigniting the Troubles and the Cod Wars, it's really quite hard to say much positive about it (unless you arte a tax exile hedge fund investor and are have massive short positions on the pound and UK companies, of course, in which case it's looking pretty rosy). Guy (help!) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• The WP:OWN accusations stem from the fact that various editors hate the fact that the Brexit article clearly and comprehensively explains the consensus in the economic literature that Brexit will harm the British economy, and have forcefully argued that the article should omit this relevant fact - when they try to scrub this content in the absence of consensus, I revert them. When editors are not arguing for scrubbing peer-reviewed research, they want to include rebuttals by politicians of the peer-reviewed research (e.g. "Studies XYZ say Brexit will adversely the British economy, but Boris Johnson says it will make the British economy stronger") - when they do in the absence of consensus, I revert them. See this Wired article for a decent summary of the discussions on the Brexit page.[11] That Wikipedia should rely on peer-reviewed research and academic assessments, and that academic research should not be rebutted by partisan actors are long-standing principles that I've applied consistently across Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• As for the specifics in OP, my stance is very simple: We cannot include a working paper that reaches conclusion A on issue X if we exclude a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue. That's a brazen violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Either both are included or neither. I explicitly said in the talk page discussion that my preferred position was to include both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I regret that Snooganssnoogans is continuing to cloud the issue, by re-stating his or her anger about the exclusion of “a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue”. I made the point several times in the Talk page section above-mentioned that the peer-reviewed study under contention was one of the possible effect on investment values. Yet the subsection that it was eventually excluded from was the UK financial sector, which an industry - not the same thing. At least one editor made that point in the discussion of whether or not it should be included. Further, there was no uconsensus in that discussion, so no precedence was established. Ergo, the argument is invalid. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You should stop regurgitating comments made by random Wikipedia editors (OP is full of 'random users XYZ said this about Snoogans"). This study[12] is about the UK financial industry, regardless of what some random editor who did not read the study claimed on a talk page once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you wrote “I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article.“

1. I wasn’t aware that any such request had been made?

2. You would topic ban an editor for one such transgression?

Or was the comment a curious case of sarcasm? I’m confused. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Could be referring to the heading of this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

^This, and/or Guy could be referring to the Boomerang; as for the OP, without prejudice to either position at this time, I'd refer you to the fact that we needn't give equal validity to viewpoints to satisfy NPOV, nor should we as it appears in this case. In any event I still think this is mostly a content dispute. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

But then the over-riding concept must always be, as stated in the guideline you quoted, John M Wolfson, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Thinking along those lines, of fairness in particular, in the case of the legal establishment in the US, judges who have strongly-held views on a subject must disqualify themselves where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Does the same principle apply in Wikipedia disputes? Boscaswell talk 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fairly as described by reliable sources, not by politicians or the general public. And there is a form of recusal here on Wikipedia, but it applies only to actual conflicts of interest, paid editing, and/or close personal connections, rather than merely having a strong opinion on something. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:INVOLVED for users with advanced permissions or acting as such. Uninvolved users may also be summoned to close RFCs, and depending on the contention in the RFC, should generally be the ones to do so. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

None of which situations apply to the underlying dispute at hand, IMO, which is about potentially-tendentious editing and nothing more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is one of false balance. The supermajority view of professional economists is that Brexit will be economically damaging to the UK. There are, to be sure, a handful of dissenters, and some primary research which lies in the long tail of the normal distribution of estimates, but there's no way to argue that the median is anything other than a substantial economic detriment.

Leavers have discounted these predictions since day 1, calling them "project fear". Before the advisory referendum it was predicted that some major UK car makers - Ford, Honda, JLR, Mini, Nissan , Toyota and PSA/Vauxhall all of which are foreign-owned - would scale back UK operations. This was dismissed as "project fear". Since the vote, investment in the sector has fallen from a run-ate of £2.5bn per annum or thereabouts to £90m, according to the SMMT. Honda is not jusrt scaling back, it is closing its Swindon plant. PSA is closing Ellesmere Port. Ford is closing Bridgend, the largest engine plant in Europe. Nissan has dropped plans to build new models in the UK. JLR is moving Land Rover production to Slovakia. So the realities, even before the deadline, are actually considerably worse than original forecasts. And that will affect, for example, the University of Birmingham, a significant proportion of whose engineering graduates go to Ford and JLR.

So yes, you can cherry-pick the occasional rosy estimate, but when the government's own Yellowhammer documents, the IMF and numerous other sources all predict 5%-10% shrinkage oft he UK economy, you don't get to offset that with a single document by the Irish central bank that thinks maybe UK banking won't be that hard hit for example. Especially when the big accountancy and consulting firms are all predicting large profits helping banks to move out of London to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. No passporting? No deal. The determination of hard Leavers to be outside of the free movement zone is a killer for international banks with European hubs in London (i.e. my customers), and you can bet your life that Frankfurt and Paris, especially, will be falling over each other to offer them deals, because they have been eyeing these prizes for a long time.

In fact, I have yet to see a single tangible benefit of Brexit proposed. Even Leavers coned it could be 50 years before the economy recovers. There are no sunlit uplands to be had. A few businesses will profit by lower wages and destruction of employment rights, and perhaps the more speculative goal of Leavers to set up Europe's offshore tax haven might come to fruition, but Europe is clamping down on that and I don't see them giving us a free pass. The Russian mob will be happy to hoover up some London real estate, of course, but for the majority of Brits it's going to be brutal, and the currency markets agree: the pound is at a historic low against the Euro and the US Dollar, albeit on a slide that started with the manifestly ineffective Austerity policies.

Now, you can still decide that you hate the EU so much that it's a price worth paying. That would be an ecumenical matter. Straight bananas, and all that. But Wikipedia is about the mainstream view, representing all significant views according to their weight, and the mainstream view, for all that half of the UK is in denial about it, is that Brexit is an economic clusterfuck. So this is really very much akin to the creationists arguing for equal weight in evolution articles. Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG:, I agree with the policy related part of the above (on a personal basis I agree with all of it, but the latter part is not particularly relevant to the TBAN discussion), but dear god...paragraphs, man! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Soz. Kept getting ECd and shit. @Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted paragraph breaks into Guy's long comment, to increase its readability. Guy, if you object, feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As Nosebagbear commented, that spiel was not particularly relevant. It also clouded the issue of that one content dispute. And was misleading. Unless one wishes to blame every problem concerning UK industry on Brexit.

Clouded the issue? Yes, because that one edit was pertinent only to the UK financial sector, not to the rest of UK industry, service or otherwise.

Misleading? Yes. Taking some of those vehicle manufacturers one by one, JLR had to close plants for long breaks some time ago, due to collapsing demand. Nothing to do with Brexit. Nissan models: it is manufacture in Sunderland of their luxury Infiniti brand which is to be shut down - it hadn’t been a success and they are pulling out of Western Europe altogether. Again, nothing to do with Brexit. PSA: this company took over the Vauxhall brand and plant. This has had falling sales for years, decades even. Very little to do with Brexit. Ford closed down its UK vehicle manufacturing operations years and years ago. I presume that this was because some execs with incredible foresight realised that Brexit was inevitable. See what I mean?

Again I ask, is it legitimate - as asked on my next previous edit - for Wikipedian Admins with very, very strongly-held views to make judgments on those with whom they disagree strongly on content matters? This question was not the purpose of my original post. I thought that there was going to be a “fair hearing”, I had some faith in the “judicial” machinations of Wikipedia. As things stand at the moment, it looks as if I was wrong. That faith I had has been severely shaken, if not completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please make a substantive response to the points raised above. I was the first to comment and mentioned a recent edit that I had investigated. Do you agree with what I wrote? If so, please state that so we know the boundaries of the situation. If not, please respond to the substance of what I wrote. Similarly for JzG's comments—respond to the substance rather than using debating tactics to deflect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about content, it's about conduct. You came here to complain about Snoogs and showed evidence that he had made unambiguously correct edits. That suggests to me that Snoogs ain't the problem here.

My views on Brexit are not exactly a secret, but have nothing to do with the well established fact that anything claiming benefit or zero detriment to the UK economy from Brexit is an outlier. Just watch the FOREX markets. Every time exit is pushed out or becomes less likely, the pound rises, and when no-deal became a real possibility after BoJo took over, the arse dropped out of it completely. The huddled masses can be fooled (we know this from the history of early 20th Century Russia and Germany). The currency markets are much harder to hoodwink. That's why George Soros is a billionaire, that's how Rees-Mogg is cashing in right now, and the truly bizarre thing is that the Tory Party, the party of the Blessed Margaret, can see the market positions and is putting its fingers in its ears and chanting "Laa laa laa I can't hear you" - the last time we tried this was withthe ERM, and that did not end well (though a friend of mine bought an E-type with the bonus he made betting against the pound that week).

As one who grew up in the late 70s and 80s, at one of the oldest and most conservative schools in the world, I find this stunning. About the only thing on which Thatcher and Ted Heath agreed was that membership of the EU was a good thing for the economy. Thatcher got us far and away the best deal of any member state, in fact. And the most troubling part for me is that it is not actually possible to work in or close to any area directly affected by Brexit without realising it's going to be bad. I work around banks and fintech. My friends are musicicans, doctors, professionals in IT and the motor industry. All these areas have seen brutal impacts already and expect far worse once we actually leave. Again, you can take the view that this is a price worth paying, that's not our problem to fix, but to deny that the price will be paid, and is already being paid, demands intellectual dishonesty, and that is our problem. Guy (help!) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG: It is not an encyclopaedia's job to seek 'The Truth' - either one way or the other - about a subject matter that, as part of its very nature, is a debate. It doesn't matter from an encyclopaedia's point of view if one position is right and the other wrong, or if one is more right than the other: unless the debate is framed in its entirety, readers will be left short-changed. That is one part of the issue here. The other is indeed the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. I posted here because I was pinged, and because more than one editor has, independently, commented that Snooganssnoogans 'owns' the article. I am not necessarily here because I wish to see anyone topic-banned, however I do believe that Snooganssnoogan's conduct should be questioned. In my view they are far too aggressive in seeking to make the article say certain things. The incident I give below is an example: how is it consistent with Wikipedia's processes for there to be a general support for forking a section of the article, then when the section is forked, Snooganssnoogans almost immediately reverts it back in? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, This is not about WP:TRUTH, it's about reflecting the supermajority professional view of a subject. Per WP:UNDUE, we doo not give outliers more prominence in the name of "balance". That's what Boscaswell is demanding. In fact, he goes further and demands that Snoogs is topic banned for adhering to our policies against giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Guy (help!) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course the general view of economists should be stated and summarised, but the article is already very long and should not devote a significant portion of its text to what are still, despite people's professional standings, essentially predictions and forecasts about what may or may not transpire. Also, you have not addressed the second part of my comment, regarding the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I wonder if you could be kind enough to offer a comment from Wikipedia's administration regarding the specific actions of Snooganssnoogans that I refer to above (namely edit warring against consensus)? Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, My response is, discuss it on Talk. This is what RfCs are for. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, it has already been discussed on talk, that is the point. Are you saying that when editors vote by eight to one to fork an article, then that counts for nothing because it hasn't been strictly formatted as an RfC? Is that your statement on how talk pages work? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

During that discussion, the section in question was trimmed by 40% and the content was forked to the other articles. What you're talking about is just a desire to scrub the article entirely of any text whatsoever on what the peer-reviewed research and academic assessments have to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that the article was too large and that the impacts section should be split off. The article is now even larger than it was then, and the 'impacts' section (something of a misnomer, since Brexit hasn't happened yet) still occupies about 30% of the article, so the argument for splitting it off has not diminished. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument that has gained traction at the Brexit article (espoused particularly by Snooganssnoogans) is that academic economic literature is the 'best quality' and must be used in preference to other sources regarding predicted economic effects of Brexit. This sounds very reasonable to the average Wikipedian, but it is a false narrative here, as Brexit is not a purely economic entity; indeed, it is primarily a political one, albeit with economic implications. But the insistence on citing economic studies has helped create an unbalanced and unwieldy article that is not likely to answer the fundamental question of readers as to why people voted to leave despite all the predictions of doom and gloom. That is the heart of Brexit, and this article barely addresses it. It should not be the purpose of the Brexit article to make an assessment on which side of the Brexit debate is 'right' by focussing on predictions of economic outcomes - particularly as economics is a social, not natural, science. Currently about 30% of the article is taken up by an "impacts" section, with significant text about the economic 'impacts', even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. There was general support to split much of this off into a separate article, yet when it was split off recently [13], Snooganssnoogans reverted the text back in, stating that "this text should not be forked" [14]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to take Boscaswell seriously after the first couple of paragraphs. That RFC that's being referred to concluded with "maintain the status quo until a consensus is formed", which was to keep the peer reviewed study out. To accuse Snoogs of lying because "well ackshully there was no consensus and that's why the study can't be included" is at least as misleading. So then we get to the banking scenario. It does not fill me with confidence that in a dispute over reliable sources and neutrality, Bos cited a press release instead of the actual study. And looking at that study, the way it was included definitely makes Bos look like a tendentious POV pusher. In brief, that study was clearly included as a counter to dismal estimates of Britain's economic future. "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay." However, by citing only the headline finding that "London will remain a large global financial center" and probably not even reading the actual study, key context is being missed. What the authors are concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's top financial centers in terms of competitiveness, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. Using this as some kind of contrast with earlier research, Bos is either trying to push a POV or he didn't actually understand what he was citing. I'll allow him to let us know which it was. Either way, to have gotten so far as to drag another editor to ANI for disputing the inclusion of such indefensible content, I have to support Guy's suggestion that Boscaswell is topic banned from Brexit. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So it looks like I’m gonna be topic-banned for an edit for which I didn’t actually read the survey, as proposed by an admin who abhors Brexit and brings up inaccurate bleuuggh about it, seconded by another who also misleads (this is WP:AN and not WP:ANI; I raised a series of points, not just one.) Anyway, my raising a series of points has been conveniently ignored. Into the too hard basket with it, let’s penalise that confounded bugger who dared raise the issue, eh? WP:OWN? Not just raised by me, there are several editors who did so, and are most likely, like me, completely over it. Anyway, go ahead, topic-ban me for a. having the nerve not to be a remainer while b. kicking up a fuss over a steamroller editor. Disgraceful behaviour. And by the way, if you’re gonna start topic-banning editors who don’t read surveys, there’ll be virtually no-one left. Snooganssnoogans, self-confessed king of the survey-citing editors, will be kicked out the door before you can say ‘Remoaner’. (Though I doubt that any of you guys will use that word.) So maybe this hadn’t been such a bad thing after all. Boscaswell talk 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your “consideration” of the points raised. Please don’t imagine that I’ll be responding further, or even reading any further comment here. It’s not possible to close my Wiki account, but if it was I would. As o said, my faith in the probity of Wikipedia has been destroyed. It was fast diminishing, and is now no more. All that having been said, it would be good if investigation could be given to the points raised by PaleCloudedWhite - who expresses him or herself exceedingly well and therefore deserves credit and an ear that both hears and listens - in addition to those raised by me re. Snooganssnoogans. “It would be good” I write. Go on, surprise yourselves. Boscaswell talk 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As a point of information, it's not possible for anyone at Wikipedia to "close" your account, but you always have the option of scrambling your password. And, of course, you can always just walk away and do something else.

Just be careful, though, if you scramble your password and come back to edit with another account, you have to either declare who you once were, so that you won't be accused of sockpuppetry, or stay completely away from articles and subject areas you edited with this account, as well as avoiding old disputes with other editors, as you would be making a "WP:Clean start", and those are the conditions for that. If you walk away, and then come back and continue editing with the same account, there are no conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all Tbans here First, Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or even that they won't listen to alternatives. Like minded editors are allowed to work on the same articles. If they are shutting out good edits then we have dispute resolution procedures to help. Like representatives democracy it's not always perfect but it's so hard to find a benevolent dictator these days. Boscaswell certainly should not be Tban'ed. There isn't strong evidence here of anything other than understandable frustration combined with inexperience. Sadly my feeling is the Tban suggestion had more to do with silencing a voice that didn't agree vs any reasonable protection of Wikipedia (the reason why we have tbans). From the outside looking in it seems like you have a group of experienced editors who don't want their view of the subject challenged. That challenge is coming from an editor who has much less experience navigating the Wikipedia ways and thus is both getting frustrated. That frustration, combined with less experience may be getting near a problem but our first resort should be understanding this is a good faith editor thus give them a hand rather than push them off the ladder. This complaint is a great example of needing a hand. I would suggest we close it, let them talk to an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin then decide how to best get consensus to fix the things they see as wrong with the Brexit article. If their posts on the Brexit page are like the opening post here, well I can see why they aren't getting any traction. Springee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee wrote: “Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules...”

Thank you, Springee, I agree.

So - forgive me for this plain-speaking comment - but it would be very, very helpful for the ongoing improvement of Wikipedia if all you Admins were to work out what you’re going to do about it. Work out how the rules can be changed such that what is grossly unfair editing behaviour can be stopped or even prevented. The status quo is failing, because it not only allows this behaviour, but Admins with the same POV cheer it on.

Being condescending to someone who in effect has brought this very important point to your attention is not a solution to anything. Lecturing that same someone about his point of view is not a solution to anything. Saying well done to the one lecturing with his POV is beyond useless. Admins responding to my OP have done all of those things; the lecturing happened repeatedly.

If you were to do that successfully and fairly, you would not only put Wikipedia in a far better light, but also gain some respect. Boscaswell talk 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just attempted to split down the size of the lede in the Brexit article, and as expected, User:Snooganssnoogans reverted the entire change and posted the following vitriolic edit summaries which are completely dishonest and threatening."restore the lede. it's bonkers to have a two-paragraph lede for something as massive as Brexit, but the desperate attempts to scrub the page of peer-reviewed research and academic assessments knows no bounds" and "the kind of in-the-weeds nonsense that some editors want in the lede out of desperation to shoehorn some pro-brexit propaganda in there". [15][16] What's disturbing about these statements is that I changed NO CONTENT WHATSOVER in the article. I simply moved the bottom three paragraphs into a section titled "summary" and moved the Table of contents up since the lede is way too large and other editors have tagged the article as needing liposuction performed on the lede, which contains a lot of materials which is too much for most readers. I did not at any time insert any "pro-Brexit" materials as alleged by this user. I don't plan to edit war, but it's time for someone to reign this editor in and stop their hostile, contentious editing style which prevents other more consensus based editors to be able to edit this article. Their constant edit warring and reversion of just about every edit made to this article by other editors is absolutely ridiculous, as well as their failure to observe any reasonable standards of working together with others and trying to get consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but these edits were not useful because the lead should be a summary of the article—hiding part of the lead in a new "Summary" section defeats the purpose of the WP:LEAD. People like to fiddle with articles like this, and adding a "too long" tag is a perfect example. However, it is obvious that the topic demands a long article so trying to squeeze it into someone's idea of an ideal length is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And what did you think about those edit summaries John? – Levivich 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is remarkable - an admission that Snoogans is adding text that they describe as "in-the-weeds nonsense", in response to text added by someone else that Snoogans tried to revert out and described as "too in-the-weeds for the lede"[17]. So, either they are being pointy and making an edit that they believe to be detrimental, or they were being dishonest when they criticised the other editor's addition, and really they don't care about anything other than ensuring the article pushes a particular political position. Either explanation is indicative of a problematic approach to editing the encyclopedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You seriously can't comprehend the following? This is not rocket science[18]: (1) The lede should not contain a discussion about the implications of Brexit for UK and EU law (because of WP:UNDUE), (2) If the lede is going to contain content on that issue, it should reflect the totality of RS content on that issue and not just some misleading unnuanced pro-Brexit propaganda about how the Brits are "taking the law back". In other words, if it is to be included, it should be WP:NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We all comprehend and the general consensus is that you are adding extremely POV materials and positions to the Brexit article and will revert and edit war with anyone who adds content which contradicts your view of the world. The Brexit article is extremely slanted due to your editing and POV pushing of "academia only" and negative Brexit viewpoints. I have a suggestion -- how about you take a break of let's say a month (30 days) from editing the Brexit article so consensus based editors can add balanced content to the article without constantly having you revert and edit war with anyone or everyone you disagree with. As it stands, that article is inferior and unbalanced and it's mostly your doing. And you may want to review what an editor actually has done with an article in terms of edits before posting the types of dishonest edit summaries you did when all I did was move the table of contents around to break up the excessively long lede for cosmetic purposes which was suggested by another editor on the talk page who said the lede was too long. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You think that your absurdly poor edit which removed all the content that you personally disliked from the lede (because "experts are idiots" or something along those lines), placed it in some bizarre new section just below the lede (to make it less visible), and turned the lede for Brexit (the by far most substantial issue in British politics since the end of the Cold War) into two meager paragraphs, is a good example of a great edit that was cruelly and unfairly reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed NOTHING from the lede and I changed NO CONTENT or the order which the content appeared in the article. The edit I did was cosmetic only and was no different than placing a tag. One way to pare down the lede and make it concise is too determine a cutoff, split the text into a lower section, then other editors can come back and refine and reinsert relevant content and rework it. Most of what is in the lede doesn't all belong there without some refinement, but this process which should naturally occur as other editors review the content cannot happen when a lone wolf editor runs over everyone constantly and prevents any edits they disagree with from being placed in the article and completely ignores consensus of editors. And then when an editor disagrees with them they post this type of comment, "The lede is very large, so let's add some misleading nonsense to it." Can't make this shit up."[19] Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"I removed NOTHING from the lede". This is just pure brazen straight-up lying.[20] Perfect example of why the Brexit page is dysfunctional. It's getting very tired to respond to these confused and deceptive comments. If anyone needs me, ping me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As is pointed out above, a section called "summary" is the same as the lede. My edits moved the TOC to split the second paragraph and it left no substantive changes to the order of any text or comments in the lede. The article had exactly the same text and the same order, and I did that by design so that the main points raised in the lede could be individually addressed. None of your pet text was touched. The decision to split the content after the first two paragraphs was entirely arbitrary and based on the natural ordering of lede materials. And your bait and switch diff you displayed above does not support your allegation that I am lying about anything [21] Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems that according to Snooganssnoogans, if Editor A adds text that Editor B thinks is undesirable, Editor B can revert it with an edit summary that says, "if this gets included, then it'll have to also include this", and just by virtue of saying that, it automatically comes to pass. Think of it as a kind of insurance policy, or future-proofing the article. I wonder why it's not mentioned at WP:BRD.....? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland's above comment at 23:48, 21 September 2019 started with "I removed NOTHING from the lede". That is obviously untrue—compare the lead before and after this edit. Anyone denying that Octoberwoodland's edit removed text from the lead, appropriately enough in the context of Brexit, is using dishonest debating tactics, or is blatantly lying, or is clearly not sufficiently competent to be editing a complex topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The diff you posted shows I just moved the TOC tag up. I tagged the remaining lede as "summary" which you yourself stated is the same as the lede. The way mediawiki works is there has to be some sort of anchor or the TOC won't show up in the right place. My apologies for posting the summary heading. Anyway, I'll try do to better next time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And at no time did I post any "pro-brexit" materials as alleged by Snooganssnoogans in his edit summaries, nor did I "purge academic assessments" from the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And Brexit is not a complex topic, as much as people from the UK want everyone to think so. All the various peoples and governments in the UK have a long history (thousands of years) of fighting among themselves and with each other and the current Brexit situation, especially the position of Scotland in the Brexit mess, is a reflection of hundreds of years of infighting. I have spent many hours watching the House of Commons live debates on the issues of Brexit, and all the fighting and disagreement trying to understand all the points of view. The UK was very smart to retain their own currency system rather than go with the Euro, which has primed the UK economy to exit with a strong economic position. Post-Brexit the UK will be just fine. The Irish backstop issue is just another reflection of the infighting and historical conflicts. I understand Brexit very well, so all the negative studies and economic forecasts are not helping people to understand the world after Brexit. It's a tempest in a teapot as near as I can tell, the people in the UK should have hope and not being fed constant negative viewpoints. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This comment is something everyone here should read, because this is a perfect encapsulation of what these disputes are about and the kind of editing I'm up against on the Brexit page. In other words, this is just "My own feelz and original research should supersede RS content, peer-reviewed research and expert assessments". Wikipedia policy, principled positions and consistency get thrown out of the window because editors believe they have a unique understanding of the subject and have a duty to make sure that the British people are "not being fed constant negative viewpoints" on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. At no time have I ever placed any original research in the Brexit article, in fact, I have refrained from editing the article and worked through other editors on the talk page for the most part. So this is just another one of your misrepresented comments. I stopped directly editing the article after you reverted me twice.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the text that Snooganssnoogans added to the lead here wasn't in the body of the article at that time - is that correct? I've scanned the article as it existed then, but haven't found that text. Indeed, it was later added to the body by a different editor (here). Could Snooganssnoogans either point to where that text was within the article body, or confirm that it wasn't there? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Snooganssnoogans hasn't responded to my request, it seems right to assume that they did indeed add material to the lead that wasn't in the article body at that time. This leads to two further points. First, Snooganssnoogans claimed that the material they were adding to the lead had to be added for the reason of balance, but if this were the case, why did this only concern them when the other material had been added to the lead, and not when it was just in the body of the article, where it had resided for 2 weeks [22]? Secondly, there is a double standard being operated here, as shown by Snooganssnoogans' instructions to other editors generally to respect that the lead should only have information that is in the body e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]. It is this kind of conduct - the twisting around of Wikipedia processes to suit their own argument at the time - that I believe is problematic with this editor. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: 30-day article ban for both editors

Proposing that both Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boscaswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from editing the Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for 30 days. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer – Both editors continue to edit this article in a very WP:BATTLEGROUND way. Forget the edits themselves–forget the content dispute part of it–and just look at recent edit summaries:

  1. Bosca [27]: "Converse view on one of the fish studies *gasp* This is called balance ;-)"
  2. Snoog [28]: "this is a study. not random-ass speculation"
  3. Bosca [29]: "re-word sloppy phrasing...this is patently untrue and tbh ridiculous"
  4. Snoog [30]: "...this is not the place for incoherent partisan rhetoric..."
  5. Bosca [31]: "...Stuffing the article or any section with more opinions..."
  6. Snoog [32]: "removing unattributed fringe nonsense..."
  7. Bosca [33]: "Reverting another of Snoogans' edits, which had the effect eliminating any positive potential outcome and replacing it with overwhelmingly negative ones"
  8. Snoog [34]: "of course it's fringe nonsense..."

  Note that they're not just reverting each other, but also other editors. The high number of reverts and snarky edit summaries are part of that "red team/blue team" BATTLEGROUND method of editing. Look at Talk:Brexit and you see the same thing: a high number of edits, very few of them collegial or productive towards consensus-building.

  Though a broader TBAN was originally proposed in this thread, I think we should try something smaller first. I suggest a 30-day article ban to give both editors a "time out" from this article. Remove the primary combatants from the battlefield, and hopefully it'll stop being so much of a battlefield. Let the other editors work through the content issues without all the reverting and without the battleground environment. See what happens. Both Snoog and Bosca, upon returning after 30 days, will be unable to revert whatever consensus developed during their absence. Hopefully, that will encourage them to find a new way of editing the article–one that is built on collaboration rather than confrontation. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What a shock: Levivich calling to get me banned for nothing? Every time someone a brings a complaint against me, no matter how meritless and weak, this editor must enter the fray calling for sanctions on me. Levivich has been on my case ever since he sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying - pretty much the same behavior that makes the Brexit article dysfunctional), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[35] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me).[36] Ever since, he's been in every discussion where someone raises a complaint about me to argue on behalf of the filer of the meritless complaints (when those filers are inevitably boomeranged) and/or saying I'm a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the second time I've entered the fray calling for sanctions against you. – Levivich 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Although I disagree with the tone of Levivich’s contention regarding my editing of the Brexit article - I saw myself as being loquacious and giving a helpful and healthy level of explanation of my edits in my edit summaries, which is rather different to the snappy and in some cases rude summaries of Snoogans - it may surprise you to learn that I’m OK with the proposal. If that’s what it takes to have Snoogans t-banned, then so be it. Time and again s/he’s been in a minority of one in Talk page discussions, time and again s/he continues in the same manner, making it very wearing and very difficult for other editors to proceed. Boscaswell talk 20:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not only do I NOT care if you're "OK" with a two-way article ban, the fact that you say explicitly that your intention is to get Snoogans t-banned means that not only I oppose it even more strongly, I would support topic-bnning YOU from the page. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• General observation Imposing a 30-day restriction on any editor for something Brexit-related at this time is a singularly bad idea; that means that (depending on exactly when the sanction is imposed) the restrictions will expire either on or immediately before B-Day itself on 31 October, which is precisely when we don't want anyone remotely problematic touching what will on the day be Wikipedia's most-viewed article by multiple orders of magnitude. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 40-day topic ban Extend it to 40 days per Iridescent. Edit warring isn't about being "right" but about how one goes about editing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• No action — understanding that you're trying to address snarky comments and repeated reverts on both sides Levivich, reading through the diffs it doesn't seem like things are that bad. Maybe both editors could just agree to take a break for a few days, try to calm things down when back, and then get 3O or dispute resolution after that. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton: simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I stated in the section above that the problem with Snooganssnoogans is their twisting of process to suit their argument - what I have elsewhere called a kind of disingenuous gerrymandering. But it doesn't just occur at the Brexit article. I looked at their recent contributions and selected this one at random, because the edit summary was a bit confrontational. Could an administrator who doesn't hold strong views on the article subject (Tulsi Gabbard) offer a possible explanation as to why, under the edit summary "she supports nurses?", the sentence "she supports GMO labeling" should have the link changed from the straightforward and obvious GMO to the strangely specific Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana? I did a quick google of "Tulsi Gabbard GMO Ghana" and nothing came up. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• ^A perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset that motivates complaints against me in this discussion. The link should have obviously been to [37], but yes it's an outrageous crime, and an admin needs to "offer a possible explanation" for this completely unexplainable, outrageous behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't described any of my other comments as "a perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset" shows that you don't believe it can be applied to them. I ask administrators to look again at my complaints above, in which Snooganssnoogans:
- fights against an 8 to 1 vote to ensure their preferred text remains in the article
- counters the addition of what they regard as 'too detailed' text by adding more of what they call "in the weeds nonsense" in order to 'balance' it
- pre-empts the outcome of a discussion by saying - in an edit summary - that 'if you succeed in adding that, then I'll have to add this' - and then acts on it
- adds material to the lead that isn't in the article body, despite many times telling editors elsewhere that such actions aren't permissible.
Snooganssnoogans uses such aggressive tactics because - they like to claim - they're only acting to keep the article 'balanced', but this has always been in only one direction, and the result is that other editors - editors who have neither the time nor inclination to interact with such aggressive tententiousness - stop bothering to edit the article. One editor, who hasn't commented here, even posted on my talkpage to tell me not to edit the article - "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article" (see here). "Don't bother editing" - is this what administrators want Wikipedia editors to be advising each other? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Calton that this is a false equivalency. Neutrality^talk 14:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oddity at CAT:RFU

I just swung by the requests for unblock category page and noticed that a lot of the entries have a block expiration of 49 years. not really a pressing matter, but thought I would just mention it. --Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I already raised it with the bot operator. Presumably, he'll get around to fixing it when he has enough spare time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the blocks expired in 1970. Κσυπ Cyp   10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure

An RfC[38] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [39] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [40], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [41], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [42] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [43] [44] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [45]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [46] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[47]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [48] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your altering of the header[49] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[50], Guardian[51], NY Mag[52], Vox[53], and Intercept[54]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[55] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[56]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[57]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn Seems like a bad compromise situation to me, perceiving voting for something as also not voting against the other options is a small nuance that seems to have been missed here. MrClog has explained it fairly well, leading me to think that this deserves a reclose from another uninvolved editor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request from CrazyAces489

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.

---

• CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (original account)
• BlackAmerican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive293#Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

BlackAmerican, previously known as CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs), is making an unblock request per the standard offer:

Requesting standard offer. As Per WP:OFFER, I have waited 2 years with no sockpuppetry or ban evasion. I promise to avoid behavior that has led to my ban. I will not engage in problematic edit wars nor will I engage with individuals who baited me and vice versa. I will not create extraordinary reasons to object to a ban. I will continue to create articles that mainstream wikipedia does not necessary look at or for due to Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am using courtesy and am willing to move forward productively. I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page. I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia.

I've already run a check, and there doesn't seem to have been any recent block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per ROPE. I understand that he was very prone to WikiLawyering during his time here, but that was almost two years ago, and contrary to his persistent requests in 2017 I understand that he hasn't done anything since. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John M Wolfson above. Miniapolis 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support It's been a long time since the block and combined with the restraint they have shown, they should be given another chance. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons stated by others Chetsford (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose no indication that the potential positives of unblocking outweigh the known risks of disruption. WP:ROPE should not be a valid thing to cite in an unblock request: they've already had the rope and used it. That's why they're blocked. The unblock request is rote and mechanical and does not demonstrate any understanding of why they were blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• The appeal is nearly identical to the one in 2017 when they last requested the standard offer. Aside from elapsed time and a close-to copy and paste appeal, I would appreciate a bit more reassurances from CrazyAces489 about what they will do to further address the concerns the last time they requested the standard offer and it was declined. Mkdw ^talk 00:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen and Ponyo: Notifying the blocking admins in case they have not yet been notified or consulted. Mkdw ^talk 02:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • They have updated their request now. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
      • So, they reduced their voluntary probationary period from 6 months to 3 months... Oppose. I think edit warring and socking was the issue, not who it was with. Mkdw ^talk 18:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
        • That's concerning but I don't think it's a deal breaker. They have stayed out of this for too long (2 years). Any new untoward behavior (whether in 3 months, in 6 months or whatever) would surely lead to another block. I sincerely don't know the motive of the change, but the worst case scenario here is they're reducing the time so they can quickly go back to disruption. Ironically, that would not benefit them. First, end of "probationary period" does not confer immunity to blocks, neither to scrutiny given to users with troubled history like them. In fact, it would only benefit the community because they would be blocked in less time than if it were the initial 6 months. The change may also have a non-malicious motive. But we all don't know the motive and neither what will happen next; so the best way to go is to give them another chance, in my view. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni, and I agree with Mkdw's remarks. -- Begoon 06:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support the standard offer, it's been two years, I'm willing to believe someone can change in that time. As far as I'm concerned, they've hit all three requirements of the SO. I'm troubled by the phrase "systemic bias" (modifying "Wikipedia") appearing twice in their unblock request (not because it's untrue, but because this seems like the wrong place to be arguing that), but I'm willing to give them some WP:ROPE and see what happens. creffett (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm reluctantly supporting this unblock even though CrazyAces489 was a very disruptive editor. But I believe in second chances and I know that he will be subject to scrutiny if he is offered this opportunity. It will be a very short rope. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. Sandstein 17:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony Ballioni and Mkdw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony and Mkdw. The systemic bias isn't the only problem with the request--the baiting comment also suggests this editor is still stuck in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Grandpallama (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, could you clarify what you mean by "baiting comment"? I'm not seeing it. creffett (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  I will not engage in problematic edit wars nor will I engage with individuals who baited me and vice versa. Baiting happens, but when you're blocked for your own problematic behavior, discussing avoiding people who baited you is a deflective line that suggests you haven't fully accepted responsibility for your own actions (i.e., "they made me do it"), IMO. Grandpallama (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, d'oh, got it, thought you meant a comment that they made that was baiting someone. Thanks for clearing that up. creffett (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Per ROPE. Two years is a long time, and I don’t find the oppose rationales persuasive. – Levivich 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Conflicted comment. This is difficult. CrazyAces socked copiously, dishonestly and evasively up until a couple of years ago. I hesitate to ever unblock him, frankly. As an illustration, just a small part of the whole, I will link to this talkpage of an IP he was using. CA has blanked the incriminating dialogue, so I'm linking to the version just before that. As was habitual with him, he evaded all straightforward questions and accused anybody who criticised him of racism. Is he a new man now? If he's unblocked, will he no longer use AfD as an instrument of revenge, and no longer call his opponents racists? Perhaps. But I share Tony's doubts, and I also agree with Grandpallama's shrewd point that the comment about "individuals who baited me" is fairly alarming. OTOH, inasmuch as indefinite shouldn't mean infinite, I'm a little conflicted. Anyway. If he's unblocked, as is looking likely, I suggest it should come with a sharp warning that a return to his old ways will lead to a really hard re-block. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
• Very weak support - I want to oppose but I also want them to have atleast one final chance here, Any repeats of their behaviour should result in them being indeffed with no standard offers. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Very, very weak support per Davey and WP:ROPE. Grandpallama's remarks are not overlooked. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Certainly was a nuisance editor (an extreme understatement) in the past, but two years is enough time for anyone to change. Since given the time elapsed nobody would even have noticed had CA489 created a new account, provided it stayed out of trouble, if anything they should be applauded for their honesty in following the correct procedure. This to me is pretty much the textbook case of why the Standard Offer exists. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Seems fine, deserves a second chance. Blocks are not punitive and we should not demand groveling. ♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• ♟♙ no one's demanding them to make a grovelling apology, All's we're asking is that they don't repeat the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place.... Significant difference. –Davey2010^Talk 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Iridescent. One more chance for this editor. starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support per Iridescent. I've no doubt they'd be watched carefully, and would encourage them to tread very carefully, I too would support a hard re-block in future if they repeat the same behavior. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per iridescent. If they bought a new computer, we'd never know otherwise. ——SerialNumber54129 10:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't forgotten about this discussion. I will close it, but I want to give Ponyo a chance to comment. So, maybe keep it open one more day? She said she was OK with unblocking, but that was two years ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 3 October 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.

Regarding The Casagrandes Wikipedia page

I'm currently being threatened of being blocked on The Casagrandes Wikipedia page. It is mainly edited by two people and two people only. They keep on adding false information help me. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) These two people are namely @Aumary: and @Magitroopa:. Literally Summary uses the term "dumb fans" in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Ginika1555: all information in Wikipedia is required to be cited to a reliable source. Since none has been provided for either picture format for this show, I have removed it. We also have a policy against edit warring which you need to pay attention to. Please discuss the picture format on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since my name is being brought into this, should probably be known that the user here is the one constantly edit warring and WP:DE, after multiple warnings. They have commented on the matter on the talk page, but wanting it the way they want it, while everyone else is properly discussing it. Our names are mentioned in here, but myself and @Amaury: were not notified of this discussion on this page whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to protect articles regarding Peruvian politics

Due to the ongoing dispute on 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis, please extended-protect the said article, President of Peru, Vice President of Peru, Martín Vizcarra, and Mercedes Aráoz. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Without prejudice to your request, it's better suited at Requests for page protection. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at the pages in question. I think one or two of the four could possibly use semi-protection for a bit, but the other three or two are more or less untouched. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hiccup in \incidents version history

Greetings, Take a look at this page of hits from Sept 23 version history for ANI. Everyting up into Oct1 also looks struck out. Is that an accident of some sort? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming it has to do with this. Killiondude (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those entries were suppressed because they contained a bit of text which needed to be removed from the archives. The edit that introduced the problematic text, and every subsequent revision that also contained that text, has to be removed altogether from the edit history. In this case, it looks like the offending text was present for a very long time. That happens, but there's not much that can be done about it. Suppressed text is not discussed on-wiki, as any such discussion would return the text to public record, which is what suppression is supposed to remove. There's really nothing to be done about it. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I did not realize rev delete did not cascade through later versions behind the scenes. Thanks, my mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically, they were suppressed, and not rev-deled, which just means that the removal includes a higher class of editors. Revision deletion only removes the versions for non-admins, while suppression removes the versions for everyone except the highest permissions (i.e. normal admins can't see them either). --Jayron32 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I run face first into the mountain things I didn't know I didn't know! Thanks for the correction NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

---

Hi. This discussion at templates for discussion has been open for nearly one month. It's transcluded across the BLP template on all talkpages, so it shows up quite a bit across WP! I'd be grateful if someone could take a look and move to close. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to BMK and Kudpung. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:17, 5 October 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.

Copyvios from User:Peymanalipoursarvari

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 user has been consistently adding copyvios to articles, with warnings dating back to 2017. Despite numerous warnings, this user has persisted and has never edited their talk page. While they seem to be operating in good faith, their lack of any response to the issues raised on their talk page lead me to believe that they should be indeffed under A lack of competence. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. And I will add that I think we are being far too lenient with repeated copyrights violations. I take a different approach. For example, I just recently blocked a user after the second copyrights violation and indeffed them after the third. El_C 15:54, 4 October 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.

Please, delete this

Hi! All!, Please delete this file File:YudaiFunato.jpg, I thought I was doing the correct but now see it clearly violates even the fair rationale. From very now, my deepest apologies, it won't happen again. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

An image

Resolved

Can an admin delete this image as I have uploaded a new image for the person's article (Ahmed Rajib Haider), this is my uploaded photo which is better than the old photo, so the old image should be deleted. Mark Arr (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, this isn't the place to request that (it would be WP:FFD). Second, I'm not overly sure the new version is really all that much better - you've basically just brightened up the image and now he looks like he's standing next to a bomb going off. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically I don't think the original version should be deleted whatever the case. The non free rationale seems far better than the version Mark Arr has provided. And the non free rationale cannot simply be copied, that would violate the licence of whoever wrote it. You could go to the hassle of copying the attribution information. But far simpler, if Mark Arr's file is considered better by the community, the new version should be uploaded as a replacement image for the old one. That's one of the purposes of the function after all. You can then ask for revdeletion of the old version of the file as required since it's NFCC. BTW, fairly sure that F5 should have been used in preference to G6. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just an update, Mark has G7'd their own image. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Arr, you're starting to get disruptive with uploading and then G7ing your own uploads. Please discuss this issue before doing it again. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CU blocked by Bbb. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz banned

The committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. Consequently, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia.

Supporting: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

Opposing:

Did not vote: AGK, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis

For the Arbitration Committee

Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Icewhiz banned

Fixed the discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Paramount Animation

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Zsolt Borkai

Zsolt Borkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article. This Sunday elections go on in Hungary. See the view history. --Regasterios (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. In the future, requests like this should go to WP:RfPP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Regasterios (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T233561

Pending changes reviewer right is supposed to be automatically included with the Administrator flag. However, beginning this afternoon, I'm getting the following error message when I try to approve pending changes, "You do not have permission to review..."

And while I was typing this and going back for the exact words of the error message the problem seems to have resolved itself.

Anyone know what happened? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is phab:T233561#5537850. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Asking for interference

Hi, could you look at this deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Najran attack(The link was added after El_C reply). It is saying that the article should be removed because the Saudi said it is not factual. I think there are no page watchers or anything. The nomination is malformed. It is not categorised. The tag on the head of the article says it was nominated three times. I don't think it was nominated three times. Help please. I can't waste my time with this and I don't know what to do it remove the deletion tag from the article. I think if an admin interfered the editor might understand but I dont think I am able to make them understand their mistake.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What page is this regarding? El_C 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Najran attack--SharabSalam (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've since refactored, but your original report had no links at all. Anyway, I, myself, would be inclined to allow the deletion discussion to take place, even though I suspect that the article is likely to be kept. Disclaimer: I am involved as the editor who first added the information to Wikipedia. El_C 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yea. Sorry. You reply very fast. I wasn't expecting that.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't create the article. When I came it was badly written. It still needs some fixes. I followed Graull contributions who is a very new editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for admin action here. The AfD may be misguided, but it's not so far out of bounds that we need an admin intervention to fix it. If the outcome is obvious, there's no need to worry; if it isn't, then the AfD was obviously necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed thanks to editors who fixed it. I needed help from experience editors. I didn't know how to fix it. I usually use Twinkly when nominating for deletion.

Related question: in these situations where I need help from experienced editors, where can I ask for help?. If there is no noticeboard for this then I think it would be a good idea to make one.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam If you need help from experienced editors but do not necessarily need administrators, there's always the help desk and the village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen this link (help desk) many times before. Never clicked on it. I thought it is for guidelines, I didn't know it was a board. There is an IP editor who also reported the same issue I reported here.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The WP:TEAHOUSE is also not a bad place to go. It's meant for new users, but there's definitely experienced editors there who can help with more complex questions. Another option is approaching individual editors that you've previously had interactions with. Very many editors that I would now consider wiki-friends became such because they asked me a question out of the blue, or I asked them a question out of the blue. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission

This has started. (I just happened to notice that the timeline says this should have started by now. I don't know if we usually post this here). --Rschen7754 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Search bar positioning is off

The search bar on Special:Search is a bit bugged. When you try to place your mouse cursor in it to edit some text (on both desktop and mobile) it puts it 5 characters to the right. Browser: Google Chrome (desktop&mobile); works fine in IE&Edge.  Nixinova  T  C  18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The best place for this would be WP:VPT. I have noticed that, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is phab:T234170, and it does seem to be a chrome issue at the moment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting closure review

There is a clear consensus to endorse the RfC close.

Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Please could someone review the closure of this RfC? Editor who performed the closure claims an 8:6 majority constitutes consensus for making a major change that has severe NPOV implications.GideonF (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Talk:Suicide methods#RFC: Hatnote at top and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide both need to be revisited. This has been discussed over and over again since 2005, and the consensus has always been not to include disclaimers on articles (even if they're disguised as hatnotes). This represents a substantial change in thinking about some of our core content policies. – bradv🍁 14:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I also want to ask for secondary review per Bradv's reasoning above. Retracted, as Steven Crossin has already had an uninvolved admin review and approve of his closure, as linked below. I still strongly disagree with the decision, but I also know when to drop the stick. Gimubrc (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Closer of both RFCs here (I am disappointed that I was not notified of this posting, as I should have been). I will be offline for a period, however I am happy to expand my rationale on the Talk:Suicide note close if so desired (I feel the closing rationale given for the VPR thread is significant enough to not require expansion, and note that before closing the Village Pump discussion, I asked for an independent admin to review my proposed close. (they agreed with the outcome). In both discussions, I weighed the strength of arguments and not only the numbers. I also took into account on each discussion, the alternative hatnotes that were proposed as the discussion went on, and the outcome of the VPR discussion had an impact on my close of the Suicide methods RFC. I don’t believe that these closes should set a new precedent for underlying content guidelines, as this is an unusual situation (albeit justified by the discussions) and explicitly mentioned at the Village Pump close. That said, the discussions were closely related enough to factor the outcome of then VPR discussion at the Suicide methods discussion.

For the record, I believe there was a clear consensus in both discussions on the implementation of a hatnote linking to Suicide prevention, and in the VPR discussion a clear consensus on the wording of that hatnote. In the Suicide methods RFC, two different wordings were proposed in the Alternative methods section, and the consensus for which version of implementation was less clear, so I chose the most supported option, but noted in my close if alternative wording was desired, that this could indeed be implemented after being discussed.

I am happy if so desired to give further explanation for my closes, but I stand by both of them. As per the closure review process, I would be disappointed if these were overturned solely because I am not an administrator. Many of the RFCs at WP:AN/RFC, where I found this, are extensive discussions and often difficult to close, and I personally try to justify my rationale in pretty much every discussion, to ensure I’ve given appropriate rationales for my findings. I stand prepared to give further explanation if requested by uninvolved members of the community. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor...procedurally, it seems to be clear that there is support for this with regards to the change when weighing the arguments. This does not appear to be a case of WP:SUPERVOTE in its assessment of the situation. The outcome appears to be an appropriate attempt to invoke WP:IAR and serves both WP principles as well as common decency over administrative and bureaucratic measures. Therefore, I concur with 100% support for the outcome. Lastly, the closer should have been notified; that procedural oversight seems to decry any attempt at saying this was a procedurally incorrect closure. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that the closure of both proposals was a reasonable weighing of the arguments posed in each of the discussions, performed by an experienced editor, and that the outcome of one was relevant to the outcome of the other. There is by no means an overwhelming consensus, but I would have probably reached the same conclusions myself, although my tangential involvement in the topic would mean I was not a good choice to close the discussion. I thank Steven Crossin for his work in stepping up to the plate. Neither of those were easy closes to make. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• It was a reasonable close and I'd have reached the same conclusion. The hatnote does not look obtrusive to cause any concern either. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Good close. I don't agree that adding the hatnote "This page is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation)." is a major change that has severe NPOV implications or that it represents a substantial change in thinking about some of our core content policies. Seems to me like a compromise that gained consensus following discussion by a number of editors. (Well done, Steven.) – Levivich 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• As the uninvolved admin who reviewed his close and felt it was fine, thanks again to Steven for being willing to close this, and for adopting such a thoughtful and careful approach to closing a sensitive discussion. Fish+Karate 13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Resysop criteria RfC

There is currently a request for comment on implementing the community consensus for a stricter resysop policy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove AWB access for mobile account

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

---

Can an admin please remove AWB access for my mobile account, Yoshi24517 (mobile)? I realized I really only need 1 account for AWB, and that is my main. Sorry about that. Plus I want to see what it looks like on AWB when you cannot use an account on wiki. Thanks. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 05:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 05:34, 6 October 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 ban appeal, part... II? III? MCVI?

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.

---

Back in January 2018, I was topic-banned from XFD entirely due to a considerable amount of disruptive nominations. Last August, it was downgraded to only a ban from initiating XFDs, but not from participating in them, a ruling which I found fair.

I would like to make another appeal toward this and move back to being allowed to initiate XFDs again. I have several articles and templates watchlisted which I would like to nominate, and I have used this time to make certain that they meet deletion criteria. (For example, Second Glance (film) has been on my watchlist for many months after I saw The Cinema Snob review it, and so far multiple searches have yielded almost nothing of note.)

I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations. I admit I've touched XFD less in general, but my interactions in that namespace have been a lot smoother. I have also shifted my focus toward article creation and improvement, as seen by the large number of good articles I've passed through since then.

I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the isuses that led to this ban in the first place. I think it's been long enough now -- nearly two years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support allowing TPH to initiate XFDs again. I'm sure they understand that a resumption of disruptive nominations would result in a swift re-imposition of the ban, and see no reason not to take them at their word that they have a new approach which will avoid the problem. TPH seems to clearly understand what was unacceptable about the behaviour, has obviously given it a great deal of thought, and has a plan to avoid the same issues in future. -- Begoon 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Second Glance (film) was the original source of the "Hey, Scotty. Jesus, man!" meme, and as such consistently gets more interest than your typical straight-to-video Christian movie (it still gets fairly regular readership spikes each time the meme starts circulating again). I'm not sure it's really the example you want to be using of something you've found that's self-evidently non-notable. ‑ Iridescent 07:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited from a meme. I will elaborate on my extensive searching of sources for the film, but I don't want to deviate too much from my appeal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would imagine Iridescent isn't claiming that notability is inherited from a meme, but the meme and the corresponding interest in the film make it more likely there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Maybe this isn't the case but that would require sufficient research probably also made difficult by the age, specialised interest, and confounding results (e.g. the Jodi Picoult book). It's great that you did you research but "don't want to deviate too much from my appeal" would seem to further demonstrate what I think is Iridescent's point. While you would still need to check for sources, it would be a lot easier for you if the example you chose was something anyone looking could tell from a glance "there is no way in hell this is notable" Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I struck that part out so as not to further distract. I do have a thorough explanation drafted up for how extensively I was unable to find anything for that movie, but if you'd like a more straightforward example of something that should be sent to XFD, then Template:Tucker Beathard is a clear-cut WP:NENAN with too few links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• While you withdrew it as an example, since you said "unable to find anything" out of interest, why did you reject this source [58]? Did you feel it wasn't an RS? I initially thought maybe you simply couldn't find any sources besides that one but your comment seems to suggest there were none point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Among the ones I checked were newspapers.com (two hits that are just mentioning that local churches were screening the film well after its release, plus one false positive), Google Books (just the director's and lead actor's autobiographies, one film database, and a ton of false positives), Rotten Tomatoes (bupkis), and passing name-drops as "David A. R. White's first film" when discussing the clearer notability of his later works. I would absolutely consider that one an acceptable source, but absent anything else I'm still on the "non-notable" side. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• @TenPoundHammer: for clarity are you saying you weren't aware of that source before I mentioned it? Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: Correct. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• @TenPoundHammer: well in that case, when looking for sources I strongly suggest that probably the second thing you should do is to check the article talk page which is where I found the source. Editors sometimes add sources to the talk page which they have found but haven't yet managed to integrate into the article or which they removed as currently unused. (First being checking the article.) While not directly relevant here I think, it's probably also worth checking the article history for any significant deletions of content to see if any sources were lost. No point reinventing the wheel as it were. BTW, well I'm sure you made a reasoned effort, I can also found the particular source without that much effort on Google Scholar e.g. [59] [60]. (I also did find it on Google itself at some stage.) I also found another albeit possibly non RS on Google general while checking something just now [61]. While I wouldn't necessarily consider searching Google Scholar essential for a movie before nominating it for deletion, it's probably a good idea. And more importantly it probably is essential in cases you're highlighting. If you did search on Google Scholar, I think it highlights the problem that this is common phrase and there is a far more notable work with this name. Which is what I hope you take away from this. We all make mistakes and can have difficulty in looking for sources. I'm less worried about you not finding that source, although I do think especially with your history, failing to notice a source on the talk page listed under the heading "Sources" isn't going to go down well. I'm more worried that you initially chose to highlight that film. The inherent difficulty looking for sources combined with the year of release, nature of the subject matter and the meme taken together mean that this could have been notable even if sources weren't so easy to find. To me make this an obvious questionable example to choose. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Nah. The example TPH led with was an obvious drama magnet, and exactly the kind of thing that caused the problme in the first place. Guy (help!) 18:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly how was it an "obvious drama magnet"? Would you prefer that I do show my findings to show that I am taking this one seriously? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Mate, if you don't understand how nominating a Christian film for deletion is a drama magnet, either you've never been here before or you've never listened to listened to God Awful Movies. Guy (help!) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: So nothing of a Christian bent should ever be nominated for XFD ever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not what I said. Guy (help!) 07:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support- Yes, this ban has gone on long enough and I don't think it's accomplishing anything useful anymore. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose with regret. TPS has a long history of being warned for personal attacks and harassment, often tied closely to deletion discussions. If their behavior had been exemplary in the past two years, I would support lifting the restrictions. But TPH was blocked in March, 2019 for one week for personal attacks and harassment and one of their edit summaries was "then find sources, you fucking dipshit". They were blocked for one month in April, 2019 for personal attacks and harassment, with an edit summary suppressed. Their behavior five to six months ago was very similar to the behavior that led to the topic ban, and XfD is an area that seems to trigger their bad behavior. In addition, TPH admitted two years ago that they lack adequate Google skills necessary to properly complete WP:BEFORE. In my opinion, lifting this editing restriction is a really bad idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• At what point did I "admit that [I] lack adequate Google skills"? The above mentioned incidents, while justified, stemmed entirely from one editor, and my interactions since the last unblock have been nothing but civil. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• That would be here. And here. And here. And here. And for what it's worth you were still ranting and swearing at other editors as of a week ago. And adding obviously inappropriate notability tags as of two weeks ago. And tagging as non-notable a book which ten seconds on Google would have showed you has been in continuous print for 25 years and has sold 200,000 copies a month ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer, at ANI at 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC), you wrote: "But every AFD I've ever made has been in good faith, I've just had the misfortune of extremely poor Google-fu and some confirmation bias to seem way more destructive than I am." Excellent "Google-fu" is required for constructive participation at XfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The Steinbach edit summary was not targeted at anyone specific, just my bemusement that a practice that I thought had vanished from Wikipedia in 2008 (namely, putting location lists in department store articles) had somehow made a onetime return. And what is wrong with the Pigin to da Max tag? It's not like I'm trying to say "hey, someone send this to AFD for me" by placing the tag. I will gladly remove a {{notability}} I've placed myself if I've been proven wrong, which I did on the Kylie Rae Harris article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also, @Cullen328: This is why I pointed out a solution to that. By watchlisting articles that I feel are potential XFD candidates, I am giving myself more time to search, re-search, and research the subject at hand. I know the problem far too well re: my bad Google-fu, which is why I proposed the above solution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support allowing Mr. Hammer back to deletion debates again. He'll be under scrutiny for civility towards those he disagrees with, we can always revisit the topic ban if it becomes a problem. I have confidence he's grown. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:ROPE, although I'm wary of TPH's apparent continued battleground mentality. Miniapolis 22:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Iridescent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - he’s done his time, and understands the issues. Additionally, in my experience, AFD has been lacking in participants lately, especially knowledgeable ones, and I’d prefer to get more participation going. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Participation is not what he's asking for. He wants to nominate articles, and his example was something he's clearly been obsessing over for ages. That's a reallybad sign with this particular user. Guy (help!) 23:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"Obsessing over for ages"? You're clearly reading too much into it. You act like this whole appeal is just because I want one specific article nominated at the expense of anything else. If I were "obsessing" over it, then I wouldn't have other potential XFD candidates on my watchlist, nor articles that I'm actively trying to improve, or anything else that I just plain think is interesting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Cullen328 (FTR, Cullen, the edit-summary you refer to is only deleted, not suppressed; and it was deleted because it was egregiously insulting). If they are going to fly off the handle in that manner on a regular basis, they shouldn't be opening AfDs, because that tends to create a certain emotional investment in their outcomes, which TPH isn't currently handling well. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am not very happy with the "he knows the consequences for recidivism" argument to remove this restriction. Yes, he knows the consequences; but, like most potentially productive editors with a blind spot, he overestimates his own capacity for staying calm. If we lift this, and TPH returns to being insulting towards others at AfD, he is looking at a site-ban; why go down that road at all? He is capable of being a productive editor already; offering ROPE makes more sense when there's been a decent amount of time with no gross incivility. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support best case we get a productive contributor, worst case WP:ROPE -FASTILY 00:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Fastily, why does TPH need to initiate XfDs in order to be a productive contributor, since this is a gigantic encyclopedia with countless other tasks to complete? That specific area has been highly problematic for this editor for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's completely irrelevant to my !vote rationale. The fact of the matter is that TPH wishes to work in XfD and has made promises to change their behavior. I strongly believe individuals can change for the better if given the opportunity, so I'm inclined to take TPH at their word. And as I've already mentioned, WP:ROPE applies. If TPH fails to keep their end of the bargain, they'll be blocked (likely indefinitely). This means your options are as follows: 1) we keep having these discussions every 6 months, 2) enjoy a permanent solution by lifting the topic ban and reaping the benefits and/or letting TPH get themselves indef'd. -FASTILY 04:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And I would be fine with a WP:ROPE situation here. It's been long enough -- nearly two years-- and one of the things I hate the most on this site is the phrase "no consensus". Few things bother me more than a discussion going around in circles for months and months without an outcome (did I ever tell you about the diaster of a discussion that was the Halifax, Nova Scotia article?). Should the ban be lifted, I would have every reason to understand the careful watch I would be under. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose TPH can be productive enough in participating in XfDs without the time sink incurred by allowing him to initiate them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly how is a nomination a "time sink"? Your opposition does not seem to have any support. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it's in bad faith and creates drama that consumes the energy of Wikipedians who would be better off building the encyclopedia, as your previous nominations had done as I understand it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I supported the original tban, but tried to qualify it saying it should be a temporary tban. Time to end it and see what happens. A word of advice, though, looking at those concerning diffs linked above: if this winds up coming back to ANI, something more than a tban will likely be on the table (not saying I'd propose or support it necessarily -- that's just the trajectory I'm seeing, which is worth considering when jumping back into an activity that may breed negative interactions). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment So far it seems like the scales are tipping a bit on the "support" side. I didn't know about WP:ROPE before and I think it's an intersting argument. One of my biggest pet peeves on this site, whether in XFD or otherwise, is discussions that go around in circles without reaching a consensus. Fastily (talk · contribs) makes a good point re: "we keep having these discussions every 6 months". Should the ban be lifted, I'm willing to let myself get hanged by the rope I'm given (reinstated ban, indef block, what have you). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Since WP:ROPE is directly mentioned nine times in the previous appeal you link in your initial request I'm not sure you're doing the "I'm going to start reading things properly from now on before I comment on them" claims any favours. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. TPH is a grown-up and knows what's required and what the consequences of failure will be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support provided it's very explicit that this time when we say "last chance" we mean it, and any more nonsense like TPH's deletion nominations of Battle of Pęcice, Public domain film or Chad–Sudan relations, any more fake edit summaries to try to prevent people noticing that an article on their watchlist has been tagged for deletion, and any more "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attacks on anyone disagreeing with him, will result not just in TPH being re-restricted from deletion, but banned from Wikipedia altogether. Oppose under any other circumstances; we have well over a decade now of TPH faithfully promising to follow the rules from now on, only to go back to nominating things for deletion because he hasn't heard of them and screaming abuse at anyone who challenges the deletion, and I have no confidence that he'll actually comply with any request unless it's backed by a credible threat of immediate severe sanctions. Ideally, I'd propose that even if TPH is permitted to initiate XfD discussions his restriction on {{prod}} nominations remains in place; he has a very, very long history of bulk-tagging topics he doesn't like for proposed deletion regardless of notability, and I have no confidence at all in allowing him a route to deletion that doesn't entail the multiple additional eyes each nomination will receive at XfD. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose I say regretful because I genuinely like and respect TPH and appreciate his devotion and hard work. While I originally would have liked to have taken the Conditional Support stance of Iridescent, I'm just seeing too many posts as replies by TPH in this very thread/request which all seem to come across as wiki-lawyering. To me that shows an argumentative side which doesn't seem to have dissipated over time. (at least not yet). So I feel it's best to oppose right now, with no prejudiced towards a future request. — Ched (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. The more recent incidents do not grant me the confidence to believe that modifying any existing sanctions would be a good idea. --Jayron32 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per ROPE and Boing! – Levivich 14:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, TPH has already had more ROPE than most, despite pretending not to know what it means. Similarly he's denied ever admitting he can't use Google, but he has done so, frequently, as per the links provided. I can only presume "I can't use Google sorry lol" is his go-to excuse when pulled up for not doing the checks one should do before nominating content for deletion. There's also no evidence his habitual rank incivility has improved, and people dissenting with his XFD nominations was always one of the triggers for this. Fish+Karate 14:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Vanamonde. It doesn't appear that the reasons behind the ban have been sufficiently addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - unpairing the BEFORE issue from the CIVIL issue, TPH's performance has improved dramatically. Before their ban TPH had an accuracy rate below 50% on AfD noms and had !voted to delete in nearly every one they participated in. Since the ban was reduced to just nominations, although they still !vote to delete nearly half the time, their accuracy rate has jumped to 85%. (See stats). Technically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Wiseau was a topic ban violation, although it was clearly an April Fools nom. On the AfD issue I'm willing to support removing the restriction. But if anyone brings to my attention any edits of the completely unacceptable sort that led to the blocks earlier this year, the block I set will be indefinite, whether this restriction is lifted or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! and ROPE - Not entirely thrilled with those linked above by Cullen however people change and I'm sure TPH knows the outcome if he fucks this up (which I'm 100% sure he won't). –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:ROPE and Ivanvector's remarks. I don't see any unnecessary disruption in the future at his behest. Go forth and do no harm. Buffs (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as time served and as the rope principle, also noting that User:TenPoundHammer has been found to be right after the fact in multiple requests to delete unsupported portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Very weak support per Rhododendrites; i have to say, however, that in mine opinion TPH would be best advised to withdraw the appeal, because if he runs into trouble again i don't see a simple topic ban as the outcome. In addition, fourteen years, a quarter of a million edits, and he's not aware of WP:ROPE? Hmmm, possibly worrying. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm somewhat concerned that maybe TPH still doesn't get the complexity of looking for sources as highlighted above. As for the civility issue. The community does restrict editor's from areas where they are causing problems including for civility reasons, if their behaviour is better elsewhere. The recent examples show that for TPH, even this topic ban may not always be enough but there still seems to be a risk opening up more areas where TPH gets frustrated will increase the risk of problem behaviour. But ultimately, I feel ROPE suggests we give them the chance if they really want it. As Lindsay has said, I suggest they may want to consider if they do. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 4 October 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.

repeat redirect vandal Awikivisitor20122018

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.

---

Awikivisitor20122018 is back to creating bizarre redirects the moment their block ended, still deleting and ignoring any feedback they get about their edits as if their last two blocks never happened. --2605:6000:8C52:6400:EC3E:FBC0:8B1F:F771 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The user should be warned with {{subst:uw-vandal1}} et seq. (and upon escalation taken to WP:AIV), and the redirects deleted via R3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC) I stand corrected. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked (indef). They have already been blocked three times for this, and they have chosen not to communicate with anyone about their redirects, instead recreating them and edit warring to remove the CSD tags. ST47 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 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.

Delete an inappropriate diffs

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 forgot how I request deletion of inappropriate diffs. Can anyone delete this Special:Diff/920935422.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

and the diffs next to it.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:39, 12 October 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.

U1 request

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

---

Please batch-delete the pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:SD0001/AfC_sorting/. Thanks in advance. SD0001 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Done ST47 (talk) 23:55, 10 October 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 to Terminate Mutual IBAN

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 mutual agreement and community consensus reached here in April 2015, I have been subject to a mutual IBAN with Magnolia677. In the more than four years since the mutual IBAN was established, the two of us have avoided conflict. An inadvertent violation of this IBAN was committed in July 2019 in this edit, for which I was helpfully notified by Jayron32 on my talk page in this edit. The edit I had made was self reverted here.

I believe that the IBAN has served its purpose. Assuming that the other party agrees, I would like to request that the IBAN be terminated. I commit myself to respecting the full spirit of the IBAN even after it has been lifted and will take all steps to avoid any potential conflict. In the event that there are any community concerns regarding the lifting of the IBAN, I am more than willing to agree to accept a snap-back reimposition of the IBAN if there is any inkling that the state of affairs that resulted in the original IBAN has not been resolved.

I will notify the other party on their talk page; If I have not followed protocol in this request, please accept my apologies in advance and be ensured that I will correct any error. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - so this is one of two current IBANs on Alansohn, the other being against Rusf10 (which was extended to indefinitely), though that extension was 13 months ago, so I'd be willing to buy that it isn't evidence that this IBAN shouldn't be rescinded, pending agreement from Magnolia. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• I support termination of the IBAN between User:Alansohn and myself. Future interactions will be collaborative. Thank you Alansohn for initiating this, and thank you to those whose time was taken with regard to this IBAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Given that both users involved support removing this restriction, I'm inclined to support its removal. Either outright or with a six-month parole period during which any uninvolved admin could reimpose without discussion if warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I support this, with Thryduulf's six-month parole suggestion. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I don't not support it without the parole option, but that would be my preference. GoldenRing (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support with Thryduulf outright option. It's been four years and more and they've not made a mistake. Let's go the good faith way and place it outright. I would not be comfortable with an administrator re-imposing the ban on their own without community consensus. Lourdes 10:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support plain removal without Thrydulf's additional "condition", per Lourdes. -- Begoon 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support without the additional "parole" stuff. Reyk _YO! 11:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support without parole. When two editors in a dispute both agree on a way forward, we should support it with our thanks for working it out. – Levivich 21:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. starship.paint (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I also don't think the additional conditions are necessary. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support We can always re-address, if needed. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 10 October 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 to re-open the July 2019 MOS:THEMUSIC RfC

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

---

An RfC was recently closed assessing consensus. The close has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and there seems rough consensus there that the close is unsafe (but I am involved in that discussion). I have requested that the closer re-open the RfC [62] but they have not responded.

But the close is now being cited (example) as establishing a new guideline.

I am therefore requesting that the RfC be re-opened by an uninvolved admin, to be closed in due course again by an uninvolved admin.

I previously opened a request at WP:ANI#Request to re-open RfC but there seems to be consensus there that WP:AN is the correct forum. So I am moving the request here, as suggested there. I have notified those involved. [63] [64]

There is no suggestion of behavioural problems. It is just honest disagreement. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably "new disambiguation convention" would be more accurate than "new guideline", though the result of the RFC is represented in WP:THEMUSIC which is part of the MOS and therefore a guideline page I suppose. It also says there that "the" should not be capitalized mid sentence (and sources strongly agree!); so I'm working on fixing that, too. There are of course many thousands of instances to be fixed, and I've done a hundred or so, so if any of those get flagged as wrong, we'll have something to talk about. So far, pretty much not, just some grousing about whether the RFC close that went along with the clear majority reflects an actual consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now I understand this edit.

Yes, and what I'm requesting that we talk about here is whether that's a good close. If the close is overturned, depending on exactly how it is, then we may need to deal with the hundred or so specific cases that you have fixed, and also any of the many thousands of instances that you still intend to fix, based on this RfC. Several editors have asked you to hold off on them, see the AN/I thread.

And we would also I imagine revisit the changes you have made to the MOS, also based on the RfC.

Agree that this is not the place to discuss a naming dispute, any more than AN/I was. And I'm not suggesting we do that. Please also note that your other suggestion of a new RfC (same diff) was also dismissed as inappropriate at AN/I. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see what you mean. Apparently just you dismissed my suggestion of a new RFC (I certainly didn't mean hold it at AN/I if that's what you're thinking). That would be the usual process, I think, if one didn't like the result of a previous RFC and thought that a new consensus could emerge. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The thread at WP:AN/I has now been closed as consensus is that it should at AN. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn (to no consensus). I came upon this RfC at Wikipedia:Move_review#After_All_(The_Miracles_song), where on reading the cited RfC, I found it to be a dubious close being used to railroad further changes against consensus. The "RfC" standard carries perceived authority in excess of what a reading of the RfC gives. The close of the RfC was overly bold an interpretation of the discussion. Do not relist, as that would make it more confusing. A fresh RfC on a refined question is a better way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn close per SmokeyJoe. Also remind The Gnome of their obligations to respond to queries regarding a close they have made. ——SerialNumber54129 09:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I wasn't involved in the original RFC, but from reading the discussion I don't think the close is an accurate summary of the debate and that it should have been closed as "no consensus". It's also abundantly clear from the discussion that took place after the close, and the RMs attempting to "implement" the result, that the community is not on board with this change. The guidance should be restored to how it was before, and articles moved back to their long-term titles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Amakuru. Even to the extent the original close was reasonable, it's clear based on later evidence this was a weak local consensus at best, and not reflective of the community's opinion. (I did not participate in the original RFC nor the later requested move's opened.) SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse close – The RFC elicited cogent reasons for why including "The" is awkward, unnecessary, unnatural, and inconsistent with how disambiguators are usually read, and a clear majority of respondents supported removing "The". Now some more disagreement has arisen, so it should be up to those editors to start a new RFC, not pretend that this one wasn't closed properly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse close. The RFC was open for well over a month and attracted more than enough participants. The majority made solid arguments for removing "the" from, while the opposition argument seemed to boil down to "use the band's name" without giving reasons why. Calidum 21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Firstly the closing commentary is not an accurate and neutral summary of the discussion, secondly the only way I can find to find to get a majority for the remove is to count "remove all", "remove most" and "remove some" as the same but they are very much not (and other than possibly "The The" there was definitely not consensus about what exceptions would be). Thirdly, when looking at the strength of the arguments the clearly strongest single one was that by BLZ in favour of retaining the definite article, which convinced even the initial proposer, and some of the other arguments were not really addressed. In contrast the argument about aesthetics and naturalness given in favour of removal were disputed. Finally, it's clear from the reaction to the closure and in subsequent move discussions that wholesale removal really does not have the consensus of the community so although the RfC might have had enough participation just by the numbers, those participants did not represent a complete cross-section of the community. An RfC is intended to be a way to determine what the community's consensus is regarding an issue, based on the views expressed by a proportion of them, but sometimes for whatever reason it doesn't and the RfC needs to be re-opened or re-run, not used as a way to force through changes against the community will. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  I see no disagreement there about the two identified exceptions, The The and The 1975. Even if there are other possible exceptions, the "remove most" consensus is pretty clear. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus After reading ALL comments and many of the links, I'm not convinced that the closure was an accurate summary of the discussion. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 10 October 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 is deleting a wikiquote page, even when all quotes are properly referenced. Please help

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

---

Admin Latemplanza (https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Usuario:Latemplanza) is deleting next wikiquote page: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lemmy_Kilmister, even when all the quotes are properly referenced. I´m asking please a third party to review the content deleted and if neccessary, the admin privileges to be revoked for Latemplanza user. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.153.130 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Administrators here have no control over WikiQuote, you'll need to raise the issue there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:03, 13 October 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.

Possible need for a revdel on a Hong Kong related page.

This dif speculates as to the motives of a police officer involved in a shooting. While it does not name the officer, it's veering pretty close to explicit accusations of serious criminal conduct toward a WP:BLP protected individual. I'm uncertain if admins will agree but I thought it was at least appropriate to raise it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just so's you know someone looked, I looked, and found nothing egregious enough to warrant revision deletion. Thanks for your concern, but in the future could you please email the oversight team or one of us listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests rather than posting your BLP concerns on a public notice board? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting CU

The Gas Jews LTA is back. Latest accounts used are OneTopicSpree and LoccoPocco. There are probably others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe a CU has taken a look. FYI this is My Royal Young (who is also into impersonating other vandals at this time), and they typically use a lot of throwaway proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Other accounts are MariachristinaFall and HarleyDude69. I put extended confirmed protection on Holocaust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Need to retrieve deleted file

This is a very mundane, technical request, but I was wondering if an administrator could take a look at the deleted file revisions at File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png, and if there is an older, high-resolution version, please upload it over the current file on Commons. If I remember correctly, there used to be a high resolution version that was replaced with a low resolution version for copyright reasons. Since then, it was discovered that the image is actually public domain, so the low-resolution version was moved to Commons. Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I don't think what we have is any better, take a look at File:20191009-Temporary-Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Guess I remembered wrong. Thanks for checking for me! Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: After doing some wiki archaeology, it looks like the original high-resolution version actually lived at File:Nashvilleseal.png. Could you restore that one for me? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Error undeleting file: Cannot undelete file revision with timestamp 2007-01-24T23:13:56: File was missing before deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2018-03-30T01:09:00 Fastily deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
2018-03-29T19:59:17 Illegitimate Barrister moved page File:Nashvilleseal.png to File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png
2011-12-31T07:44:45 Skier Dude deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (Deleted old revision 20071030104027!Nashvilleseal.png: Reduce supplied)

Log above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to take on a little art project, there is a much higher resolution black and white version that you could start from here. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator to strike vote, and possibly comment, over at Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion

Can I please request an administrator's assistance in striking the keep vote of a user over on the Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion page? While ostensibly good intentioned, the pages linked do not in any way substantiate his or her argument and aren't even close to related to the discussion at hand. In this way, the comment is seen as inherently disruptive to the discussion. One of the links is even spammy in nature. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the above mentioned, can I also request an administrator look into the Bridgewater Bank deletion discussion page whereby a user, while ostensibly good intentioned, has posted information that is seen as disruptive to the discussion by confusing Bridgewater Bank with a Nasdaq-listed Bridgewater Bancshares? A simple Google web search will confirm easily the two companies aren't even tangentially related. At the same time, the referenced links are somewhat, if not entirely, spammy in nature promoting stock pump-and-dump-type articles. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• We don't strike comments at discussions unless they violate policy in some way or are simply disruptive. If we had to do this every time a user came up with a poor rationale at AfD we'd be doing it 24 hours a day. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Regarding Bridgewater Bank discussion, though, I checked the User's talk page and he seems to have a LOT of notifications of edit warring, spammy edits, and the like. Anything we can do there? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Most of those warnings are historial, though; the few edits they made today were their first for well over a month, so there's not really anything to do here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Okay, thanks. Can you tell me if I picked an appropriate user talk page warning for Eliko007 and if my explanation was courteous enough? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Cranbrook School, Sydney Alumni CUTPASTE move

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

---

Can admin take a look at this? I'm not sure why Naddruf thought it was necessary to do a WP:CUTPASTE move when List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney most likely could've just been WP:MOVEd to the new title instead. Now, it's not clear whether a HISTMERGE is needed because of the split page history, and, futhermore, Talk:List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney is now an "orphan" talk page so to speak because of the "move". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I unfucked it, since it's on my watchlist anyway. Restored the original page, moved it to List of Cranbrook School, Sydney alumni (no capital on alumni), and redirected the Alumni version. No histmerge needed. This did not need to be an AN discussion - you could've taken this to the editor's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Premeditated Chaos. I thought it might just be a good-faith error that could require a HISTMERGE, but thanks for checking whether one was needed. I did ask the editor to clarify things on their user talk when I notified them of this discussion, but I guess I sort of put the cart before the horse in this case. My bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 14 October 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 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who resigned his CheckUser permission in May 2019, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the committee for return of the permission.

The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Hirohito related articles

An IP (62.248.181.187) who was causing problems at Constitution of Japan, is now doing the same at List of longest reigning monarchs, by promoting that Hirohito's reign as emperor ended in 1945, rather then 1989. Not sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism, or good edits? Help needed from the musically literate

user:134.219.227.30 has made a series of changes to the categories of national anthems (see Special:Contributions/134.219.227.30). As someone who doesn't know the difference between, say F major and E flat major, I can't tell if this is right or wrong. Most of the ones I checked don't actually address the key at all. The Ecuadorian anthem does, but without a source.

I'm musically illiterate, and I need help. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Firstly, you must notify the IP on their talk page. I just did that for you.

This is a tough one to judge. Musical compositions are easy to transpose between different keys, so there is no "correct" answer unless we know the key signature of the original recording (by the original composer). I am having a hard time finding much of that information. Having listened to a few recordings, some of the changes sound correct to me, but others sounded correct in the originally listed key signature (I am able to determine the key by listening). However, most of these recordings are unreliable, because I am not sure if they have been transposed from their original key (I have heard many songs played in different keys) or otherwise rearranged. It's not clear if the IP's edits were made because of this confusion or if they are simply unconstructive.

Sadly, musical literacy does not help to assess these edits – only WP:V does and I am having a hard time with that. That said, unless sources can be found, I think it better to remove these categories altogether. ComplexRational (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thanks - I don't know enough to know what I don't know. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience editing music articles, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the original score (the composer's written sheet music) should be in some specific key (the "original key"), although other versions may be in different keys. An RS should state what the original key was, and that's they key under which our article should be categorized. Listening to a recording and categorizing it based on what key we hear strikes me as original research. I went over to O Canada; it was categorized as E minor, with nothing about the key in the article (although one of the sources did have the information, stating it was G major. I added some prose cited to that source and changed the category to G major.) I agree with ComplexRational that no musical key category should be included at all, unless the key is stated in the article, properly cited. Where there are multiple versions in multiple keys, we should go with either the original or the most prevalent (I guess if there's a key conflict, that's a content dispute that can be discussed article by article). – Levivich 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the original scores are in certain original keys, and those are the versions that should be cited if possible. Rearrangements and listening are not reliable (indeed, what we say based on what hear is unreliable even if it can be proven; I apologize if I did not make this clearer above), so only the original scores or descriptions thereof should be used as sources. Those can be checked on a case-by-case basis as you've done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can help you out - I'm a classically trained piano player. The music I see ( which is CC licensed) shows up as being A flat major. Flats are pretty easy, just use the mnemonic "Farmer Brown Eats All Day Getting Chubby" , each letter is the key for each flat, (e.g 1 flat is "Farmer" ("F Major"), two flats are ("Farmer" "Brown" - so it's Bb major) ..etc...

That would put this song ,per the sheet music, into Ab major as it has 4 flats ("Farmer" "Brown" "Eats" "All" - Ab major )

That said, this may not be the original music, and since I'm not familiar with the song, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the original key, but it's the one that can be referenced! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood something but I don't quite get why the original score takes precedence over everything else including other well cited scores or rearrangements. Especially in cases of a national anthem. For example, if the composer composed the anthem in B flat, but the government when selecting the composition to be their anthem decided to change it to C flat (whether working with the composer or just by themselves), and this is the score that they distributed to everyone and is in their regulations, and is the version nearly everyone who's heard the anthem including from the beginning heard and the fact that the original composer composed it in B flat is not even well known, I'm not sure why B flat gets precedence. Of course we should mention this detail of B flat if it can be sourced, but that seems about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if we're talking about any countries anthem and a key signature is brought up, it should always be whatever the reliable source shows us. In the one I looked at, we had the original handwritten version and a printed version in the same key, Ab Major.

Yes, anyone can re-arrange any song into different keys, and if there were other arrangements and they were reliable sourced, they should be recognized. Far as the category, by default it should go to the original key unless the title references a different singer or composer, and for that, again, whatever the reliable source says that key is, should be the recognized key. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's my point. It should be based on what reliable sources say for the anthem. It does not matter what the original key is, what matters is what the key for the current anthem. We should mention the original key if it can also be sourced, but there's absolutely no reason why it should take precedence as many replies here seem to imply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Just wondering whether MJV479 (talk · contribs) might potentially be compromised... just asking for a second opinion and additional sets of eyes. Thanks! GAB^gab 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser and the account is not compromised. Unusual behavior for sure, but it looks like just playing around with WP:TW. ST47 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes you would be correct, ST47 (talk · contribs). MJV479 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

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

---

Just for information: Wikipedia has an article on The Daily Caller, which is sharply critical of that publication. A Charles Glasser, representing the Daily Caller, requested dispute resolution at DRN today. What they requested was to provide a statement to an unbiased Wikipedia editor to clarify a few matters, and then, after approval, to lock down the article to prevent vandalism (which would of course also lock down normal editing). I declined the DRN because this is not how Wikipedia works. I then saw that, about a year ago, The Daily Caller requested arbitration concerning a similar content dispute, and the request was also declined. I don't think that any further action is in order, but I thought that I should advise administrators here of this request that doesn't reflect how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment: we're not quite in legal threat territory, but assuming the DRN requester is being honest about who they say they are, they're an attorney (one who even has his own WP page) and they've been retained by The Daily Coller. Caution's in order. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article is not sharply critical of it. It looks like an article should for a "news outlet" that repeatedly publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and does nothing of journalistic integrity and value. See similar types of "news" sites which happen to have Wiki articles that look similar: Gateway Pundit and Centre for Research on Globalization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - An article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view can be sharply critical if the reliable sources are sharply critical. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If the person is who he says he is: Charles Glasser. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Would now be a bad time to point out that that article was created by a user suspected of UPE? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

UPE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked the magic word. WP:UPE: undisclosed paid editing. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear People: I apologize for not being conversant in the confusing means of getting content sorted out. And yes, while I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publsihers, not sue them) this is not any kind of threat. It's a sincere call for help. And yes, when some rando created a page about me I remember something over my head about whether someone paid someone. Never happened, and sadly, this is the kind of ad hominem stuff I desperately hope to avoid. And with all due respect, Mr. Snooganssnoogans seems to have a personal stake in the matter. If "lock down" is the wrong phrase, I apologize. It just seems like someone here has it out for The Daily Caller for their own biases, there are errors and people of good will can sort this out. Suggestions as to process, please? 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com

Another note that explains things. Snooganssnoogans said "Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page."(talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC). That's just flat-out untrue. Many of my colleagues have WP pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_A._Smolla; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goodale and many others. Could we please drop the paranoia and have a good faith conversation, and please, Mr User:Robert McClenon would you kindly advise me -- in layman's terms -- about the best approach procedurally? Thanks, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk)

All right, discussion it is. Your report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard mentioned "efforts at correcting factual errors" which turned into an "edit war," but you haven't provided links to diffs supporting these claims, which means that most of us haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. You also said that the issue was discussed on the talk page, but again, no links, no diffs, and your IP range hasn't edited any talk pages. Additionally, you've accused Snooganssnoogans of having a personal stake without any supporting evidence, which is pretty close to a personal attack. Your request at DRN implied that you wanted to get the page in a certain state and then "lock it down" to prevent vandalism; it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to let anyone, even the subject of a page, own a page, and again, the reference to vandalism implies that you see the edits by Snooganssnoogans and Markdask as vandalism. The correct procedure from here would be to have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page in which you comment on inaccuracies and provide reliable sources to support your statements.

One last point: the fact that The Daily Caller has retained you for this matter is an action which is pretty much guaranteed to raise a lot of hackles here, since it suggests that they are considering legal action in order to make the page look the way they want. Even if that isn't the intent, there's a potential chilling effect merely from the involvement of a lawyer. creffett (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a couple recommendations. First you should register an account. Second you should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide (which you'll be one step through because its first step is to register an account). This will help direct you towards how you can make specific edit requests at Talk:The Daily Caller and have it looked at by an editor. At this point, owing to the posting here I have no doubt that the talk page has more attention than before so any such requests will be given a fair, policy compliant, shot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the above, the article does seem to focus heavily on the publication's controversies. I wouldn't say that it meets WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. -- œ^™ 03:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the above is necessarily constructive in resolving the dispute. I think we should start here with determining what precisely about The Daily Caller is in dispute. I think outlining what people may feel is wrong with the article is the best place to start. Waggie (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that Charles Glasser should read WP:COI, register an account and declare his connection with the Daily Caller on his user page and when posting to discussions about the Daily Caller. Also, he should become familiar with Wikipedia content policies. I sense that there is a problem with the tone of the article with is more negative than for far worse publications. This page is not the place to discuss content issues, but I will watch the page and contribute there. TFD (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion here is ready to be closed. I opened two new discussion sections at TalK:The Daily Caller, and several editors who contributed above further contributed there and otherwise helped direct the editor, and I think it is sorted out well enough now. The editor did register an account and is participating there and at their new User talk page constructively. There is some continuing discussion about the content going on and more is to follow, and that is fine and good. --Doncram (talk) 02:58, 17 October 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.

Pagemove needed

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

---

Can I get an admin to delete Tip of My Tongue so I can move Tip of My Tongue (disambiguation)? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer,  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:02, 16 October 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.

Revdel request (Resolved)

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

---

Can someone revdel this revision. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Insert lecture about publicly advertising serious BLP violations on this high visibility page: CAT:REVDEL pls. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:10, 17 October 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 from Ritchie333

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.

---

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Greetings. Ritchie333 has been blocked for one week, for a supposed IBAN violation. The alleged violation was this series of edits. Praxidicae had tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation and a promotional piece in need of a total rewrite. Ritchie resolved these issues, spending hours of his time rewriting the article. However, even though he had removed the tags accordingly, it was treated as a “revert” of Praxidicae by the blocking administrator (who was one of the Arbs who imposed the behind-the-scenes sanction). Besides the supposed “revert”, there was no other interaction. Because the IBAN was imposed by Arbcom, this is technically an AE block that cannot be reviewed normally. As such, I am copying his appeal here per his request. Note that he has already additionally responded at length on his talk page as well, denying any and all ill intent whatsoever. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice who had tagged O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester for G11 and G12 until I had finished the first urgent rewrite to avoid close paraphrasing and excessive puffery and hit "save", by which point it was probably too late. For what it's worth I thought the tags were justified and deletion would have been within the bounds of administrator discretion; I just fancied improving the article so I could nominate it for Did you know? - as a musician, I'm interested in articles about live venues and my interest in Manchester history and architecture has been piqued by the meetup earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to be unblocked to do that, to continue my working in improving Marshlink line towards FAC, and to attend to any GA and DYK reviews I have put up that require my input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, I would be strongly inclined to support unblock, to the extent that if this wasn’t an AE block I would be inclined to outright overturn it as a bad block myself. Editing the same article in good faith without interacting directly is very explicitly allowed under IBAN policy, and removing a tag that is no longer applicable because you fixed the issue is pretty obviously not a “revert”, as the blocking admin claimed. The only remaining justification for the block is a completely unfounded assumption of bad faith, in spite of Ritchie’s completely realistic assertions that the “interaction”, if you can call it that, was unintentional, and that he was merely trying to improve the content space in good faith, as he has always done. Additionally, the previous block was used as an aggravating factor, in spite of the fact that it was virtually universally condemned as a bad block. And, to be clear, I’m not a “friend” or “fan” of Ritchie, but this really seems like a block in search of a violation. The shadowban by Arbcom was controversial to begin with, and severe blocks in response to such an exceedingly dubious “violation” is unconscionable, to me at least. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock but more importantly we need to initiate investigation into the completely inadequate and involved behaviour of the blocking Arb who has repeatedly ignored good faith arguments and refused to consider an unblock request. A new precedent on interpretation of what IBAN violations has been set here, it needs serious consideration. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've asked PMC a few days ago if he would object to an unblock on the grounds that Ritchie333 claimed the violation (such as it is) was accidental. Their response was that he did not believe Ritchie333 was telling the truth. As mentioned on PMC's talk page in my followup, I find this sort of failure to assume good faith to be troubling. Needless to say, I also endorse an unblock. But should this appeal not be on AE since the block was an enforcement of an arbitration decision (as explicitly stated in the block log)?El_C 22:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • AE blocks can be appealed at AE, AN, or ARCA. It says that officially somewhere, but you'll either have to take my word for it, or someone will have to find where exactly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I stand corrected. I've also notified PMC about this appeal. El_C 23:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications - interestingly, an appeal filed at AE must gain consensus from uninvolved *admins*, while paradoxically the appeal filed here at the admins board must gain consensus from uninvolved *editors*. I have no idea why the difference.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Grudging oppose - Ritchie is about the only admin on here that I have confidence in, but this is plain for any unclouded eye to see. A revert is the undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. The edit for which Ritchie was blocked including the removal of a CSD tag added by Praxidicae, and restored the page to an empty state and removed most of its other material. This is by definition a revert, and whatever else he did during or after that is irrelevant. Something that not one person has bothered to mention on Ritchie's talk page, is that Praxidicae's username was on the tag – the most recent editor is always listed on the tag: This page was last edited by [USERNAME] at [TIME]. He didn't need to look at the history, just the tag and he would (or should) have known to leave it alone. An unblock now would be tantamount to the community invalidating the IBAN – I don't think the IBAN should have been placed, but it's there – and encouraging further infractions. This is a bad move. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, this is incorrect. The page was not empty when Ritchie found it, it had a load of copyvio text on it, and deletion tag which cited the copyvio as the reason for deletion. Ritchie removed all the copyrighted and promotional text, revdelled it, and then removed the tag because it was obsolete. By no stretch of the imagination was that a "revert" and it didn't undo or negate the effects, rather it was the natural next step for a G11/G12 tag where the issues had been dealt with. Now it could be argued that this was still a breach of the IBAN, but that's borderline, and IMHO the harshness of the punishment - leaping straight to a one-week block, and refusing to believe that Ritchie did this in good faith - did not fit the crime.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru – and restored the page to an empty state <- this means he turned it into a blank page, not that he found a blank page. Although, I've double checked, he removed most of the content, not all of it. Corrected. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Swarm. Amaury • 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Agree with all of the above. I am not "a fan" of Ritchie. But why should I not be counted as "a friend". If that nulls my !vote, so be it. Yes, what Mr rnddude has carefully explained is quite valid. But this block, even if originally imposed in good faith, weighing all of the circumstances and responses, seems wholly disproportionate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• My understanding from PMC's comments is that the block is based on an emailed complaint to ArbCom, and is based ONLY on this revert, and that there was no other blockworthy behavior since the last block. @Premeditated Chaos:, is that correct? If that's the case, I strongly support an unblock. If that's not the case, then the other behavior since the last block that contributed to this decision should be described here. If it can't be described here for some kind of privacy reasons, then an Arb should at least state that it exists, AND the ArbCom-sponsored "how to handle ArbCom actions based on private evidence" RFC we were promised should happen sooner rather than later. Because blocks like this actively damage our ability to prevent harassment, because it gives off the impression that all harrassment-related blocks are questionable. This very block has led me to have much less confidence that the interaction ban was actually valid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Martinevans123. That being said, arbitrators should be less concerned about Ritchie's edits, and Ritchie should be more diligent and erring on the side of caution regarding the interaction ban. Ibans often suck, in my view, but they're easy to get yourself blocked for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ques: Is it true as the talk page comments suggest that the interaction-ban came about because of tagging articles and interaction regarding tagging articles? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: I don't think this was mentioned publicly at the time the IBAN was imposed, but Premeditated Chaos said this week at User talk:Ritchie333 that: "One of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them". So I assume, since this comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that this matter was one of the reasons discussed in the secret ArbCom conflab that led to the IBAN. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• My thoughts are exactly as Floquenbeam's above. If this is the only infraction since the last block, then unblock now - three days (and counting) is more than enough of a block for a second isolated, and borderline, offence. If there are other offences since the last block, then please could ArbCom clarify as per Floq's request.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Why does this IBAN exist for either editor anyway? I see no evidence that it should—both editors are highly valuable in the CSD, anti-sock, and anti-spam processes. (For the record, my decline of the unblock appeal was purely technical, and I have no issue with Ritchie being unblocked.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Swarm - IMHO improving an article and removing the CSD tag does not and should not count as a revert. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock Mistakes were made. Let's avoid making any more. The block is not currently serving any purpose other than to generate reams of discussion, meaning that not only Ritchie's contributions, but those every other commentator on his talkpage could have been making instead, are not being made. It's an unnecessary time-sink, and doesn't benefit Wikipedia at all. Yunshui ^雲_水 23:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block but also support unblock. I was going to stay out of this but since it's here: this was a clear and unambiguous violation of an interaction ban by an editor who had previously and recently been blocked for violating the same restriction. It's clear from contribs and the deletion logs that Ritchie had been working through speedy deletion queues earlier in the day, then went away to do a peer review of Marshlink line for several hours, then we're to believe that four hours later he just happened to return to speedy deletion and just happened to land on one tagged by the editor they're ibanned with, in the exact environment which led to the iban being imposed. Even if we assume that this is just coincidence, it doesn't matter: the onus is on the sanctioned editor to avoid the behaviour that led to the sanction, and Ritchie did not. Some other editor said in response to some other ban violation that in cases of these restrictions, you don't tiptoe around them, you stay as far away as you possibly can, so that if someone suggests that you violated it, any sane editor will think they're an idiot (I'm heavily paraphrasing). Ritchie, if that means you don't do speedy deletions, or you stay away from the G11 and G12 tags that Praxidicae is so fond of, well so be it. If not, then yes, the onus is on you to check the history of every page you find in those queues to ensure that you're not violating your restriction. Did Ritchie improve the article? Absolutely. But we have to stop giving passes for harassment-related sanctions because editors are "good people" or whatever. With all that in mind I support lifting the block because obviously the point has been made by now, and I see no non-punitive reason for it to continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per my original request. If I'm understanding correctly that PMC was who initiated an off-wiki review [65], supported (perhaps suggested) a "private" review [66], draft the motion [67], was the one to receive a private (arbcom) email claiming that Ritchie violated said ban[68] - then I'm also concerned about WP:INVOLVED (and a few other things), if "Involved" is even applicable to arbs as it is to admins. I will add to my support that if this editing of O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester is a sample of the "evidence" that was reviewed, and supports the ban, I must question the fact that the ban exists in the first place. — Ched (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the policy. Even if we look at the "spirit" of the interaction ban - while on the surface we can say that we should IAR, and that this was an innocent rewrite of an article that happened to be tagged by Praxidicae, when you look at the context (Ritchie being critical of Praxidicae's "behavior" which largely involved their tagging articles for speedy deletion instead of trying to save them) this is exactly why there was an interaction ban. I will also say (having been on vacation at the time the interaction ban was given, so I didn't comment then) that Ritchie does not interact very well with editors when he does not agree with how they edit, having been a target of that myself. Had this been a public arbitration case, I would have likely submitted evidence. Which is a pity, because he does good article work, but I have always believed that you have to be able to work together with other people in order to participate on this site - even with people with whom you have a legitimate disagreement or don't see eye to eye on certain matters. --Rschen7754 00:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But in this case, Ritchie's actions were not "critical" of Prax's tag at all; there was no disagreement, his actions showed that Ritchie 100% agreed with Prax's tag and addressed the concerns. Seems like that should count for something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: Are you sure? Praxidicae wanted the page deleted; Ritchie removed the tag, indicating that he wanted the article to be kept. --Rschen7754 00:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Striking as I don't think that conveys what I want to get across. The disagreement is in how they view tagging: Praxidicae wanted to throw out the article; Ritchie wanted to try and salvage it. That is generally what the disagreement in their philosophies is over. Unfortunately, Ritchie can often not "agree to disagree" and let other people operate how they see fit within the bounds of policy. This incident just furthered that dispute. --Rschen7754 01:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • You cited, specifically, that "does not interact very well with editors when he does not agree" is an, or the, underlying issue. In this instance, he saw an article tagged for deletion, and spent 2 hours rewriting it. He's not blocked because he "didn't interact well" with the nominator. He's blocked because he validly removed the deletion tags, which was purported to be a "revert". Obviously that's not what a revert is. The supposed underlying issue of "not interacting well" is obviously not the issue, because there was no other interaction other than the purely valid procedural one he's blocked for. And, there's no reason to assume bad faith, because there's no pattern of not respecting the IBAN. So, I can only interpret this as an unfair and unreasonable assumption of bad faith. In spite of the fact that this is an Arbitrator blocking a user for an Arbitration Enforcement block, the blocker did not seek Arbcom's input to make it an Arbcom block, nor did they seek admins' input to make it a legitimate AE block, in spite of the fact that the IBAN was controversial and the rationale was dubious at best. None of this is normal. It's universally considered to be poor form to be the one to action a sanction you secured, even at AE. And yet some Arb is unilaterally enforcing a dubious violation of a dubious sanction that they oversaw implemented, particularly for a long-serving administrator in good standing. And yet, they saw no problem whatsoever with a heavy-handed, unilateral, highly-dubious block. This is so wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
        • because there's no pattern of not respecting the IBAN that is highly debateable. And yes, it is a very innocent edit, if you don't look at the context. --Rschen7754 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock We probably shouldn't be using Ibans as bludgeons to punish editors for accidental, inconsequential, technical violations made during normal constructive editing. Ritchie improved an article and removed a maintenance tags. PUNISH HIM! ~Awilley (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock This is a rather unbelievable way to apply an IBAN. Regardless of the behavioral problems between these two editors, I think it's a stretch to even consider this an "interaction" - Ritchie rewrote an article, incidentally removing a CSD tag that no longer applies. Apparently removing the CSD tag is the thing that got him into trouble, since it was counted as a "revert" - so should he have left the CSD tag in place even though it no longer applied? Or should he have deleted the article per the CSD tag and then re-created it? Am I correct that neither one of those would have triggered this one week block? ST47 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ST47 I certainly can't speak for Arbcom, either as a group or as individuals. Still, having followed this fairly closely, I wouldn't be surprised if deleting the article would trigger a block as well. The reasoning perhaps being "if the article is deleted, then the CSD tag is deleted, hence a breech of IBAN" Just guessing though — Ched (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

*brain explodes* ST47 (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take "sorry" as, 'I won't do it again', so unblock time served. The block is good, it says 'Ritchie be more careful'. It cant be doubted that such close-shaves need to be avoided in the future and should have been generally avoided. And it just can't be true that experienced editors cannot figure out a way to replace an article marked for cvio (or get a new article in the deleted place) without editing the same page (that's what uninvovled admins are for, to move things around while mopping up). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Snow support unblock. Clear case of WP:IAR. Are we not allowed to make clear improvements to articlespace without accidentally violating interaction bans? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• support unblock as this was not just a "revert" but a fixing of the problem. IAR certainly applies here as Ritchie333 was improving Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 19 October 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.

Discussion after unblock

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

---

• Is 3 hours 230 minutes an appropriate amount of time for a discussion to run before overturning a block? SQL^{Query me!} 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Completely regardless of whether one endorses the block or the unblock (or both), it does seems a bit too swift (I think it was closer to 4 hours) to call it a “clear and substantial of uninvolved editors” after 230 minutes. Moving too quickly and unblocking despite the apparent endorsement of the block by other sitting arbitrators (though I assume that is not considered a formal “committee review”) is particularly dangerous in this case specifically (as the complaint may escalate “beyond community puview” leading to a FramBan redux; and while I hope it doesn’t, it would presumably now be implemented as a global and permanent ban), and generally speaking, a substantial portion of the community would have been sleeping or otherwise offline during such a brief window. –xeno^talk 06:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: An IBAN is an IBAN. I will stretch a bit, AGF, and presume that Ritchie is telling the truth. In which case, they should have self-reverted and let another admin handle the processing of the CSD tags. The locus of the ArbCom case with the two IBANned parties surrounding Ritchie's handling of CSD tags and is what resulted in the IBAN, so I see that it is clearly a violation of the IBAN. Again, AGFing, if they had self-reverted once they had realized the problem, I would be more understanding. However, if we let every editor that violates an IBAN say "Ooops, sorry, didn't realize it!", then it would undermine the IBAN system. I feel that Ritchie should accept the week block and simply be more cautious next time, and everyone moves on, as they did make a mistake and people make mistakes. We should all accept responsibility for our mistakes and learn from them. I am also very concerned that Thryduulf decided to unblock without allowing hardly any time for a community discussion on the matter. A "snow unblock" after just a few hours is highly inappropriate in the case of any block of a controversial nature, especially one that is AE. Waggie (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So they should have been allowed to self revert the removal of the tags, even though it would have been procedural. Fine. I agree. But he wasn’t. He was blocked for a week instead. Even though he said it was an honest mistake, which suggests that he would have self-reverted if given the chance. But the blocking admin still refused to unblock. That’s why we’re here. It’s not that Ritchie wasn’t open to apologizing. He did apologize, and acknowledge that it was a mistake. It’s just the blocking admin’s refusal to assume good faith as to why we’re here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Swarm, I'm not saying they should have been allowed to self revert after being called out for it. I'm saying they should have self-reverted as soon as they realized their mistake, but they continued. I agree that the blocking admin isn't buying Ritchie's apology, but I am choosing not to characterize that choice either way. The bottom line is that the IBAN was violated and the circumstances surrounding that violation are a little too close to the reasons for the IBAN that I'm not willing to give them a pass on it (whether AGFing or not). I do understand that the ultimate result was an improvement to an article that even Ritchie says could have gone either way (delete/keep), but it wasn't required that Ritchie himself perform that task, per WP:NODEADLINE. Waggie (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Thryduulf's unblock. Everyone evaluating this situation should keep in mind that Ritchie improved the encylopedia with the work he did on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I don't think that the core issue is with improving the encyclopedia. At the end of the day that's why we are all here, right? The issue is with reviewing a CSD placed by an editor to which one is ibanned from. IMO, if Ritchie had waited for another admin to handle the CSD, then improved the article (or, perhaps improved the article without touching the tag, and left a note on the talkpage!), I don't think we would be here. SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• SQL, I believe that every discussion about the fairness of a sanction on an editor should take into consideration whether the editing behavior improved the encylopedia or not. It is commonplace that overtly disruptive editors who set out to damage the encylopedia for fun get escalating warnings or much shorter blocks than one week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that there's a lot of blocks made that you would consider overturning then, such as breaches of topic bans and abuse of multiple accounts. --Rschen7754 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block Despite the IBAN being put into place, Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums. I think this clearly demonstrates why these two individuals need to stay away from each other given the original complaint about Ritchie following Praxidicae around Wikipedia and removing CSD tags. When comparing other active editors at CSD, it was apparent that Ritchie has been specifically targeting Praxidicae's contributions. We (as a community) routinely issue topic bans and strictly enforce them regardless of the merits of the person's edit to the topic area. We do so beyond the benefits of the contribution because overall IBANs and topic bans are not about the quality of the edits. They are about conduct. In our open letter to the WMF, we resolved to address conduct related matters on Wikipedia. I intend to adhere to that commitment. I cautiously accept Ritchie's commitment to avoid this situation in future. Mkdw ^talk 05:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock with caveats. I see no reason not to accept Ritchie333's explanation that it was an accident, though an ideal response would probably have been to self-revert once they realized they'd violated their IBAN. Certainly I can see Mkdw's point (and the point of several other people above) that the whole purpose of the IBAN was clearly to prevent Ritchie333 from doing exactly what they did here - a CSD is not simply a request for improvement, it's a suggestion that the article should be deleted; and even with improvement tags, I think it's fair to say that the judgment that "this has been sufficiently improved to answer the original objection" is an interaction of the sort that was specifically intended to be prevented, since such decisions are very often contested by the person who placed the tag - would anyone accept an editor "fixing" a POV problem that was POV-tagged by someone they have an IBAN with stemming from disagreements along the axis of that exact POV dispute, then removing the tag? It's a clear interaction even if they can say they're just doing what the other person wanted. In fact, with a two-way IBAN the situation becomes even more absurd - can the user who placed the tag object that their concern was not properly addressed, reinstating the tag? How could they do so without violating the IBAN? With that in mind, the argument that an IBAN shouldn't keep people from salvaging CSDed articles amounts to saying that the IBAN shouldn't have been placed (I don't know enough about the background to comment on that.) But. IBANs, like all such bans and administrative measures, are preventative and not punitive. The problem, as I understand it, was that Ritchie333 was following them around reverting all their CSDs, or something roughly along those lines. There is no indication that Ritchie333 has returned to that behavior or is likely to return to that behavior, so under the circumstances I think it's fine to write this off as a mistake with a warning to be more cautious in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn block - Seven days were a horrible call, for arguably the first violation and the optics of an arbitrator esp. PMC, who was too highly invested in the episode from the start, executing it were more horrible. The hostility that followed from her end, could have been easily spared with, as well. And then, am not convinced about the IBan breach, either. ∯WBG^converse 07:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll note for you that this was not the first violation, which Huon blocked for on August 9. PMC has already agreed with the concern about the optics. Waggie (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I did use the word arguably, for a purpose. ∯WBG^converse 15:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Moot now as the block is overturned but since I said it on ACN, I'll repeat it here. Seen though the optics of additional information, I absolutely understand why PMC blocked Ritchie. There was consensus among the committee that he had overstepped the line with regards to following Praxidicae's edits - especially around CSD. It was also clear that both parties wanted to stop interacting with each other. As such, the committee implemented an IBAN, the same IBAN that had not quite gained community consensus at AN previously. Since then, Ritchie has referred to Praxidicae multiple times, leading to the first block - those are IBAN violations, plain and simple. Since his return, he has stopped referring to Praxidicae, but he has been making comments about her on an off wiki forum, ones that cross a line based on information Arbcom has received (and Ritchie is aware of). So when Ritchie directly reverted Praxidicae, I understand why PMC has blocked.
  Personally, I believe this should have been passed to AE - I don't like Arbs enforcing their own decisions, but what's done is done. Worm^TT(talk) 08:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block, endorse unblock per my reasons on R333's talk page. I, like RE above, also question the provenance of the Iban. ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I thought that Ritchie had "quit" the project some months back? I guess not. Seems a very quick turnaround to unblock here, despite the clear breach of the IBAN. I wonder if non-admins would have got the same outcome? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: the clear consensus of the discussion is that it wasn't a "clear" breach of the iban that justified an immediate week-long block. There is not even consensus whether it was technically a revert or not. Whether a non-admin would have been treated the same way is unknowable but likely given that almost nobody in any of the discussions has mentioned Ritchie333 being an admin as part of their rationale (for supporting or opposing either the block or the unblock) and it played absolutely no part in my decision. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock, talked about that on several pages including Ritchie's and my own, can supply links if so desired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Praxidicae tagged a problematic article, Ritchie fixed the article in line with the tags. That's cooperation. The block was an example of the blind authoritarian enforcement mentality that's making Arbitration Enforcement so nasty these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! you've just very neatly summed up this whole episode in 35 words. Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock Without even getting into the debate over whether it was a breach or not, a week was excessive considering the first block was dubious and had very little support. Ritchie should have been more careful but I’m going to assume he will check CAT:CSD more carefully in future. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - resulting divisiveness is why iBans suck. It appears they cause more disruption than they resolve. It reminds me of what happens when a well-liked couple gets divorced, and friends/associates/collaborators have to choose sides when #^%@ hits the fan. Eliminate or at least bring more clarity to these malleable/ambiguous/confusing decisions that plague our community and trusted admins/arbs. And ask yourselves how you would have responded if the situation involved editors who were lesser known, or not as well-liked. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Bad block, endorse unblock Boing! nails it; worth repeating: Praxidicae tagged a problematic article, Ritchie fixed the article in line with the tags. That's cooperation. The block was an example of the blind authoritarian enforcement mentality that's making Arbitration Enforcement so nasty these days. Arbs/AE are not the wiki police. – Levivich 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock: And this is why editors leave Wikipedia. You're not allowed to just "do your work" but instead are thrown in together with a bunch of self-important, politicking, power-playing people that no one hired, evaluated or vetted. No one should have to check the edit history before making a corrective edit to see if they're stepping on anyone's toes. Levivich is correct ("Praxidicae tagged a problematic article, Ritchie fixed the article in line with the tags. That's cooperation.") Or more correctly, Richie fixed something for the readers, which is more senior than 'cooperation with other editors', in my book. What is the whole point of this? To make an encyclopedia, not have a coffee klatch. These personnel squabbles are ridiculous, as are the 'encyclopedia of rules' that accompany them. The senior rule should be "If it is good for the reader, then all other rules be damned." I support an unblock. — Normal Op (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Normal Op: FTR, it was User:Boing! said Zebedee who said that; Levivich was citing him, with WP:ATT. ——SerialNumber54129 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I suppose correcting me was important somehow? It doesn't change my message one iota. — Normal Op (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Attribution and politeness, I suppose. Still, if you don't think either of those qualities are important, then thank goodness for your "Retired" tag. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Gesundheit! And thanks for pointing out that I forgot to add Virtue signaling to my retirement notice. I'll go fix that. brb. — Normal Op (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! hits it out of the park with his summary for why an unblock was the correct call. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad that Ritchie's been unblocked; I for one know that his actions on the article in question were entirely typical of his approach to CSD patrolling. That said, I think there's a few subtle issues that are getting lost here. There is a clear difference between improving a tagged article so the tag isn't applicable, and removing the tag itself. That last is a revert, or an act of declining a speedy deletion; either way, it's a direct interaction with another editor in a way that improving a tagged article isn't. Of course, it's also an easy mistake to make, and as with any other silly mistake, Ritchie ought to have been given the chance to correct it. Finally, I think WTT is absolutely correct in saying that in general, those judging the need for an editing restriction shouldn't also be the ones to implement it. I respect PMC's judgement greatly, but it's easy to lose perspective in that sort of situation. AE is the place for this, and is the venue that ought to be used in the future, should it be necessary; based on Ritchie's willingness to check article history, I trust that it won't be. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I respect you Vanamonde, but I cannot comprehend this argument that Ritchie's removal of the tags can somehow be legitimately interpreted as a "revert". Removing a tag because you disagree with it is a revert. Removing a tag because you've reviewed it and are rejecting a CSD request is a revert. Removing a tag because you've fixed the problem is not. That's a new action, and I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that it is a "revert", which means, per our own definition at WP:Revert, to "undo" an edit thus restoring a previous version of an article. Not that we need to nitpick definitions, these are incredibly simple concepts we work with every day. If I go through an article and replace {{cn}} tags with sources, I'm obviously not reverting the person who added them by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I even interacting with them by any stretch of the imagination. That's exactly what happened here. It's a bad argument. The logic just doesn't hold up. Ritchie did not review the speedy deletion either, he simply rewrote the article so that the tags were no longer applicable, making their removal a purely uncontroversial technical edit. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: I think removing a CSD tag as "no longer applicable" is still declining a speedy deletion; besides, the wording at IBAN is broader than "restoring a previous version of an article." However, even if we agree that it's a technical edit, I don't think it's at all unfair to say that in the future Ritchie should leave such technicalities for someone else. Many comments I've seen about this block seem to based on an attitude of "well Ritchie didn't deserve the IBAN to begin with, so it should be implemented in a way that inconveniences him the least." And I think that's unhelpful. We need to define and implement IBANs in the way that makes most sense for the whole community. Picture for a moment the conflicts we would see if editors with a mutual IBAN were allowed to remove tags the other added if they've fixed the issues in question? Ritchie is a reasonable human being, who I can trust not to game that sort of thing; the vast majority of editors with a current IBAN are not. For it to remain a tool of drama minimisation, an IBAN needs to include technical edits, and needs to be defined in a way that can be enforced for the average editor. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock either per Boing! or as time served. I get the idea that he could in theory have left the tag for others and fixed the article, but I wouldn't suggest that anyone fix a CSD nominated article and then see if another admin would actually delete it. We need better tools for Ibans if they are going to be interpreted this way, but I really really don't want Ibanns to be used to stop people rescuing articles. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• What Boing! said. Lepricavark (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock per my comments on Ritchie's talk page. Most oppositional arguments attempt to uphold the initial block's rationale. However, this seems like a desire to follow rules, policies, and guidelines as if they are set in stone. This, in itself, violates one of our policies. Indeed, IBAN states that "...the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other..." With the "harassment evidence" unavailable, I have to assume that Ritchie was not interacting with Praxidicae. This is nearly the same as Fram's ban and case--with the T&S evidence unavailable, I could not assume that Fram was in persistent harassment. The difference between the latter is that multiple people confirmed that the T&S evidence showed unwarranted behavior. In this case, I only could see a handful of admin's confirming the harassment evidence...2. | abequinn^fourteen 20:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock why are we blocking for a week for a first second violation, which was clearly an accident anyway, over edits that were done for the good of the encyclopedia? Clearly over the top reaction. Agent00x (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  I really don't understand why people keep saying this is a first violation. The block log shows Ritchie was blocked in August by Huon for violating this same IBAN. This is clearly the second occurrence. Waggie (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Waggie, I was not aware of his prior. My concern goes beyond the actual players in this particular case because I appreciate and respect both, but I don't agree with some of what was said about PMC, who was simply doing her job in GF. Editors are certainly entitled to disagree but it should not go beyond the expression of disagreement over a GF action that bears no political shading or any other form of dubiousness - she was just doing her job, and we should appreciate her for stepping up to the plate regardless of who was involved. Yes, I hate that it was Ritchie333 but we must see both sides of any argument. Walk in their shoes. I'm going to inch out on this limb a little further and say that as a proponent of ArbCom dialing back the discretionary unilateral actions they've awarded individual admins in the name of AE, it would be hypocritical of me to not support an Arb who actually did their job and enforced an arbitration sanction. I'm of the mind that it's better than allowing admins such individual freedom, particularly when there is potential for individual biases and activism to creep in. ArbCom, OTH, acts as a committee, and by enforcing their own decisions, they will be a bit more aware of potential & existing consequences before they impose ambiguous sanctions. But more importantly, it leaves such decisions with ArbCom where it belongs - otherwise, why have them? Let's not forget, issues that result in an ArbCom decision began because individual admins and ANI/AN were unable to find resolution, so it makes no sense to throw it back to our admins and allow them to act under their own discretion unilaterally. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  fixed, but still, even for a second block, typical escalation is 72 hrs, not a week. Agent00x (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse trout, Endorse unblock - The ideal way this would play out: "Ritchie, remember that iban. This looks like a violation." "My bad! I didn't realize. I'll remember to look closer next time." "Ok, here's a trout. Let's all carry on 'pediaing." i.e. I don't agree with those who say this was an egregious violation, nor with those who say this wasn't a violation at all. What it was was a mistake. Mistakes can negatively affect oneself and others, but ultimately this seems like a relatively minor one. Let's leave it at that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse unblock, and I wish I'd seen this discussion sooner, when such endorsements were more valuable (=before Ritchie was unblocked). Unfortunately I was reading the Alex Shih thread just below with something like tunnel vision, as it was very interesting to me. I want to apologise for my poor multitasking, and am very glad Ritchie is now unblocked. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC).
• No comment on the block, but I think the unblock moved too quickly. I'd have preferred, I should think, at least eight hours, if not twenty-four. Some 230 minutes is far too swift; I, for one, saw this at night, decided to hold off on contributing before the next day, and thus was asleep and unable to contribute when the unblock occurred. (Also, I agree with Bishonen: the below thread is really intriguing.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:14, 20 October 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.

RfC on additional page mover permissions

Howdy,

There is a current request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (discussion link) regarding whether page movers should be permitted to move pages which are full-protected. As this would require a change to the protection policy, I'm cross-posting here. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Structured Finance

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 pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Structured_Finance

Please note that the journal is not accredited (see https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=The+Journal+of+Structured+Finance) therefore cannot be what it claims to be "quarterly academic journal". If someone believes that the journal is encyclopedic (and the the page in Wikipedia is not an advert) than the above quoted sentence should be amended: "quarterly practitioner journal".

PS

The external link in the page is broken
This is the right link https://jsf.pm-research.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If something's incorrect in an article, fix it! You don't even need to register to do that. If you think it's an advert, then nominate it for deletion (though keep in mind that it was previously nominated for deletion and kept, you can find the link to the previous discussion on the talk page). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of this for the OP. ♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

One way interaction ban to keep Alex Shih from hounding Arbcom, functionaries and admins...or what?

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

---

• For those that might not be familiar, Alex Shih is a disgruntled, former Arbcom member who resigned under a cloud and relinquished his oversight and checkuser positions for misuse. Originally, Arbcom had allowed him to save face but Alex misrepresented the truth while running for the office of steward at meta. This prompted Arbcom to elaborate that his departure was "under controversial circumstances". Alex withdrew from the steward election and an Arbcom case was opened and suspended based on Alex's apparent retirement. The case would be considering desysopping Alex and this was done as a temporary injunction. Unless Alex requests the case be reopened, his desysopping will be permanent and he could run for RfA again.

• The only problem is he didn't really retire despite hanging the "retired" sign out. He hangs on to complain against and hound the Arbitration committee members and other functionaries while he does not edit article space or assist other editors. He is being vengeful. I posted at the Arbcom noticeboard today with some of the evidence and stated my intention to block as NOTHERE. Based on Floquenbeam's advice, I am bringing the matter here for a discussion about the best remedy. TonyBallioni had suggested "a ban from editing anything other than mainspace and associated talk pages" and perhaps that is the best answer. We don't allow NOTHERE editors to harass other editors so is a one way interaction ban to keep Alex Shih from hounding Arbcom, functionaries and admins in order? I invite you to review his contribs since the suspended case and recommend solutions.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Alex notified.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support any sanction, including Berean Hunter's original suggestion of a NOTHERE block or it's equivalent, but also a TBAN from anything outside of mainspace . Alex's modus operandi since he was elected to ArbCom was demanding perfect accountability to the iota for all other administrators, a type of accountability that no person could have because they are human, while also believing himself above accountability. I'm sure anyone who wanted to could find more, but here are some of the low lights of his last two years on the project:

1. Threatening Coffee (diff), while knowing private details about him. While this wasn't a great situation to begin with, Alex made it unquestionably worse. He then give a four word reply when questioned on it. He doesn't respond past that, even when questioned by multiple users.
2. This ridiculous AN thread about There'sNoTime, that he started to promote "feedback" after TNT had called Alex out at WP:CUOS2018 for comments about me. The precursor was this thread on TNT's talk where Alex was invited to reflect on legitimate criticism of him. Alex didn't like it so he took it to AN.
3. This blatant violation of the CheckUser policy, where he misused access to the CheckUser tool to run a check on an opposer in an RfA he was one of the nominators on. This is pretty much the definition of using the tool to Exert political or social control, which is one of the few things clearly spelled out as forbidden, even if other grounds exist, in both the local and global CU policies.
4. This pot stirring edit in the middle of the Fram case, when the arbs were understandably trying to sort out what was likely the most difficult Arb case in Wikipedia history.
5. Lying at the steward election about why they left ArbCom.
6. This statement that was a pure deflection from the issues that they lied to the community and attempted to become a steward after being removed from ArbCom for cause (or resigning when it was clear what was going to happen).

These were the easy diffs to find, and represent enough of a trend that I don't think any more are needed before I can analyze them without him accusing me of violating policy.

During his time on the committee, I was appalled by the way Alex acted because they were all similar to this: he would constantly criticize others; expecting them to be impeccable, but would never respond to any criticism himself, or would provide non-answers and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of being policy violators, as we see today at WT:ACN. This is not just a "new Alex" that appeared after ArbCom revealed why he shouldn't be elected a steward. This is the Alex we had since we elected him to ArbCom, and I fully believe the community should deal with this as a long-term issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• While retired editors are certainly welcome to return and participate in the community and it's governance, I do find this situation disturbing. I've been following the discussions at WT:ACN and various other talk pages and it's clear from Alex's contributions that they have quite a bit of frustration with Wikipedia's governance. I feel it is OK to offer constructive criticism, but there seems to be nearly continuous negative commentary such as: accusations of attempts to avoid community scrutiny, and directly accusing a sitting arb of not understanding how AE works, accusations of violating ARBPOL, accusations of misleading, and "the sheer arrogance expressed in the terrible nomination statement (that are acknowledged by some in the supporting columns as well) is appalling, especially since the candidate appears to have no interest in any introspection.". While I respect his opinions and concerns, I do not find the manner in which they are presented to be constructive or collaborative. Alex Shih would you please reconsider this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Waggie (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE block or any sanction if an indef does not have consensus. The behavior is toxic and very unhelpful. Other websites are available for sniping. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse an indef block/ban pending either a full Arbcom case, or a formal and final desysopping. Alex was allowed to resign from Arbcom without penalty in spite of his having abused his position. Rather than cut his losses to save face even in spite of such egregious special treatment, he had the audacity to lie to the global community, and run for stewardship, an even higher position. When the scandal broke, he supposedly "retired", but continued lurking in the shadows, trash talking myself and others off-wiki. I've been concerned with his return without facing the music, to say the least, and I'm shocked that Arbcom intends on just letting it slide. It was obvious that the case was suspended procedurally because he would not participate (not rejected), and that it should be taken up again if and when he returned. The bizarre free pass that he didn't "re-request adminship" is insane, and if what little is left of this Arbcom is checked out to the degree that they're just letting previous responsibility's slip through the cracks, then we need to step in until we have a new Arbcom that will do their job. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Swarm, to be fair, the intent of the motion when it passed was to allow Alex a chance to return and quietly edit articles or something of the like if he didn't want a full case. A few arbs commented as such at the time. They wanted him to get the option of a case or not since they were already desysoping him. The problem is that he didn't return to be productive. He returned basically to attack people he dislikes. That's something the community can deal with without ArbCom, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It appears the intent was obviously a formal case, in lieu of which a desysop would be the default if he did not return within a year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unprecedented to just allow a user to elect to never acknowledge a pending case in exchange for an aborted retirement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • See motion. Worm and Silk Tork supported the wording to allow a return without a case if wanted. Like I said above, I think it's a long term trend and deserves sanctions on its own, but yeah, he definitely didn't go with the "quiet return" route. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
        • My understanding of the motion certainly wasn't that it was conditional on Alex retiring. It was a recognition that a) the case was going to be primarily about Alex's admin bit, and that's moot of he voluntarily resigned it and b) we couldn't have a fair case if Alex didn't participate. It was extremely unlikely he'd be banned at that time. The motion was worded to allow him a quiet return, as SilkTork and WTT explicitly said in their support. At the time, I thought that if Alex went away for a bit and calmed down, then returned to explain himself in the case, there was a good chance that he could keep the bit and go back to being a productive admin. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have happened. As always, we can open/reopen a case on Alex being NOTHERE if the community is unable to find a solution – that's our job. But it would be much simpler if this could be settled here at AN, given Alex's complicated history with ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
          • So an abusive Arbitrator was allowed to resign without consequence or any notification to the community, and when he subsequently tried to game the Steward election, you guys thought “oh he just needs to take a break and calm down”. Really? Man, that’s stupid. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything here that suggests ongoing serious disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • People with a chip on their shoulder who use Wikipedia to snipe at their opponents is exactly what WP:NOTHERE is for. It's not satisfactory to say who cares because people should just suck it up—the diffs provided by TonyBallioni point out what has been evident for a while, namely that Alex Shih is NOTHERE and should be removed to reduce the toxic influence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate that for a sanction to be warranted disruption should be ongoing and serious. He was already sanctioned for his behavior while an arb and admin, so I don't consider anything from before that to be pertinent to the current discussion. when taken in that light there's very little there. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am making this comment in my capacity as an individual arbitrator. The motion was intended to address the fact that Alex was still in a trusted position, an administrator, and would either need to be desysopped for cause, or undergo a full case. Should Alex return to editing (as an editor without the administrative tool set), I personally felt any action or sanction against him could be made by the community as he would effectively be considered a regular non-admin editor -- and therefore should any block or site ban be implemented, it would be a community one (as opposed an ArbCom one). If the community wants to refer this to ArbCom, I would probably accept it given the history of the situation. Mkdw ^talk 05:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  I echo Mkdw's comments. Arbcom took action by confronting Alex with the issues while he was on the committee, he resigned from all arbcom and CUOS. We felt that was sufficient at the time. When he applied for steward, we went made a statement regarding the history and the community pushed for a desysop. The committee opened the case and Alex retired.

  The committee's next action was to desysop by motion, in lieu of a case. Alex could return within a year and face the music and may not have lost his sysop right. I find it unlikely that further sanctions would have been applied to him beyond desysopping at the time. And so, if Alex wanted to return to editing as a normal non-sysop, then he can do. If the community is unhappy with his behaviour then he does not have any special protection - normal AN procedures apply. If someone feels that it needs to be handled by Arbcom, then a new case request should be opened. There, depending on what happens, the committee could open a full case, which would have a wider scope than the suspended case and could close the suspended one as part of opening a new one. Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Question - was there any coordination in the creation of this post? It took Tony 23 minutes to find all those diffs and compose a long ish first response. I don’t support any sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ernie, it apparent from the discussion at WT:ACN that this thread was going to happen. Waggie (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn’t seen that thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think Alex Shih's behavior has been so egregiously poor that he warrants indefinitely blocking: I believe in rope, as I've said before, and this is an applicable opportunity. In this particular case, the ArbCom's intention that he could "quietly return to editing articles" hasn't happened; but a t-ban from WP: space could channel Alex's energies productively. If he can't stick to the topic ban, then, as they say, the law— such as it is— must take its course. ——SerialNumber54129 09:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - It's a great shame to see someone so respected such as Alex going from a net positive to a net negative like that, I wished they came back, stuck 2 fingers up to Arbcom if they so wished, and returned to productive editing,

Anyway I don't believe their behaviour warrants indeffing not at all, I'd support a TBAN tho in the hope it might get them back to doing what they're great at - Article editing/improving. –Davey2010^Talk 09:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban (call it "indef" if you want) - Alex has made exactly one edit to article space this year, changing a hypen to an emdash (2 bytes). Since returning from an extended absence on 26 July to respond to a complaint about their behaviour on Wikipediocracy (where they are very active) they've done nothing but what Tony describes: attack people they have grudges with. Their actions leading up to the Arbcom case (abuse of checkuser, being ejected from arbcom with cause, dishonest attempt at steward election) as well as their behaviour here and what we know of off-site suggest they're swinging with the hasten the day crowd trying to dismantle Wikipedia from the inside out, which is as WP:NOTHERE as it gets. As such Alex Shih is already not part of this community, so let's just do the paperwork; I don't really think it matters what the status of the suspended arbcom case is. If there's any indication at all in the future that they want to return to productive content creation I'll immediately support Tony's suggestion of a restriction to reader-facing content spaces. But Wikipedia is not a forum for taking potshots at people you don't like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose going straight to a ban of any kind. If I am counting right, there has been exactly one complaint on Alex Shih's talk page about his behaviour so far. Less than 50 edits since the desysop. We could try asking nicely first? Or warn if that isn't enough? Silencing critics shouldn't be the first thing we do, especially if they have been productive community members before. —Kusma (t·c) 12:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I heartily endorse a T-ban from everything outside articles and article talkpages. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose any sanction due to lack of recent diffs of disruptive behavior. – Levivich 14:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN Alex is clearly upset and this T ban will help him reduce his stress, for that reason I support also. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction Whilst I would like to see less rhetorical sniping, his behavior is far from the egregious standards, required to surmount NOTHERE. ∯WBG^converse 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN for all namespaces except mainspace and its associated talk namespace, as well as an one-way indefinite IBAN with sitting committee members. The sniping needs to stop and Alex Shih has demonstrated a repeated WP:IDHT behaviour towards all detractors. For anyone who wants "recent" proof, this is a long-term disruption that has been slowly played out, and it doesn't make it any less egregious than if it was all done at once (in which case they would be immediately sanctioned). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Behavior is far below the egregious threshold for WP:NOTHERE. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions - This smacks of political score-settling. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban, oppose namespace TBAN, neutral on ABRCOM IBAN/TBAN - his actions do not seem to indicate that a siteban is needed in a preventative way: I'm somewhat concerned that his negative actions are encouraging a punitive ban. That thought process somewhat carries through to considering an ARBCOM IBAN/TBAN - at least some of the diffs given are, though not courteous, both not a breach of CIVIL and in line with similar posts made by others that are not being called up as problematic. That said, there's clearly some stick holding - the meta discussion in particular is a concern in that way. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Per Levivich's request, here are diffs taken approximately within the last month as recent disruptive remarks where he makes a habit of accusations and badgering:

• "This should bring shame to the arbitrators that refuses to even comment on the injunction in some kind of bizarre attempt at filibuster."

• "...despite of SilkTork's never-ending, often off-topic and occasionally utterly condescending tones"..."this recent comment by a arbitrator strikes to me as both untruthful and vengeful, and is not the best reflection of WP:ARBCOND."

• "You may also want to remind your colleagues that ignoring ARCA entirely while editing elsewhere on Wikipedia is explicitly inconsistent with WP:ARBPOL and not acceptable in any terms."

• "Actually, this is not fine,...but non-answers like something we will have to consider while obviously prioritising in some other questionable areas isn't really appropriate, in my opinion."

• "Your bias and favouritism is potentially debatable here, so please discuss with your fellow oversighters..."

• Trying to tell an oversighter how to do her job.

• "Providing "diffs" that are not visible to anyone but oversighters, while not providing the context is to put mildly, misleading."

• "What a disgusting remark from an arbitrator...Please don't speak on behalf of the "wider community", something in which you have minimal understanding of, KrakatoaKatie...these ridiculously out of touch "arbs" that does zero content work and have zero understanding of community process"

• He isn't worthy enough to deliver such comments and has no right here to accuse others. Some have said that he has now returned back to editor status but that's not quite right because there are editors in good standing and there are those that aren't in good standing and Alex falls into the latter category. As a disgraced former admin, he has no business trying to tell others how to do their job when he failed at it and then failed ADMINACCT. He has acted very inappropriately and has never accounted for it but he was still given an opportunity to return to editing peacefully. Instead of accepting that option in good faith, he has become like an unwelcome house guest that is making a scene in the front parlor for all the other guests to see. Either his behavior changes or he will likely be shown the door. If WP is a collaborative workplace, it doesn't make sense to keep a disgruntled former coworker around, one that misbehaved and got fired, especially when all that he is doing is taking shots at those who are still here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: - I certainly get the spirit of what you're saying (and agree), but I'm concerned on whether it really lines up with our principles. We don't issue punitive blocks, so we'd need to show that he was going to continue to break policy if he stays. I dislike someone who failed in their CU/OS duties telling others how to act, but we don't forbid editors from blocks being able to register concerns (directly or otherwise) with admin behaviour, so I don't believe we can do the same here. We can judge his "advice" as less valuable, but kicking him out on account of it is, at least I believe, unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"He isn't worthy" is pretty disgusting actually. I'm not a huge fan either, but that is just over the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor that isn't in good standing with the community because of a disgraced position isn't worthy to criticize others that are still holding the position, especially when he is obviously bitter in his responses. No, he isn't worthy. He can account for himself and not others. He is in no position to judge.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a disgusting attitude and you should be ashamed of yourself for expressing it. Beeblebrox (talk)

It's perfectly reasonable to say that someone who has failed to be accountable is in no position to demand accountability from others. I don't see anything inconsistent or unfair, let alone disgusting, in that argument. Lepricavark (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Lepricavark has summed up my argument exactly. I don't assume that Alex is operating in good faith right now and do not think he is offering his criticisms for the betterment of the project. With that said, he is in no position to make any kind of demands concerning ARBPOL, ADMINCOND, ADMINACCT etc. unless he wants to discuss his own case, of course. I have nothing to be ashamed of by holding that position.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the compilation of diffs from BH in response to my !vote, but looking these over, I completely stand by my assessment that there are no diffs of recent disruptive activity. I wouldn't even support a civility warning for these. Taking them one by one:

1. "This should bring shame to the arbitrators that refuses to even comment on the injunction in some kind of bizarre attempt at filibuster." – It's criticism, but it's not uncivil. This doesn't even register on the Wikipedia Incivility Meter.
2. "...despite of SilkTork's never-ending, often off-topic and occasionally utterly condescending tones"..."this recent comment by a arbitrator strikes to me as both untruthful and vengeful, and is not the best reflection of WP:ARBCOND." – I don't agree with the characterization of ST; it's rude; but it's not harassment. "Untruthful and vengeful" are harsh words, but BH wrote literally the exact same thing about Alex Shih in this thread: Alex misrepresented the truth ... He is being vengeful.
3. "You may also want to remind your colleagues that ignoring ARCA entirely while editing elsewhere on Wikipedia is explicitly inconsistent with WP:ARBPOL and not acceptable in any terms." – This statement is downright collegial, despite being criticism.
4. "Actually, this is not fine,...but non-answers like something we will have to consider while obviously prioritising in some other questionable areas isn't really appropriate, in my opinion." – collegial criticism.
5. "Your bias and favouritism is potentially debatable here, so please discuss with your fellow oversighters..." – I agree this one is not civil. "Your bias and favouritism" sounds like casting aspersions.
6. Trying to tell an oversighter how to do her job. – First of all, it's not her job, it's volunteer work. Secondly, there is nothing in that diff that is uncivil.
7. "Providing "diffs" that are not visible to anyone but oversighters, while not providing the context is to put mildly, misleading." – Civil criticism.
8. "What a disgusting remark from an arbitrator...Please don't speak on behalf of the "wider community", something in which you have minimal understanding of, KrakatoaKatie...these ridiculously out of touch "arbs" that does zero content work and have zero understanding of community process" – I see all kinds of editors calling all kinds of things they disagree with "disgusting". Ditto for editors commenting on other editors' "understanding" of things, and complaining about where on the Wiki other editors choose to spend their volunteer time. I roll my eyes at the hyperbole and nastiness, but if we're going to start sanctioning describing things as "disgusting", we'll have a long list of editors to sanction–starting with multiple editors in this very thread, for example.

There are statements in this thread that are more rude than these diffs. For example: Alex Shih is a disgruntled, former Arbcom member ... He hangs on to complain ... He is being vengeful ... Alex's modus operandi since he was elected to ArbCom was demanding perfect accountability to the iota for all other administrators ... pot stirring ... lying ... they lied to the community ... he didn't return to be productive. He returned basically to attack people he dislikes ... People with a chip on their shoulder who use Wikipedia to snipe at their opponents ... they're swinging with the hasten the day crowd trying to dismantle Wikipedia from the inside out ... Alex Shih is already not part of this community, so let's just do the paperwork ... He isn't worthy enough to deliver such comments ... a disgraced former admin ... like an unwelcome house guest ... it doesn't make sense to keep a disgruntled former coworker around, one that misbehaved and got fired ... An editor that isn't in good standing with the community because of a disgraced position.

Reading the comments, it seems this is really about the actions that led to Alex being kicked out of Arbcom, not about his criticism of others since. If someone wants to impose a community sanction for that, start a thread about that. CBANing or TBANing an editor for expressing criticism of Arbcom or functionaries after resigning under a cloud is not something I support. From where I'm sitting, I do not see a real difference in the civility of (1) the statements Alex Shih has made about Arbcom; (2) the statements some editors have made here about Alex Shih; and (3) the statements some other editors have made about the statements some editors have made here about Alex Shih. It all seems like the same level of Wikipedia discourse to me. But what really bothers me here is the attempt to ban an editor on X grounds when the real reason for wanting the ban is something other than X. And what bothers me more than that is the notion, as Ad Orientem wrote below, that an editor who screws up gives up their right to criticize admin/functionaries/arbs, etc. As long as the speech is civil, anyone and everyone should be free to speak. – Levivich 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• Support first choice indefinite block, second choice topic ban, although I fear a ban leaves too much wiggle room for Alex to take shots, either on article Talk pages or even edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Any thread in which I disagree with both @TonyBallioni and Bishonen: really makes me wonder if I've not gone barking mad, but FWIW, here's a thought. The arbitration noticeboards, and discussions about arbitration in general, have historically have witnessed a lower standard of behavior than most other places on Wikipedia. I don't like this, but I don't think it's disputable. Given that, can we really look through the recent history of AC/N and come to the conclusion that Alex Shih is the one most deserving of a TBAN from it? There is egregious conduct there from a number of editors. To be clear, I have not been a fan of his conduct since his "retirement"; I distinctly recall, before Berean Hunter ever having started the thread at AC/N, seeing Alex's name in the history and thinking "here we go again". But that's true of several editors there. If we're looking to make that noticeboard a more constructive space, this isn't where I would begin. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, the reason where this is a place to start is that 1) the worse behaviour of others does not excuse bad behaviour of Alex. 2) The others in questions usually contribute things outside of trolling ArbCom and 3) he is using his status as a former ArbCom member as a position of authority on the committee in order to take cheap shots.
    Number 3 is particularly egregious in my view. A person in a former position of trust, who betrayed that trust, coming back with the sole purpose of critiquing others who currently have that role is tone deaf at best, intentional disruption at worst. In any real world organization he would be kindly asked not to return in these circumstances. We can ask he do that too. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: Replying to your points in order: 1) Yes, this is true. If it sounded like I believe the bad culture at AC/N is an excuse for any one editor's bad behavior, well, it's not; I just think we ought to address the systemic problem also. 2) Here's the crux of the matter for me; I disagree completely with that assessment. I don't care what an editor is doing in mainspace; if they are a net negative in administrative discussions, they should be removed from administrative discussions. That's what we have TBANs for; in recognition of the fact that we have a number of editors who are productive contributors in some areas but not others. If, for instance, you are an FA writer extraordinaire but cannot keep a civil tongue at ANI, you should be writing FAs, not stomping around ANI. 3) I have yet to observe any behavior that's different from that of other experienced editors who have been sanctioned by ARBCOM in recent times (there's quite a few of those); but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I have missed something, so I will go look again, and think on this further. I really do believe, though, that we need to talk about the broader problem of unhelpful commentary on the administrative noticeboards and with respect to ARBCOM in particular, so I'm going to leave my comment up for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just pointing out here that outside of harassment and things which are legitimately the purview of Trust and Safety no one here has any right to complain here about opinions others express on outside websites. If Alex Shih has been disrupting on Wikipedia or has been violating WP PaGs then ban him. If you are annoyed about criticism elsewhere 1) consider what is being said and why 2) ignore it 3) reply off site -- all are reasonable and acceptable. Having the hubris and audacity to think that WP can control what editors do elsewhere -- that is pretty cult like thinking in my concerted opinion. Last time I checked we blocked people per WP:OUTING' for following people off-site and reporting back here on what they are doing.

So, again, if he is doing bad stuff on-wiki ban him. If one dislikes what he has to say elsewhere either it is actual harassment, the criminal kind, and it is outside the scope of AN and needs to go to the Foundation or it is not and one must simply deal with living in a free world and get over it. We are an encyclopedia, nothing more. Jbh ^Talk 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't disagree with Jbhunley above me; or Vanamonde93, either. Thus, I oppose any and all sanctions. I do support Vanamonde's suggestion about a broader discussion about these noticeboards. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s missing the point. This thread has nothing to do with anything off-wiki. It has to do with his on-wiki disruption of any and all forums where people he dislikes are. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Two of the "Supports" above include "...but continued lurking in the shadows, trash talking myself and others off-wiki." and "...a complaint about their behaviour on Wikipediocracy..."

Beyond that, this from @Berean Hunter: "He isn't worthy enough to deliver such comments and has no right here to accuse others." doubled down with "An editor that isn't in good standing with the community because of a disgraced position isn't worthy to criticize others that are still holding the position, especially when he is obviously bitter in his responses. No, he isn't worthy..." is absolutely the most sick expression of contempt and poor ADMINCOND I can recall from an admin on WP. It is a foul and disgusting expression of "othering" which should not be tolerated here. Certainly not in an administrator, not after ArbCom made the behavioral expectations crystal clear. Jbh ^Talk 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully Berean Hunter will continue doubling down until people stop being overly dramatic about a logical, well-reasoned argument. That's the worst/most sick ADMINCOND you can recall? Even worse than being kicked out of ArbCom for abusing checkuser privileges? Let's have some perspective, please. Lepricavark (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup... "not worthy" ... It both denigrates the target and is a claim of superiority on the part of the person uttering it. It is the basest expression of contempt (read it, most people use the word without ever knowing what it means). I got well and rightly castigated - repeatedly and by literally dozens of editors - for simply saying I felt contempt for someone. This is what contempt is - "red in tooth and claw" - and the very definition of "othering". (As the link says " A characteristic of contempt is the psychological withdrawal or distance one typically feels regarding the object of one’s contempt. This psychological distancing is an essential way of expressing one’s nonidentification with the object of one’s contempt and it precludes sympathetic identification with the object of contempt" ) Jbh ^Talk 00:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could have asked Berean Hunter what he meant before opting for the most ABF interpretation possible. Lepricavark (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the doubling down in the second quote after he was called on it was sufficient chance for him to "clarify" his remarks and my {{ping}} insured I was not making these observations 'behind his back'. I would be happy if 'upon further reflection' the comments were walked back but, regardless, I have little doubt the words were a clear and heartfelt expression of genuine feelings and beliefs - he may even have solid reasons and experiences for those feelings. In my observation he is not someone whom I think of as impulsive or abusive. That is no matter though, the initial comment was extremely inappropriate for any editor, much less an admin seeking sanctions in this, or any forum. The 'double-down' was simply beyond the pale.

We all here have a responsibility to expect better and demand better. If people want the toxicity here to decrease then stop accepting it, call it out when it is observed and press until it is resolved. Change the expectations - change the behavior. Jbh ^Talk 02:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the comment was inappropriate. Your interpretation did not square with BH's own clarification, and I think I'll defer to BH when it comes to the question of what BH meant. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions I haven't seen any diffs that come even close to justify that, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Making no comment except, as a committee member, that I think it would be inappropriate to restrict an editor from criticising the committee or participating in its processes. I am not commenting for the committee, and other members may disagree. I am also not commenting as a community member on the other parts of the proposed topic ban (from mainspace and associated talk pages), and all else being equal I will participate in any future arbitration proceedings about Alex Shih. AGK ■ 21:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions for punching up. The volume of editing is small enough that we can simply ignore it as noise. If Alex Shih wants to keep pushing and become a real annoyance then they will eventually be banned. It’s premature to do so now. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• As an arbitrator, I don't really care if he's banned or blocked or given a TBAN for this kind of thing. That's up to the community and I don't think it's my place to interfere with that process while I'm still on the committee. I will say that when I see his name next to a comment – any comment – I make sure I give that comment the exact amount of weight it deserves. Katie^talk 21:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I assume it's clear from my above comments but for the snout-coulter's out there I'll go on record with Oppose as the filers have failed to make a case for serious, prolonged disruption in the time since the desysop. We can't start banning people for being inconvenient. I think it's possible Alex may end up getting himself banned, but it's equally possible he'll just wander off at some point, and it's even possible he'll return to productive editing of articles or maintenance tasks. I simply don't see any compelling evidence that a crossroads has been reached and he needs to be restricted for his behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support permanent desysop w/ another RfA to get it back, oppose other sanctions. As TonyBallioni said during the Stewardship fiasco, Mr. Shih's behavior has been quite appalling and unbecoming of an administrator, so he should be rightly demopped for that. Having said that, I don't see how he'll be disruptive in the future as a normal editor, and while he has opposed several RfAs recently he hasn't been able to sink any. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

He already resigned under a clear cloud (if that makes sense), specifically backing a permanent desysop seems unneeded here - though given the current BN discussion, would not always be a poor action Nosebagbear (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case disregard what I said earlier about that; good to see he made the right call about that. I'm still not on board with any more sanctions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am extremely uncomfortable with the suggestion that an editor who has screwed up, which I think is a given underlying fact here, forfeits their right to criticize admins or others entrusted by the community with extra tools and authority. Obviously there is a fine line between constructive criticism which may extend to strong disagreement on the one hand, and harassment and/or other forms of disruptive behavior on the other. My other concern is that we seem to be jumping to fairly harsh measures w/o adequate consideration of other less extreme alternatives. Bearing in mind that sanctions are NOTPUNITIVE; is there a level of disruption going on that demands a block or a ban w/o warnings or attempts to discuss the concerns first? Does their behavior rise to a level that can be reasonably described as NOTHERE? I am dubious on both points. My gut says that inviting Alex to a quiet talk page discussion somewhere where everybody involved could have a chance to clear the air might have been a better first step. Of course there are no guarantees and things might well still have ended up here. But at least then we could all say that lesser measures were tried and proved unsuccessful, and now we need to discuss sanctions as the next regrettable recourse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I respect this position and would like to clarify that if the person that screwed up was acting in good faith and yielding criticism for the betterment of the project then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I see him as acting in bad faith though because instead of accepting the good graces that had been offered to him so he could return back to editing, he presumes that "...unfortunately as a retired editor, I still have the right to continue to comment as a normal editor" and then justifies this to yield lip service to whomever he pleases while not doing anything else. Because I don't think he is operating in good faith then I'm not the best candidate to have the one-to-one with him but I'm all for you or Xeno or Ymblanter trying. My goal is to get him to cease with the idea that he can hound folks on the project under the guise of delivering "criticism". I'm about finding a solution to that so if you are able to succeed with getting him to move onto more constructive endeavors on the project that would be great.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly: I commented above expressing concerns and asking Alex directly whether they would be willing to reconsider their behavior as it does not appear to be constructive and is clearly upsetting to other editors to a large degree. I've given some time for a response, but none has been forthcoming since I posted it ~24 hours ago. I really would like to see a response from them, and their response may change my opinion here, hopefully they do respond soon. First, regarding a TBAN/IBAN, I do not feel that editors in good standing should be restricted from offering criticism of ArbCom and Wikipedia's governance. Secondly, and unfortunately, I also do not feel their behavior is conducive to building an encyclopedia, and that a sanction (short of a solid commitment from Alex to substantially improve their behavior) of some sort may be appropriate here. My rationale is not punitive one, as I see their behavior creating a toxic environment that other editors have to contend with, thus harming the encyclopedia. To reconcile these two things, I can only look at a community ban as the only option. If Alex wants to contribute constructively, then I encourage them to come back, work this out, and come at it with fresh eyes. Perhaps some time off will help them with this. My biggest concern though, quite frankly, is that if a new or low-profile editor was acting this way, they would have been NOTHERE blocked long ago. Civility rules need to apply to all editors equally, regardless of status or tenure. Think about it very hard, especially the admins, look over your block logs at the NPA and NOTHERE blocks that you've made (for the non-admins, the NPA and NOTHERE blocks that you've requested admins make). How do those stand up against the diffs presented above? Waggie (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Block per Johnuniq. He doesn't seem to be contributing constructively anymore, and combined with previous troubling behavior (for which he was never seriously sanctioned), I think that this is merited at this point. Krow750 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih: Hi Alex. I appreciate that you tried to help me when I needed help and many other people were not interested, and I will try to help you now. You really need to engage with this conversation. It is disgusting, and the conversation is not going to be pleasant. It might be (it currently looks like) that this thread gets closed as no action or with a warning, but if you do not engage - and possibly even if you do not engage but change your behavior - there will be a new one, and at some point a topic ban or block will pass. People just do not like when they have concerns which they think are legitimate, and the concerns are not getting addressed. We may like it or hate it but this is how they are. I do not know what your plans are, and what you want to do in this project. But it is probably not going to continue like it is currently going. You need to either explain that the concerns are not legitimate (I personally think that chances are low, but you can try), or accept that at least some of them might have been legitimate and accordingly adjust your behavior. I think there are many avenues you can take to resolve these issues but I am afraid keeping silent here is not one of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih:I concur. You really need to join the discussion and either defend yourself or promise to desist in the behavior that a significant number of editors have found highly objectionable. Refusing to discuss this could end up harming your position. There has been much focus here on your very real misdemeanors, but I for one also remember that you have done much to contribute to the project and hope that you will one day return to editing. But we really need to clear the air here and for that to happen, your help is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• As proposer, I Support indefinite TBAN for all namespaces except mainspace and its associated talk namespace, as well as an one-way indefinite IBAN with sitting committee members with the exception that if he chooses to revisit his own case then interaction would be expected. As second choice, block as NOTHERE. We've gotten no assurances from Alex yet and something should be done.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Isn't there anyone who is friends with Alex that could talk him into giving up his spidy suit and coming down from the tower? Sometimes a good long talk with a friend, even by email, can help one find a lifeline. Surely there must be something salvageable here. — Ched (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am busy for the next couple of days, but if somebody wants a volunteer to help try and get hold of a cherry picker that will pick Alex up from the roof of the Reichstag, and have a change of clothes awaiting so he can take off the spiderman suit, then ... yeah, I can do that. It may take a week or so to have that discussion, so for those advocating a ban, are you okay to just wait for a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite TBAN from all but mainspace and directly associated talk namespace at the very least with the proviso above that if wishes to reopen his case he can of course participate there. Support NOTHERE block as a second choice. I'm disappointed that he chose this path rather than just return to normal editing in mainspace. If he has an agenda against people or ARBCOM or whatever he can of course do as he wishes offwiki. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks User:Waggie. Doh! I'll fix it. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Doug Weller, the suggested proposal was "a ban from editing anything other than mainspace and associated talk pages" (emphasis added), was that what you intended to support? Your support of "an indefinite TBAN for all mainspace and directly associated talk namespace" would imply that Alex Shih would not be allowed to contribute to mainspace, but would still be allowed to comment on processes and governance-related pages (which seems to be where the contention is). Just want to clarify. Waggie (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - both a TBAN and a site ban. It's abundantly clear to me from the diffs posted above and his contribution history since his return that he doesn't wish to improve the project any longer, but instead is only interested in settling a score. Waggie hits the nail on the head with the comment about their behavior creating a toxic environment that other editors have to contend with - such behaviour is the single biggest threat this project has at the moment. stwalkerster (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ched - let’s give Ritchie333 or someone else willing a chance to talk to Alex and salvage the situation. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've held off trying to decide what to say here. I can only express my own disappointment in Alex's behaviour, and I echo those above who have pointed out his aggressively critical approach to the actions of others while seemingly ignorant of the beam in his own eye. Alex badly betrayed the trust we, as a community, placed in him when we elected him to ArbCom, with his abuse of CU. The rest of the committee allowed him the easy way out, and he really should have reflected on that and on his good fortune. But his duplicitous behaviour in the Steward elections was really quite astonishing. We have had a small number of contributors over the years who have engaged in unacceptable behaviour, but who have completely put up the blinkers when it comes to their own faults, have shown no sense of self-awareness and have gone on to bitterly and continuously attack the perceived imperfections of others. Alex, please don't become one of them. I implore you to back off a little and rethink your approach to this project. If you don't, you will undoubtedly end up being shown the door, and I don't want to see that. Ritchie has offered to try to mediate. I hope he gets the chance and that it proves fruitful, and that we get a positive and constructive Alex back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Just to add that, particularly in the light of Alex's response on his talk page, I oppose any sanction at this time. Alex has been subjected to some pretty harsh feedback from his colleagues, and it can't have been nice to hear. I think we will all benefit from giving him some time to let it sink in properly and to find his feet again. I'm pleased to read that he does plan to return to contributing to the encyclopedia in due course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it helps the community for Alex Shih to carry-on the way he has been since the information came out in the steward's election. We know that Alex can be a productive editor so Ritchie333's offer to try and mediate something is, on its face, a good one - at times we all need friends to help set us straight. However, I'm puzzled about what happens after we wait a week for Ritchie to have time and then Ritchie talks with Alex, which also presumably takes some number of days. If mediation is successful (by whatever measure we decide on) presumably we'd get evidence of productive editing or - at the minimum - no new evidence of the onsite behavior we've seen since June so that's clear enough. If the problematic behavior were to return it would seem we'd find ourselves back here as per our standard operating procedure. But, what does success look like? If there isn't success with the mediation/quiet word from Ritchie and perhaps others then what? And does this thread just get suspended until the mediation end?s Or does that mediation - as yet unaccepted - close this thread and then any subsequent action require a new thread? If this gets closed and mediation is accepted and fails would those urging the mediation/quiet word phase want to see new evidence of misconduct or would then be willing to act on the evidence in front of us today?
  Let me be clear. I think the first thing that needs to happen is that Alex agree to engage. That can be here in some manner. It can be on their talk page. It can be a commitment here to do so via email with Ritchie and/or whomever else. Alex was able to walk away from an arbitration case - an ArbCom decision I think was a good one - and I do not think through silence he should know be able to walk away from community concerns here. I would like to find myself on board with the mediation/quiet word alternative put forward but can't at this point until I have a sense from those advocating it what the answers are to some/all of my questions. I can say that I support a TBAN for Alex from all but mainspace, his talkpage, and his arbitration case page (if he decides to unsuspend the case), if he chooses not to engage at all as so far has been the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Alex Shih has made just around 30 edits during the past 6 months. That includes level-headed commentary and criticism at a current ARCA. A few grumpy comments isn't enough to demonstrate a NOTHERE pattern, an indefinite block or a topic ban. As a former ArbCom member, he knows the inner workings of those things, and can be a powerful critic due to that knowledge. This looks like silencing such a critic. --Pudeo (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all punitive actions. I don't see anything recent warranting such actions. If you have something else off-wiki, please present it because I'm not seeing disruption here. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed I could see short-term blocks being handed out for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (which would basically be a block for NPA) but the way that this proposal is framed - it sounds like we are blocking him because we just don't like what he has to say. --Rschen7754 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose a topic ban and I totally oppose a site ban. I'm reminded of situations where editors accused of breaching WP:CIV become fair game for having egregious insults chucked in their direction. Alex messed up, probably big time, but the remedies and consequences didn't include banning him or blocking him indefinitely. He's reduced to the same editor position I am. As such, he should be allowed to comment as he sees fit as long as his comments aren't, you know, a problem that can't be ignored. I, too, tend to ignore his inputs, but I can't support silencing him at this point. And I echo voices above pointing out that no one actually tried talking to him. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions Alex hasn’t exactly been prolific since his return, and we don’t generally ban people for occasionally being annoying. And I don’t think NOTHERE should apply to an editor who has been productive in the mainspace in the past and may do so again. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions at this time. Despite my above defense of Berean Hunter against unjustified criticism, I disagree with BH that sanctions have become necessary. I do not believe that Alex's behavior has yet become so problematic as to warrant any kind of ban. However, Alex should now be aware of the impression that he has given numerous editors and I urge him to reflect on whether he is doing more harm than good. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions - Alex got the message, and has come to terms with his situation and what has been a somewhat difficult adjustment period. If I were to label what he was feeling based on his comments, I'd say it's the aftershock. He may or may not respond on his UTP to xeno's kind words, but we can rest assured that he won't be the cause of any further disturbances. I recommend closing this discussion with kind thoughts, and an optimistic look at the future. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just noting that I have struck my !vote, since I seem to have misunderstood Arbcom's intent. For the record, I think it's appalling that they basically covered up an internal scandal, and let slide, with no formal sanction, what were particularly severe offenses. Shame on Arbcom for such blatant corruption. I think there would have been a huge backlash if they articulated that the intent was to never follow up if Alex returned. I suspect he would have been community banned at the time if we had known that that was our one and only chance to do something about it. However, what's done is done, and it's hard to justify a ban now that he has legitimately returned without causing problems. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, I have a hard time with the idea that someone who has returned only to criticize arbcom and arbitrators has legitimately returned without causing problems. Obviously ArbCom can be criticized but even here there should be limits - arbitrators are members of our community too. Someone who was forced-off for misconduct and then returns to throw eggs at the people who tried to help him doesn't strike me as without problem. And Tony's diffs show that issues have occurred beyond the incident that caused him to be asked to leave ArbCom. As I noted above, I think there's a way forward for Alex but have to disagree with you that there's no cause for Berean's and Tony's posting here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Xeno seems to have convinced Alex to take off the spiderman suit, and it seems he has recognized the problems that led to this point. Particularly, this comment from Alex gives me faith that we won't see a repeat performance: "many of us intuitively know the general correct path to take at given moments, but sometimes it’s easy to allow distractions to take away your focus". I don't believe blocks or bans would prevent further disruption at this point. That said, if it turns out my faith was misplaced and disruption continues to occur, I would support NPA and CIVIL blocks as necessary to prevent further problems. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions, there's a stretching of NOTHERE here - for me, the encyclopedia isn't just article space, it's also the support structure of talk pages, user pages, meta pages and so on behind that. If a user chooses to limit themselves to those namespaces and not the article space then so be it, their contributions are still 'about' Wikipedia, and critical commentary should be allowed - even welcomed - unless it crosses lines such as unconstructiveness, civility, etc. that I don't think Alex has crossed. Fish+Karate 09:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions primarily per Jehochman and F&K. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:37, 21 October 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:Frank marine

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

I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([69], [70] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done a little while ago. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Frank marine has never left a post on a talk page, which is a concern. They also have run into copyright trouble. Some of their edits have been revdelled, for example at 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) (look at the page history and notice the strikeouts). They did create one reasonable article, Royal Thai Army Aviation Center, though I can't rule out that some of the material could have been copied from other Wikipedia articles, for instance List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. Unless Frank marine is wearing out the patience of the copyright enforcers, I don't see any current reason for admin action. There is a tendency for people who never communicate to get blocked, though I don't think we are quite at that point. As noted above there doesn't appear to be a case for COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [71]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Scope of resysop RfC and community desysop question

Coming here because I don't know where else to post, but I do think this needs review (not in a bad way) on the current resysop RfC, a new proposal has been made to have a community desysop process. My concern here is pretty simple: it's at the very bottom of a long page; the proposal was about inactivity resysops, and you're very likely to only attract a very limited audience. It's entirely possible to get 20 or so people in support of it and gain "consensus", but if it were advertised on it's own, you'd likely get a hundred people or more participating, with a much more divided split.

I guess my question is for a wider audience: should this be included in this RfC, or is it an important enough and controversial enough topic that it should be closed and have someone propose it on it's own if they want to. My view is the latter, but I thought it important enough that getting a wider view was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's unsurprising the conversation went there. That said, I think it's out of scope there and serves more as a "straw poll" than something which can get binding consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to just let them vote. Once they get it out of their system, close that section with either "consensus is that we should discuss this further in a new RFC" or "consensus is against further discussion at this time". The proposal is too vague to institute any changes by itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't really call it consensus one way or another because of the lack of advertising, but I think a close of "there's interest in discussing this further" would be fine. I'm more of the mind of barkeep that I want to get a read on the thoughts of people as to whether it can be a binding consensus before we're a month into the process... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should probably be framed as such. I don't see that it should be binding, as it's very much out of the original RfC scope, I really can see a much different (and probably much larger) audience that would be drawn to an RfC regarding a community desysop policy. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Reposting what I said to Xeno when they raised a similar concern: "Even if non-binding and flawed, I think it could give us some insight into how much disagreement here is actually because people are using this as a proxy fight for some other policy that is desired. It's hard to resolve community tension if we can't pin down what the conflict even is (which is, I think, part of the point Peter Southwood and others have been making in various places)." I encourage further discussion in order to figure out what the problems are and how they can be resolved. (ec) Wug·a·po·des​ 04:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting us know, TonyBallioni. Community desysop is clearly out of scope for that RfC and needs its own wider discussion. While it is obviously well intended, even as a "straw poll" I see little value, as it will have attracted the attention of only those who have had the perserverance to get to "Statement 16" in a long and wordy resysop discussion (well, and those who have seen this here now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see it as at all unhelpful if only as a means of judging a "pre-consesnsus", not unlike the discussion as a whole enjoyed. The first hurdle any perennial proposal must overcome is simply being a perennial proposal.  I'm not entirely sure this is the epitome of a neutral and brief notification, but I don't know that anyone on #16 considers it a concrete policy proposal to be immediately enacted (somehow), rather than a general statement of principle. "None of these options address the underlying issue" seems to be a perfectly valid response on any RfC, and many of the criticisms here are probably equally valid with regard to other proposals there, where we may wish to consider such an unwieldy and sprawling discussion as perhaps more of an "RfC primary !vote" in preparation for a more singular discussion. GMG^talk 11:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I opened a discussion section floating the idea of revisiting a desysop procedure because it looks to me that it would better address all of the concerns raised through the pile of proposals on that page. Most of the problems the proposals seek to address are problems that can apply to admins regardless of whether they had a period of inactivity. It just so happens that the time of resysopping may present a very rare instance where we can remove (in the form of declining to reinstate) those privileges. A desysopping procedure that takes the same concerns into account would address the same issues, hence it's not at all unrelated/shoehorned/whatever, but just a better way to work on the problem (IMO, I guess). When it got a bunch of support, Wugapodes added it as a proposal. Regardless of whether it's a discussion or a proposal, I can't imagine anyone would think that that it attracting support in that forum would mean we would have consensus to move ahead and implement a desysopping procedure. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, though. Until this AN thread opened, it seemed to have among the most support of any of the proposals, which should signal that it's a discussion worth having in the context of the issues on that page. Of course we would need a dedicated, better-organized process for a discussion that would actually implement as much. TL;DR - it's something that addresses the same underlying problems the existing RfC is trying to solve to see if that makes more sense to pursue than the other proposals, which would largely become moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the resysop discussion is mainly about criteria for restoring administrative privileges that have been temporarily removed, without requiring a new request for administrative privileges to be passed, while discussions in the past on community desysop procedures have focused on procedures to permanently remove administrative privileges, requiring a new request to be passed in order to re-attain them. So while related, I think the two are distinct. People being what they are, it's easier to move forward on a smaller number of discussion threads at a time, so I think it would be beneficial for both discussions to put the community desysop discussion in a parking lot until after the resysop discussion is over. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to me that it would be a progress to many noted concerns that a Community desysop RFC would be opened, better to let the current RFC end and consider the changes from that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Given the concerns of scope, I have spun out the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure and closed discussion of the statement. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for commment on a binding desysop procedure

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. GMG^talk 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

141.92.67.44

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 IP adresss user has vandalised Reis Peggie [72] by saying Peggie failed to make a senior appearance for both these teams because he`s a belter. This statement is biased and also nonfactual and his user page User talk:141.92.67.44  suggests that he has done this more than a few occasions. LC1829 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References

They made the edit, were reverted, and received a warning 15 days ago, so I'm not sure what it is you want or expect here, this clearly isn't an ongoing incident requiring admin attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 19 October 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.

Miss Universe 2019

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.

---

why a newest user Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) like to add rumor details can you check his account and contribs?

this page is about Miss Universe 2019 but not for promote a business of Pinoy politician/businessman who try to be on press by talking about MU pageant with unsources,

so all details that i and other edtitors removed its fake news and rumors, that dont have any official announcement or confirmed details by MUO, its just fake news. why we dont add only the real things and good details for this page. fake news from rumors are not important for the article. thanks--Evrdkmkm (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As I have explained to you numerous times, this is not "adding a rumor" or "promoting a business of Pinoy politician/businessman," it is reporting the details that sources have put out. If you do not understand Wikipedia then do not edit on it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

but the details in your sources its fake by nobody who are not from MUO, so MUO didnt say anything about location, date and time yet, why this fake details on Pinoy and other press are important for the article? official announcement and details from MUO is important and good for the article more than rumor reports.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 04:55, 23 October 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.

(Self-requested) Closure review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 11

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

---

Greetings,

Johnvr4 has been contesting my close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 11 on my talk page regarding Orlando's Summer of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it seems like we are at an impasse. In my assessment their arguments mostly rely on throwing links to various policies/guidelines/essays that mostly don't apply at all to the situation or at least don't refute the concerns about the sourcing raised in the deletion review but I'd like a third party to take a gander - and since WP:AN is the place for reviewing administrative actions that don't have a dedicated forum, here I am. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you could have possibly closed it any other way. What's the next step? A review of the review of the deletion review? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, 78.26; to paraphrase, "Those responsible for reviewing have been sacked. Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti... We apologise again for the fault in the review. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There's only three possible next steps. One is that User:Johnvr4 writes a new draft as suggested in the DRV close. The second is that he moves on to other things. The third is that he gets blocked for being disruptive; given the history, I suspect this would be a long one. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• The DRV was clearly correctly closed. Sandstein 17:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like a tendentious request on Johnvr4's part. What's the next step? A review of the review of the deletion review? — I demand a review of this comment! But seriously, they already got a review — that was the DRV, whose participants unanimously disagreed with Johnvr4's preference. El_C 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Judging from some conversations I've seen Johnvr4 take part in on this issue (here, here) I suspect he's going to carry on arguing about it at length as long as anyone is willing to argue back. The close of the DRV was blatantly right in that nobody agreed with Johnvr4's position and a number of experienced editors disagreed. Hut 8.5 18:05, 21 October 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.

Michael Gavin

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

---

Can an admin please delete Michael Gavin so I can move Michael Gavin (soccer) over it? It's clearly a single entry dab. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 20 October 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.

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

Please pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorad_Choudhry

It seems that has been made for advert

See some occasional contributors such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CTeasdale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reuben.Harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.230.232.12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.86.145.255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Uh, CTeasdale hasn't edited that page since 2012, Rueben.Harris shows to have not edited that page since around that time too. I move for this to be closed as a stale report. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable link? News article linking to hate site with outing/death threats

This recent news piece from Haaretz (use on Wikipedia) has some major problems which make me wonder if it is an acceptable link on Wikipedia, either as an external link (WP:EL) or as a reliable source (WP:RS). Since this concerns more than just reliability, and involves possible issues with WP:BLP/WP:OUTING and is has be used in context that is relevant to this recent ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations). One one hand, it is a news piece from a generally reliable newspaper. On another, it has the following red flags: 1) as the article admits, it is significantly based on an account by a single Wikipedia editor, User:Icewhiz, who shortly before its publication was indef banned for off-wiki harassment (his Twitter account used for said harassment was also suspended, but apparently he managed to air several of his grievances out in said newspaper piece). 2) The article directly links to an article on a hate site, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which contains WP:OUTING information for several editors as well as death threats (and in general, journalism that treats ED as a source is hardly high caliber...). 3) The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places), through both me and the other editor AFAIK have disclosed their name on English Wikipedia (I mean, look at my sig...). I am not concerned about myself much, but the other named Wikipedian, User:Halibutt, whom some of you may know from a number of Wikimanias and such (he was a spokeperson for Polish WMF chapter) has recently passed away, and the article insinuates he added an antisemitic hoax to Wikipedia (ironically, Halibutt disclosed on Wikipedia on his userpage that he was a Polish Jew...). Nonetheless, deceased individuals are still protected by BLP (see WP:BDP). So far Halibutt has been mentioned by name in at least two places, see diffs ([73], [74]). While there is an ongoing discussion on those article talks about how, if at all, to discuss the relevant hoax on Wikipedia in article content, it is worth noting this can be done through other reliable sources which picked up this story but decided to omit the parts about particular editors, nor link to ED (ex. [75]), so it is not like by banning this particular EL to Haaretz version we would deprive ourselves of a source. I do think that due to the red flags raised above, this particular Haaretz source should not be allowed (i.e. it should be added to spamlist or such, at least until they remove the direct link to ED page with death threats and such). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz left an account of what transpired prior to the Haaretz article on a user page here. As far as exposing the Warsaw death camp as a myth goes, the donkey work was done by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work is described in a May 2019 London Review of Books article which Icewhiz read. The talkpage of the Warsaw concentration camp article shows in several sections that the factuality of there having been a gas chamber there was, contrary to the impression given in the Haaretz article, questioned several times.     ←   ZScarpia   11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting for the fourth time (after User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia and Talk:Warsaw concentration camp) the list of outlets that picked up the story (not including Algemeiner and JNS via syndication).[76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] This piece is clearly WP:DUE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) article: "The page was written in August 2004 by the late Wikipedia editor Krzysztof Machocki, a spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia, and was completely rewritten this August. The hoax was discovered by an Israeli editor with the username Icewhiz who rewrote the article to reflect the truth."

The hoax had long been suspected to be such, but was actually proved to be a falacy by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work, which took seven years, was described in the LRB article read by Icewhiz, allowing him to modify the Wikipedia article. We're not obliged to use everything we can source and we're not obliged to treat the contents of the Haaretz article as fact, rather than claims, when we have contrary evidence to hand.

In the last week, it has been made public that, after years of suspicion, research done at King’s College London has shown that much of the published work of Hans Eysenck was unsafe. When the details come out and Wikipedia updated accordingly, hopefully editors won't be making grandiose claims to have uncovered hoaxes. And hopefully they won't be persuading newspapers to run stories about how teams of Eysenckists have been undermining the encyclopaedia.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. There were at least two sources that contradict Trzcińska that were known to Wikipedians as early as 2003, but they were either unused or under-used. François Robere (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

See what I wrote about the article's talkpage in my first comment [11:58, 13 October 2019]. Would those two sources be ones used by K.e.coffman in the major editing he did to the article earlier this year before Icewhiz became involved?     ←   ZScarpia   10:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus is in conflict of interest: he is roasted by article. Article uses two respectable historians as sources. Piotrus is shouting conspiracy on Wiki: 1. [85]: "User:Icewhiz who co-authored this piece in which he harasses a number of editors" when Haaretz[86] lists "Omer Benjakob" single author. 2. [87]: "co-authored", "slanders", "hack piece". 3. [88]: "getting the hack who wrote this to include links": shouting that BLP journalist is a "hack". Does Wiki accept users who shout conspiracy of secret unnamed authors of newspaper articles ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At @Banana Republic: Piotrus shouts conspiracy louder: [89] "The Haaretz article contains many factual errors as well as information that can be seen as harassing some editors; it is de facto a revenge piece by an editor banned for harassment.". Piotrus shouts one author: Wiki editor but not named author. Maybe Piotrus afraid of coverage of Piotrus ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• On the general question: can we use a source from a normally good RS that links to sites that WP would never link to, the answer is yes: We cannot control what external sites link to, and even sites like NYTimes and BBC will link to material we would never include. As long as we treat the RS content as appropriate under WP policy. If the source out's a WP editor, the question to ask if it is necessary in the WP coverage of that topic to even include mention of the editor (or can you just use "a WP editor" instead). This is the same concept that applies at BLP and other core policies. Now, that said, if it is the case that an article outs a WP editor (who has not outed themselves on WP before), this should 100% not be considered an on-wiki outing, and all editors are expected to respect the editor's option not to out themselves on WP, even if the outing from the RS is quite visible. --Masem (t) 14:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Halibutt outed himself on his user page. Haaretz did not do any outing. Banana Republic (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify (so I'm not accused of distortion) User:Halibutt outed himself on his userpage on the Polish Wikipedia, not on his user page on the English Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• No The only thing to do over here is to restrict the OP, a disgraced ex-admin, from flagrantly violating WP:COI, to remove material critical of him. ∯WBG^converse 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go that far. I understand Piotrus's position - he believes he was misquoted, and is trying to defend himself from what he feels is unjustified public exposure. But fighting to suppress the story on Wikipedia isn't the way: it's a real story, it's sourced well enough, is supported by RS, and was picked up by enough outlets to justify WP:DUE. And yes, there's an obvious COI here as well, which you should at least declare. If you feel your version wasn't given enough exposure, then instead of trying to suppress this story, find somewhere to publicize yours. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, it's reasonable for Piotrus to raise this here, precisely because of what it says about him. It's important to weigh protecting editors against other conflicting interests. Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• WP:CANVASSING isn't the way either...[90] François Robere (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I did not fully read each and every word of the Haaretz article. However, I now noticed that the editor who started this thread, User:Piotrus, is specifically mentioned at the bottom of the Haaretz article, and not in the best of light. This may explain his behavior of throwing a boatload of supposed violations of Wikipedia policies in the hope that something sticks. Of course, all his allegations of violations of Wikipedia policies are bogus. This thread should be closed as WP:BOOMERANG. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: I think it's important to AGF here. If you've ever spoken to the press, you know that it's pretty common for reporters to get things wrong - quotes that end up subtly different in ways that change the meaning of what you had to say, or context ends up getting things wrong. The press is particularly bad at getting Wikipedia right - I think Stephen Harrison may be the only journalist who gets the community right most of the time, and he does it by combining a pretty decent understands of the community with a lot of work talking to people. So it doesn't take my AGF to conclude that Piotrus feels misrepresented in this piece.

On Wikipedia, if you accuse someone of something you can't back up, we call it casting aspersions (and doing so isn't acceptable. But if there's a news story accusing you of misdeeds, can we link to it? Even if it may be incorrect? The accusations of acting in bad faith against Piotrus here, the tone of the response, seems to support his fear that the story can be used to discredit him.

Secondly, there's our OUTing policy. A few months ago, someone was blocked for asking two WMF staffers whether Twitter accounts in their real names were theirs. It's no secret who the WMF staffers are on Wikipedia, but at least one of them doesn't seem to have explicitly added a link from their volunteer account to their work account. So it doesn't matter if Halibutt linked his pl account to his real name - if he didn't connect his en account, this could easily fall afoul of our OUTing policy. Now quite frankly, the way the policy was interpreted in that case makes me profoundly uncomfortable, but that application of policy was supported by various admins. This is different, and there are real encyclopeadic interests in using the article as a source. But given the outing policy, given BLP, given a variety of things, it's more than reasonable to ask where the line is. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

None of these are reasons to prohibit using it as a source in an article. – Levivich 03:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda:, I would advise not to repeat the bogus claims of Piotrus. There are no WP:BLP concerns when the person has been dead for 21 months, and you really need to drop the WP:OUTING concerns when the person outed himself. Once a person outs himself, they are out. You cannot apply the laughable argument that if they only outed themselves on the Polish Wikipedia, it does not count in the English Wikipedia. The author of the article in question can and should do his diligent research to find any information he can. Banana Republic (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've already noted in my op post, BLP does apply to recently deceased (WP:BDP). Please familiarize yourself with our policies before calling someone else argument bogus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: WP:BDP does say that it may apply up to two years, so you're wrong on that one. As for the OUTing claim - see this discussion. What Starship.paint was blocked for was not that far adjacent to this. I'm glad that after only a few months of active editing that you're committed enough to the project that you'd want to weight in here, but if you're going to make such broad proclamations about what policy says and how it is applied, you need to do a better job of studying policy. And please, stop assuming the worst about your fellow editors. WP:AGF is a core policy for a reason - it's hard to communicate effectively with someone who you can't see, where there's no vocal inflection, and where you don't know their motivations. Assuming good faith is hard, but at the very least you need to make sure that you aren't assuming bad faith on the part of another. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're having difficulties with the application of WP:BLP to the recently deceased. WP:BDP is pretty clear.

1. Only a small portion of WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. If a person's name is mentioned by WP:RS then even WP:BLP allows usage of the name on Wikipedia, so it is definitely allowed for the deceased.
2. After 21 months, the death is not recent and comes very close to completely falling outside WP:BDP.

Banana Republic (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't correct that BLP allows the mention of a name just because it's mention by RS. Actually WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically requires that such details need to be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" before they are allowed. While the specific section only mentions full names, it applies to a person's name when they are primarily notable under a pseudonym. A common case where this arises is pornographic video actors. I do agree that 21 months is at the tail end, but as it's still with the 2 years, we should consider BLP applies, especially for someone who apparently isn't notable. In addition, as a general principle, if someone is non notable we always have to consider whether it's useful or not to mention their name especially in BLP cases (and I'm including BDP here). While completionists feel we should always include the name, it's actually fairly common we make the decision not to include the name if it doesn't add the much. That said, it's not clear to me anyone is proposing the addition of the name anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The name adds quite a bit. A good part of the reason that the hoax remained on Wikipedia for 15 years is that the editor who inserted it was a very well respected member of the Wikipedia community. Banana Republic (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: - please take the time to familiarise yourself with the WP:OUTING policy. Learn from my mistake so you won’t make it yourself. It’s not pleasant, to say the least, to learn it when you’re indefinitely blocked with no talk page access. If you don’t understand it, ask around here, the admins can advise you. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss it but you've provided no coherent explanation for why "the name adds quite a bit". The editor was a well respected member of the Wikipedia community under whatever their username was. It does not explain why their real name adds anything. If as Starship.paint implies, the name wasn't even known here, your explanation makes even less sense. Of course, even the editor being a respected member of the wikipedia community does not mean their username means much. 99.999% of readers are not going to recognise any username. So there needs to be some explanation of why "A respected editor, Banana Republic, added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas" adds a lot more than "A respected editor added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas". Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The article about the Warsaw concentration camp does not need to name the editor who inserted the hoax into Wikipedia. However, the article Reliability of Wikipedia does need to name the editor who inserted the hoax, because it was inserted by a well respected editor, and not an ordinary troll. This is to say that even well respected editors can enter wrong information into Wikipedia, and that's what the article Reliability of Wikipedia is about.

This is similar to how the article John Siegenthaler does not name the person who inserted the hoax into the article, but the article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident does. Banana Republic (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Without reviewing the articles that are specifically about Wikipedia, I would be highly certain that if the editor(s) are not blue-linked notable, there is zero need to actually name an editor. EG, the editor that uploaded the Monkey selfie copyright dispute is not named. --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I just want to clarify that I am not overly concerned about being misquoted, it is mildly annoying but that's about it, and so far nobody mentioned anything concerning me in Wikipedia. I wasn't going to bring this here except as noted in the diffs, Banana Republic has decided to include User:Halibutt's name in some articles, and since our departed colleague cannot defend himself, I thought to raise it here as a BDP issue. (I will also note that nobody has so far restored that version, so it is probably fine, through again given this is an admin noticeboard, I want to mention WP:OVERSIGHT as an option to consider for those diffs). The other aspect is that the said news piece links directly to the hate site with outing information and death treats, so since there are other news stories of this in other venues that do not link to the hate site, I wonder if we can get community consensus to use those other news pieces as reference and not this, as to WP:DFTT/WP:DENY the Encyclopedia Dramatica hate site. In particular, nothing in that Haaretz piece seems relevant or due to Wikipedia - the WCC hoax story can be document sufficiently with other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found. So the issue is, do we have a preference here for news pieces that do not link to hate sites or not, when such news pieces seem otherwise pretty comparable with regards to the otherwise encyclopedic facts we want to reference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Haaretz article is the first, and most in-depth story about the hoax, and therefore the most appropriate one to use as a reference. The other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found are either not in English, twitter posts of non-verified accounts, or YouTube videos.

You really should drop your objection to the use of Haaretz as a reference, because you have a conflict of interest in that objection. Being mentioned in that article, in a not so good way, makes it look like your objections are all about yourself. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, the Israel Broadcasting Corporation piece I pointed to, itself, attributed the Haaretz article. El_C 15:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: I'm not quite sure why this is something you've only "now noticed". You didn't have to read the source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus specifically said "The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places)". I was aware they were mentioned in that source because I read their comment telling us they were when opening this thread, before you replied, as hopefully most participants of this thread. Sure their opening comment was long, but I think if you're going to make a big deal over a COI, you should at least read their comment to see if they did the correct thing, which they did, and disclosed their possible COI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Its an RS. The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting, as we would consider the weighting with any source, but it is a mainstream source, and linking is acceptable. How it should be weighted is a content question for talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting - How precisely? ∯WBG^converse 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Icewhiz has just been banned for rather underhand behaviour, it's probably not a great time to be asking that question. You might also like to consider whether there's any truth in the description of Icewhiz's activities in this Mint Press article. For example: "In addition to his efforts to remove information from Wikipedia articles that paint Israel’s military occupation of Palestine in a critical light, Icewhiz also attempted to alter the article on Palestinian nurse Razan al-Najjar, who was killed by an Israeli sniper during the Great Return March protests in the Gaza Strip last year, despite clearly wearing a vest marking her as a medic. Icewhiz added a video of al-Najjar that was later found to have been heavily edited and promoted by the Israel Defense Force as a means of justifying her death and subsequently re-edited the article to promote the IDF interpretation of the video after another editor included information critical of the IDF’s use of the doctored video. Icewhiz also edited the article on Razan al-Najjar to claim that she was “allegedly shot” by the IDF, despite the fact that there has been no disputing the IDF’s responsibility for her death, even from Israel’s government."     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You are joking, I guess. ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey can someone remind me, Mint Press is the paper of record for which country again? – Levivich 03:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Loompaland? François Robere (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article in Haaretz is a reliable source. (Disclaimer: I've participated in some of the disputes in the related topic area, including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland). I agree with others who point out that there's no need to mention specific contributors since they are not Wiki-notable. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The relevant paragraph in Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Other_false_information is currently very specific contributor focused. The cited sources are not, at least not about that contributor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are news stories about this that do not link to hate sites or such, using them instead of the original piece may be a better choice. Also, User:Winged Blades of Godric should adhere to our civility and no personal attacks policies. - Darwinek (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Most RSes, for a story like this, will cover in in a manner that starts "In a report by Haaretz..." to give the authoring credit. It makes no sense not to the use the original source here to avoid the telephone game of when other sources re-report it, even if the original source links to the questionable sites. --Masem (t) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with the other 2. If most sources are quoting another source, we should generally include that source as at least one of the sources if we are going to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, this applies even in most cases where that source is not an RS e.g. Daily Mail or Breitbart. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not really engaged in English Wikipedia community (about 20 edits here), so maybe I shouldn't write here, I don't know. Yet, I don't understand, either.

Firstly, as far as I know, the paper of Skrzyńska Trzcińska Sorry for the Freudian slip. wasn't decisively proven wrong back in 2004, so using it cannot be named a hoax — at most a misfortune. Are we really willing to uphold on Wikipedia some sensational claims that one of the most meritorious members of our community deliberately inserted wrong pieces of information?

Secondly, as I mentioned, I don't work here very much, but if I tried to use as a source on Polish Wikipedia any article linking to death threats or anything quoting such article as a single source, I would be blocked for quite a period of time. Is it really any different here?

That's all from me. Hoping not to be trodden. Thanks. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcowy Człowiek: You're always welcome to comment.

• IPN had investigated Tr's theory in 2002-2003, with a short refutation coming out in 2003.[91] Other critiques were also available at the time.
• I do not think any Wikipedian should be singled out here.
• The "Dramatica" page has poor humor, not death threats. Piotrus is being... dramatic. François Robere (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• [92] is not a refutation. It states that there is no evidence to support this theory, but it does not say it is false, it states research is ongoing. In 2007 said research concluded and was published and then it stated that her theory is false. And as for death threats if saying someone should be 'gassed' is not a death threat, well... just a bad joke, eh? Please don't make any jokes about me, ok? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• See below on our standard of verification.
  We must be talking about different pages...François Robere (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thank you very much for your really helpful answer. I don't know whether you understand Polish well. As far as I see, it seems that the article linked by you does not constitute a refutation. It is more of a statement that they haven't found any proofs supporting Trzcińska's view yet and that they will continue their investigation. Visibly, extreme opinions of Trzcińska (I'd like to note that I personally find her playing with death tolls appaling) were given undue weight in the original version of our article, even though it was clearly noted that the story about gas tunnel is deeply improbable, but there is no evidence of a malevolent intention. Therefore, I'm rather content with the shape of the article, but it might be rational to reword the last paragraph into something like "... research, which was highly suspect, but not yet discredited in time of quoting, as a mainstream view for 15 years. No editor can be required to update their articles forever...".

Moreover, I'm glad that "Dramatica" isn't as bad as it was stated, but it still seems unworthy of being a source. Well, one doesn't need a strong source to confirm that something was labelled somehow... Besides, we cannot afford allowing banned editors like Icewhiz to shape our articles just by contacting some journalists. Thank you once again. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I read a statement like "the findings do not confirm the death estimate, nor the existence of gas chambers, nor the suggested size of the camp" as about as polite a rebuttal as can be (would you be more comfortable with "rebuttal" than with "refutation"?) - and this is after an 18 months investigation. Recall our standard isn't to include everything that wasn't completely and utterly refuted, but to include that which has has been accepted as reasonably plausible.

As I said, I see no reason to single out any Wikipedian. The problems that lead to that content being kept in the article for so long are systemic, and not the fault of Halibutt or anyone else in particular. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The problems are systemic, indeed. In my opinion, your point of view seems very reasonable. Thanks! Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is frankly a little bit bizarre. Haaretz is Israel's national paper of record and per se a WP:RS. Would we be having the same discussion about an article in the New York Times? These attempts to remove the link seem more motivated by embarrassment at the portrayal of certain Wikipedians than any actual policy objection. If the issue of Halibut's name is such a big deal just don't mention it in the WP article.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be prudential to advise your friend to abstain from cross-wiki canvassing ... ∯WBG^converse 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• A publication to avoid. While Haaretz can be regarded as an RS in general, the individual publications and their use in specific articles must be judged on a case by case basis. I do not know much about Holocaust subjects noticed in this specific publication, however almost everything about Wikipedia and editing by specific contributors in the publication is an outright distortion incompatible with investigative journalism standards. As explicitly noted in the publication, it reflects the personal opinion by a former WP contributor who was banned for off-wiki harassment. Hence, this is a publication to be generally avoided, and especially if it can be replaced by another RS. Same about other publications which are essentially "reprints/mirrors" of the publication in Haaretz. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ALL reporting on this has been based on the Haaretz article. What you're suggesting is that we should essentially not mention that a hoax was perpetuated on Wikipedia for 15 years.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source here is not Haaretz, but specific article in Haaretz (per WP:RS). To my best knowledge, it includes outright distortions or lies. Should it be trusted about anything? No, because it contradicts the letter and the spirit of WP:RS: sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I am sorry, but it explicitly contradicts to a number of facts I know about. Next phrase in WP:RS: This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians... Yes, we definitely have a problem here, because as the publication tells, most part of the publication was based explicitly on a personal opinion by a Wikipedian, and not just any Wikipedian but such who was banned for harassment. What "fact-checking and accuracy"? My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source here is not Haaretz, but specific article in Haaretz — I'm not sure I'm following that distinction. At any case, Haaretz is listed as "generally reliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. El_C 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see Definition of a source] in WP:RS. This could be a wonderful newspaper, but a terrible specific publication. There are such examples. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked, but I must be a bit thick, because I still can't make heads or tails of your response. El_C 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think this article is an RS because it includes lies numerous incorrect statements, for example with regard to EEML and editing by certain contributors, although I would rather not discuss this here in detail. Author tells that he made an interview with two WP participants. Can we trust that he at least correctly described their words in the publication? No, because one of them (Piotrus) said above that his words have been distorted. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying a BLP reporter lied on national press, and we should rely on your and Piotrus's words to stave off any legal threat that naturally arises from that statement. Okay, I'm convinced! François Robere (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What "legal threat"? I think it is customary to discuss sources around here. I only explained why I think this source is not reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So you think my word is worth less than the word of an indef banned harasser who is the main source for that article? And about the said BLP reporter, I don't think anybody is saying he lied - but the article has plenty factual errors (obvious miscounts of number of parties in EEML and of active Polish editors, for example), misquoted me despite my ignored request for the interview to be authorized (the journalist said 'sorry, we are on a deadline'), and did not respond to my emails about errors/corrections (they haven't even bothered to fix the said obvious miscounts and such). How can you call it a good source when they get so many things wrong, I am unsure. (There's also the issue with the article giving credit to Icewhiz for identifying the hoax, where it was in fact K.e.coffman who did so...). And as long as we talk about BLP, saying something on talk seems to be much less of an issue that Banana's Republic slow edit warring restoring Halibutt's real name in Reliability of Wikipedia, I think he did it 5 times now or so, despite being reverted by several different editors there. Now this is something that admins should look into. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a really complicated case. I generally dislike use of newsmedia as a source in Wikipedia, however I would concur that, as far as newsmedia outlets go, Haaretz is one of the better ones. And the OP's complaints of policy violation are largely irrelevant. Furthermore I'm unconvinced that there's any significant claim that using this source would equate to WP:OUTING unless the identity of specific Wikipedians was explicitly quoted on Wikipedia. I have previously been subject to negative commentary in news outlets (albeit deprecated ones) for my Wikipedia work and I do understand the OP's frustration to be singled out in this way. But that alone isn't grounds to exclude the source in an otherwise reliable outlet.

With that said, it does largely feel like a parting shot from an editor who has been banned by Arbcom and went running to the press about it. And as such, WP:DENY might come into play via WP:MEATPUPPET. However that interpretation depends on the assumption that the editors attempting to insert this source into Wikipedia articles are coordinating with Icewhiz, something which I do not propose based on the information provided here.

In the end I find my distaste for the use of newsmedia is directly at odds with my feeling that the targeted editors should probably ignore their bad press and get on with making constructive edits. I would say that use of this source is somewhat akin to handling nitroglycerine in that the risk of it boiling over into interpersonal conflict would be detrimental to the overall encyclopedia. I would council all the parties who have not yet been banned in this ongoing affair that going elsewhere on Wikipedia and doing something that didn't involve Poland for a while would probably be a very good idea. However I think on the balance, while I'd say use of this source is slightly perilous, the case has not been adequately made that it shouldn't be treated as reliable in this context. Though I would be interested to hear the opinions of other people who aren't involved in this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel it's necessary to mention that Icewhiz is now using Wikimedia commons to make statements regarding this discussion which would appear to circumvent their arbcom ban. [93] Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: And likely using open proxies to edit English Wikipedia; see below... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, it's important to remember that WP:RS is all about the reputation of the publisher of the reference, not about the individual who wrote the article. Even if Icewhiz is the author of that article (and we don't know either way), that's irrelevant, because it's not about the author of the article. The idea of placing the reputation behind the publisher and not the author is that the publisher would not have the conflict of interest to distance itself from the author should that be appropriate.

So far, I have not seen even a shred of evidence, outside of this stupid and idiotic discussion that was started by an editor who wants to suppress the articles for potentially personal reasons, that this article has tarnished Haaretz's reputation. In fact, the opposite is true. The fact that all other references reporting on the story quote Haaretz is a very strong indication that Haaretz's reputation is as good on this particular article as on any other article.

I have also not seen anything to even remotely suggest that there was even a single mistake in that article. Sorry to be so explicit, but this entire discussion is bullshit. Banana Republic (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If Icewhiz is the author, that would not be OK. It would be a conflict of interest to report on himself. Banana Republic (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please see Definition_of_a_source in WP:RS. This is: (a) the article itself, (b) the creator, and (c) the publisher, all of which affect reliability. (c) is good, (b) is OK (one can check other publications by same author, however (a) includes factually incorrect statements - for the reasons I explained above. My very best wishes (talk)

While you're free to hold that opinion, the rest of the journalistic world does not share your opinion given that the article is widely quoted. Banana Republic (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What "factually incorrect statements" did you find in the article? Banana Republic (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to misquoting me (ex. "[Piotrus] made the misleading claim that all the Polish editors active on Wikipedia at the time were banned as part of the case." - nope, that's not what I said) ex. " only 12 Polish editors (out of more than 100) were banned from editing". EEML case ended up with 12 bans, but not everyone banned was a Polish editor. How does the journalist conclude that there were 'more than a 100' Polish editors is beyond me, linking to [94] simply shows he does not understand the difference between active editor an an account (such categories are full of inactive editors, plus it is impossible AFAIK to even verify how many editors where in this category 10 years, as this is not tracked). Or "[EEML] scandal shook Wikipedia and earned bans for all those involved with it." Aside of the fact that most of Wikipedia hasn't heard of it back then (journalist editorializing...), not all EEML members were sanctioned. The journalist links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list but didn't even bother to count properly. If he makes three mistakes about such simple issues, two of them based on simple count of up to 12, you think he got other things right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. But your quotes are not used what so ever in the WP article. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: My ambivalence toward the source is because I think that c) the publisher is always dubious at best when we use journalistic sources. I've been of the opinion that Wikipedia is overly-dependent on journalistic sources which don't meet the standards of academic rigor we expect of an encyclopedia for some time. If you review my initial comment though, you'll see that, despite my misgivings, I came down on the side of asserting that, within the frame of what is currently acceptable on Wikipedia this source probably fits the bill. I did state (and persist in thinking) that it's risky working with sources that could be seen as attacking specific active wikipedians in general. However warning people to proceed with caution is different than telling people not to proceed. In fact, my main actual point of digression from others who called the source reliable is to be concerned that I was contacted by Icewhiz through Wikimedia Commons and I don't believe they should be participating in this discussion in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, journalists make mistakes - but so do academicians. Everybody makes mistakes. If we know that a reference is wrong (even if it's a WP:RS) we don't quote the mistake.

Icewhiz is not blocked on the Commons, so he contacted you through the Commons. Rather than ignore him, you made the mistake (no pun intended) of publicizing his communication with you, rather than ignore him. I would not have known about Icewhiz's correspondence had it not been for your publicity of it. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that journalists make mistake. I said journalistic sources don't provide a level of academic rigor appropriate to an encyclopedia. If you insist on arguing with me about this, please at least respond to what I said rather than what I did not. As to my concerns about Icewhiz contacting me at Wikimedia Commons - I see their actions as an attempt to circumvent their ban from participation in en.wiki; I am not active on wikimedia commons and their commentary was about my statement here. I "publicized" it because I hoped any arbitrators observing this thread might take action to prevent Icewhiz, a disgraced editor whose comportment is absolutely shameful, from attempting to circumvent their block any further using this method. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I interpreted your disdain for journalists as a statement that journalists make mistake. If your disdain for journalists is because their level of religiousness does not meet your standards, then I suppose you could use the facts that journalists provide to write Wikipedia at the level of religiousness that is up to your standards. But there would be nothing wrong with using the work of the journalists as the basis for writing Wikipedia. At the end of the day, the only thing that is important is that the facts are correct.

Were you hoping that by publicizing here Icewhiz's comments to you at the Commons he will get blocked at the Commons? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but maybe you know the system better that I do. Banana Republic (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: these are not major inaccuracies. These are the sorts of minor mistakes that any article in any newspaper on any subject might make. The main point of the article is that 1) an article stated a conspiracy theory/fringe theory that there was a concentration camp that gassed 200,000 Poles 2) that this remained on Wikipedia for 15 years; 3) that there is a campaign by Polish Wikipedians to make Poland look good, with the article arguing that this includes a focus on Polish suffering and heroism; 4) many of these editors were involved in EEML. Which of these things do you think is inaccurate? 3 is perhaps a matter of interpretation (to put it charitably), but no one has cited the article for this purpose. I think we ought to be able to agree not to use the article to attack any current or former Wikipedians, but simply removing it strikes me as textbook WP:I just don't like it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Suuure. Let's talk about those. 1) that's roughly accurate 2) that too, but let's keep things in proportion: those kind of errors are dime a dozen; I myself this summer have removed similar error from several articles, like claims about war starting with the bombing of Wielun (another fringe theory, and occasionally it had even made it to the World War II article, which I think is in our Top 10 most viewed articles... maybe I should contact some journalist about this? Except I know that errors of such scope are removed from Wikipedia every few weeks if not days. "Wikipedia had an error". Breaking news... 3) that's totally bogus. There is no shred of proof for this; and keep in mind this topic area was reviewed in the recent ArbCom case, you'd think if there was a problem like this they'd have said something. Worse, neither Icewhiz nor anyone else even presented evidence about it - it's all just allegations that wouldn't even be allowed here, but he threw them at a gullible journalist who knows a little, but clearly, not enough, about Wikipedia, and bought it line, hook and sinker since it 'makes a good story'. Who doesn't want to find a conspiracy? It's a kind of news that sells well. 4) irrelevant, plus many of what editors? A big factual problem with this article is that it suggest there is some kind of conspiracy, with no shred of proof outside saying that 'there was a conspiracy 10 years ago and one or two of the people involved in it have upset Icewhiz so he is alluding that there is a (new?) conspiracy against him'. If I didn't volunteer to be interviewed I probably wouldn't be in that story at all. And in the said ArbCom which was basically two parties (requests to add more parties were denied by ArbCom), so it was Icewhiz vs User:Volunteer Marek, yes, the latter was in the EEML. So... what on Earth has a 10 year old ArbCom case do with the current situation? It's an obvious attempt to poison the well and get a bit of revenge on one's opponents by digging irrelevant and stressful/hurtful ancient history, fitting well with the campaign of harassment on Twitter where EEML connections were dug up, mixed with spurious accusations of antisemitism and such, and thrown at tweeter accounts of harassed editors, their families and their employees. So, minor errors aside, half of the story (as per the 4 points you make) is bogus allegations with no shred of evidence, effectively a rant / smear campaign of the sorts that got him indef banned in the first place, just moved from Twitter to a press article. Good journalism, eh? Now, if we can agree not to use it to discuss Wikipedians (see history of Reliablity of Wikipedia article where there was some slow edit warring, hopefully finished now given the consensus on talk), then it's probably fine. I am not saying 'we have to ban this source', but I simply thought this kind of article is something we should review. After all, we make a big fuss about BLP, but what about protecting Wikipedians? Sure, there's WP:OUTING, but harassment is more complex than this, and it's good to review various dimensions. If the consensus here is that is is ok to link to an article in a reliable source than nonetheless links to death threats/outing of Wikipedians, so be it. I am just saying this should've been discussed. Now it has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In line with what I said above: without any impact on real editor's lives outside of WP, I am highly confident that any mainspace discussion of this situation on Haaretz can be made without mentioning a single editor name or any past ArbCom case. That there was false/unverifiable information that appeared to change the perception of what the Polish had to go through during that period, that persisted on WP for 15 years, and now has been corrected with acknowledged academics correlating that, is 100% true. There is zero need to talk re EEML or mention any names on mainspace coverage. However, assuming that the situation is discussed, it doesn't make sense to omit Haaretz piece as the original story, even if it engages in mentioning names and past WP history. I'm seeing this being all of maybe 2-3 sentences at most on WP in summary, so most of those details do not matter. --Masem (t) 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

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

---

Piotrus and My Very Best Wishes: topic banned from Poland.

Former EEML members are in conflict of interest. Both imagine their opinions alleging a conspiracy theory in newspaper reporting hold weight. Haaretz was picked up by a dozen other reliable sources. They are not here to improve Wikipedia. They are here to purge all negative info on themselves and Poland. Piotrus canvassed on pl.wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.196.82.3 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 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.

Changes to functionary team

In accordance with the Arbitration Committee's procedures for functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are removed.

The Committee also notes the resignation of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the CheckUser and Oversight teams.

The Committee sincerely thanks DGG and DeltaQuad for their long and dedicated service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 00:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

CodeLyoko appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CodeLyoko appointed trainee clerk

Oversight audit request, October 2019

On 16 October, the Arbitration Committee received a request from User:DeltaQuad to review her suppression of revisions of User talk:Ritchie333. The committee has investigated the matter in our audit capacity for the use of oversight on the English Wikipedia. We note that after the suppression in question was queried, DeltaQuad initiated a discussion on the oversight mailing list. A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed, to which DeltaQuad agreed. The committee is satisfied that this resolved the matter and that DeltaQuad acted in good faith in accordance with the oversight policy. We thank her for her diligence in self-reporting the potential misuse and seeking the opinions of other members of the oversight team.

Support

AGK, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis

Recuse

Premeditated Chaos

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight audit request, October 2019

T-Mobile range block concerns

According to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users#Why are T-Mobile IPv6 users often blocked?, the best way to avoid the T-Mobile range block is to create an account. However, account creation from the entire range is also blocked (for the next year). Considering that there are 266 million smartphone users in the U.S. and 22% of them use T-Mobile, that seems to mean we are blocking 59 million people from editing or creating accounts (unless they connect via another means). Is that correct? Is the vandalism deterrence really worth that level of collateral damage? If there have been previous discussions about this, my apologies. All I could find was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, which seems to be related. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, DeltaQuad, Oshwah, and Drmies: pinging some admins who have been involved in case they can share more info or opinions. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

They can just create it at home, which is why I’m not particularly concerned with the ACB aspect. I placed it for a year because it’d been blocked for well over a year straight by Graham87 and various other admins. The range is also regularly globally ACB’d for months on end, so even if we removed ACB, most of the time it wouldn’t have any impact on account creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TonyBallioni. This block does not completely cut off the ability for users who are behind a T-Mobile IPv6 range to edit Wikipedia. If they wish to edit, they just need to create an account while they're not behind a T-Mobile IPv6 address, and they'll have no problem with editing after they log in.

T-Mobile has a high number of subscribers, and they cover many areas that require different IP and network configurations in order to have internet or data services offered there. Ever been in a remote location that most definitely does not have internet service around (such as the middle of the woods, on a highway in the middle of nowhere, etc), but you somehow still have the ability to access the internet through your mobile carrier (so long as there's coverage offered) and in the middle of freaking nowhere? What gives? How do they do it? The answer is that they use microwave hops (basically, a high frequency point-to-point wireless connection - they're those round white dishes you often see if you look at a cell tower) to connect one tower directly to another, and transmit data and network services through it. So if T-mobile needs to provide data coverage to a tower in a remote location, they'll use another tower in a location where an internet connection is available and that has a unobstructed line of sight with the remote tower, add a microwave connection between the two, and bam! You now have a remote tower that can provide data services where no data backbones or fiber lines exist. When users access the internet (or to put it more relevantly, edit Wikipedia) from a tower in this configuration, they're connected like this: [INTERNET] <- FIBER LINE -> [TOWER A] <- MICROWAVE CONNECTION -> [TOWER B] <- DATA SERVICE -> [MOBILE DEVICE / COMPUTER].

Why discuss this example scenario in-depth? Because it's one of the many situations, challenges, service areas, and unique configurations that mobile carriers like T-Mobile have to solve in order to provide consistent data and voice coverage throughout its global network and in a way that the users don't notice any interruptions and is essentially invisible to them as they travel from tower-to-tower and roam from location to location. This is also why the information detailed here is exactly the way that it is. IP addresses change on each device and are handed off frequently, proxy servers and services are installed and often used, networks and ranges are as huge and wide as they are because they have to be. It wouldn't be financially or technically sustainable for a carrier to have DHCP servers, unique public-facing network ranges, direct internet connections, and other perpetuals at each and every cell tower and at every location individually... it just wouldn't. The unfortunate drawback for us is the fact that a high amount of abuse comes from mobile ranges, we only have a certain amount of information and a number of tools at our disposal in order to stop and prevent the abuse, and no silver bullet exists in order to keep only the abusers blocked while having no effect on those who are contributing positively to the project.

Going back to this discussion: Yes, we're aware of the drawbacks and the collateral damage and the inconvenience to innocent editors that the block creates. Yes, unfortunately, this block is necessary. Yes, users have a way to edit through these ranges - just create an account at home or at another location. No, it's absolutely not what we prefer or like to be doing as opposed to... something else. Yes, we agree that it sucks and that another better solution existed. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what range you are talking about, but I have a good idea. This is definitely not the first time or the last I'll be pinged about it even though I only modified the block. DRV is a big issue and does require the ACB. It's not uncommon at ACC where I will actually tell people to find another range or use an ISP registered email because of how shared IPs can be. ACC isn't much of an option right now over the backlog, but i'm sure many people have access to other networks like Tony said. Maybe @TonyBallioni: we need to make a section on that page with a list of discussions about it and basically say we're aware? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So is it essentially just one vandal that is necessitating the block? If so, is there any feature that could be added to AbuseFilter that would mitigate this as effectively as range blocking? For example, I don't know if you can specify IP ranges in AbuseFilter, but would that help? Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, FYI, none of the people affected by this block are seeing the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users (T233996), so improving that page won't actually help anything at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not the only master on that range. There have been 88 sets of checks ran on this /32 since the start of the year. I'd start listing off names people in the anti-vandal/anti-sock world would be very familiar with, but that'd be breaking the privacy policy. There are at least 3 major sockmasters on this range I recognize plus a ton of other people who have been socking (at least 56 of those checks are not related to any SPI page). This does not include all the vandalism that comes from range from either named accounts or IPs (because CUs don't even check that). It's been just about consistently blocked since December 2016 without accounts being created. So imagine without that block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the amount of vandalism from this range (note that we have similar problems with other mobile networks, as well, around the world), I'd say that it's reasonable for us to want people to apply for accounts via ACC. It's unfortunate that vandalism causes this trouble, but I'm of the opinion that it's better this way. Waggie (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't have checkuser and so I can't speak to ACB, simply from dealing with routine vandalism, I'd say the block is reasonable. T-mobile-USA is, as far as major US ISPs go, probably the worst offender in making it impossible to distinguish users. Part of the problem is that they don't break up their customer-base into any reasonable-sized chunks. A lot of other providers, for instance, may divide their customers among dozens of subnets or more, which allows collateral to be minimized. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Also the number of users in a small range. If there are /11 and /17 ranges with a similar number of users and edits, and there is disruption from both but more likely from the /11 range, it's the /17 that is probably going to be blocked most of the time, and the /11 will probably never be blocked. Is an edit from T-Mobile more likely to be disruptive than an edit from 0.0.0.0/0? If not, should 0.0.0.0/0 be blocked? Peter James (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter James, what?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be that there is more disruption because there are more people. A similar range in the UK is Special:Contributions/82.132.192.0/18 - O2 (UK) - with 500 edits in 10 days before the block; if the same edits had been from a /12 range with another ISP, would you have blocked? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have to make 16 blocks of /16 size ranges to block a single /12 range. The maximum size IPv4 range that an admin may block in a single action is a /16. You will never see a /11 or /12 blocked although a bunch of individual blocks could accomplish that. To possibly answer your question, if the percentage of problems were equal in a /16 that compares to the /18 that you have labeled above, despite an increase in people within the /16, I'd block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

When I'm implementing a rangeblock I always ask myself (not the only question) what is the smallest range to block each disruptive individual. For example, I will not block an ISP even if disruption roams over the entire network as long as individuals can be isolated. I would block five /64s to neutralize five disruptive individuals rather than block the /48 that they all share (aside, I suspect most admins who make large blocks of this precise nature are simply unaware that individuals can be isolated in that particular network). The problem with some ranges is not that there are so many people on a range or even that the percentage or number of disruptive edits is high. Those are important factors in deciding the right course of action, but to me the critical one is what minimum portion of a network must be blocked to stop just one of its users from editing. For some networks, that answer is, "the entire network". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If the collateral damage of blocking an entire ISP across the country is considered acceptable, then can someone explain to me why we don't simply require registration for people to edit? Because that's de facto what's being done here. ♟♙ (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

EnPassant - See my response and explanation here, and let me know if you still have any questions or concerns. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I am unclear why the scenario you describe above does not have counterparts with other providers. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

DGG - They do. I was just trying to stay focused on the issue at-hand is all... Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If they do, then some comments above seem relevant--we would have to block all users of mobile networks everywhere, and require the very high number of users in many places who depend only on them to make accounts, which tsome of them may have no practical way of doing. This is very far from "everybody can edit" -- I see it as an example of how technical problems can defeat attempts at open anonymous access, and we can only expect such problems to increase. The only solution that is consistent with our principles is better anti-vandalism methods; if we absolutely need this now, (and I can hardly contradict those who work in that area and are saying so), we must regard it only as a temporary emergency measure. I'm of course skeptical that it will only be temporary. It reminds me a little of the anarchist slogan, the freedom of the press is for the person who owns one. The internet has solved this, but now we're going backwards. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping deletion

Can an admin please delete Mr. Steak so I can move Mr. Steak (restaurant) back to its old title following the deletion of Mr. Steak (grills)? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

AfC and G13s

Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things:

1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time.

2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user.

Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As an interim solution, one could just mass-edit drafts which are up to review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't G13 apply?

We have a problem with good drafts getting lost in our broken article creation process (the only way I know to write articles is for a permissioned-up editor to write them offline and then paste them in as a fait accompli, already robust against CSD and PROD – everything else is broken). We also have a large backlog of drafts. However when I review those drafts, I typically find just a couple which are worth adopting and moving to mainspace, and several thousand which are barely more than obvious spam.

I'd like to see more people filtering through the drafts backlog and saving what's appropriate (even just editing them a bit will delay things). But for the vast majority, I'm not going to miss them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• So you're talking only of drafts where they've been waiting for review a long time? I'd be happy that they're not G13'ed, agreed. Any delay there is WP's issue, not the author's.

But most of what I see have been submitted and have been reviewed (and rejected). The delay has come in at that point, where no rework has been done, and I'm still happy to G13 these. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree on both points, and indeed this is what I (and, if I understood correctly, also Nosebagbear) was talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do we have appropriate links to the best categories by which to find these sets of drafts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is the problem here less about lack of reviewing, and more about lack of reviewers? It's a walled garden where only "accepted" reviewers can take part. No wonder there aren't enough of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what it was at before this thread but I did a few and saw some others doing a few and we're currently at the 5 month mark for the old submitted for review. This is obviously closer to 6 than ideal. I will state, as I have whenever G13 are brought up, that I think G13 should not be a speedy but instead a PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I find it likely that the backlog is due to well-written, properly formatted, borderline notable drafts/articles, which would take effort (shifting through more than three refs not always clear which three, more than one page of google search result, foreign language sources). Agreeing to accept all borderline cases (perhaps adding the notability tag) that have no other problems might be the way to solve this problem long-term. The volume of new drafts/articles is only going to increase, while even admins seem to have problem with being versed in all notability/deletion guidelines. If the focus was on the most critical problems (are) vandalism, obvious hoaxes, copyright violations , and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages that exploit Wikipedia for money (think spam/promotion) -WP:NPP, the users that currently are active (or want to be) might be able to handle the load. I could have already reviewed hundreds of pages if it were so, while right now, while I try to get myself well-versed in PAG (an endeavor that will take months), all I'm doing is handling only the most obvious cases, and going by the competition at that end of the pie (don't tell me pie has not, ends or corners), I'd say many, if not most, others are, as well. An overworked, understaffed security system ought to be guarding against utter shite, no more. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Why not just move them to userspace and leave redirects in place to that user space? Buffs (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What if they were written by IPs? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • What if they were? Would that make them less accessible? Even if I was under a different IP address, I could still access user pages under 122.57.88.123. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Well G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Anybody tagging to delete or deleting such pages should put their effort into reviewing them instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• If the AfC backlog is causing a conflict with G13, suspend G13 until the situation is resolved. I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• But is G11 faster? (on average). Most (well, practically all) of these drafts aren't being reviewed at all for G11. G11 needs some active intervention by a reviewer, G13 gets there eventuall by inertia.

I've seen two G11, both of which were pretty obviously WP:N even if their current articles were problematic Draft:Gin Mare (already discussed on WP:CSD) and Draft:The Savile Row Company. I challenged Savile Row Company's CSD this morning, but another admin deleted it anyway, without discussion. So it's also a problem that CSDs aren't challengable or discussable, they're just deleted anyway (see WP:CSD, where even discussing the problem attracts threats of blocks). G11 is neither appropriate for Drafts (at least, as practiced today) nor is it practical, as no-one is doing bulk reviewing to apply it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb I very strongly support this. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. If a draft is either a) abandoned without ever being submitted for review or b) reviewed and rejected and then ignored for 6 months it should still be eligible for G13. By excluding submitted and unreviewed drafts, it is clear we aren't holding our shitty processes against people. --Jayron32 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to make two distinct points here.
  • First, it's obvious that the G13 clock should start from when the draft was last reviewed. Most review systems (code review, manuscript review, responding to a parking ticket, whatever) have some concept of who's turn it is. When the author submits something, it becomes the reviewer's turn. When the reviewer comments, it's back to being the author's turn. Depending on the process, there may be more than two parties involved, but it's always somebody's turn to do something next. In our case, we don't have assigned reviewers (or, for that matter assigned authors), but there's still clearly times when it's the author's turn, and times when it's the review team's (i.e. our) turn. It's absurd to count time when it's our turn against the author's clock.
  • Second, the definition of G13 talks about, "not been edited by a human in six months". I often find declined drafts that were last edited several months ago that I think should never make it to mainspace. Sometimes there's a useful comment I want to make, but I don't because I know doing so will reset the G13 clock. That's just stupid. I shouldn't have to play wiki game theory to decide whether the benefit of adding my comment exceeds the harm of resetting the clock. So, the clock should not be reset by a reviewer leaving a comment.
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Draft:Running on Waves is a perfect example that I found today. It was last declined on 18 March. Since that time, nothing significant has happened. On 21 May, it was resubmitted with zero changes. On 30 September (i.e. earlier today), a reference was removed because the URL was redirecting to a porn site (don't say I didn't warn you if you go look). And, then I came along a few minutes ago and declined it again. Why should any of those things reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comments: A few observations as I precieve that several editors are trying to hijack this for their personal objectives:
  1. CSD:G13 says unedited (absent a bot edit) for 6 months. The goal is to keep pages improving or admit defeat on them. Originally it was just pages that were enrolled in AFC as the editors knew that they'd get a review to help them fix issues. It was subsequently expanded to all Draft namespace pages as it was discovered that there was just as much Adspam/BLPVIO/Test pages/hopeless content that was in draft space but not tagged for AFC.
  2. If pages are falling out the back of AFC for being submitted but not yet reviewed, then we need more people reviewing submissions (or commenting on issues) which magically resets the Last Edited date and saves it from being G13d. I note it appears the current backlog is 2+ months.
• If people want to disable G13, then we will start racking up more and more questionable content that will never serve the purpose of Mainspace improvement/content. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I like to think that no admin would ever do a G13 on a never-reviewed draft.

A better response would be an alert to submitted drafts approaching six months. Possibly, specify “never reviewed” drafts, separated from resubmissions. Is there an easy link to navigate to these? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I took It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago as your preface to concerns about pages being deleted. As I said, there is no "pages that are 6+ months old that are both pending and G13-able" category, likely because it's never been an issue (and still very unlikely to be one).

I am going to interpret your latest question as "deleted via G13" (as unreviewed pages are G11'd etc all the time), but no, I can only guarantee that will not happen for at least two months from now because there are no pages that fit that bill; there is no technical way of preventing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course sorry. I've sort of tongue tied myself there, because I am not convinced that there are not any submitted drafts that should not be allowed a quiet death, such as hopeless repeatedly submitted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I've seen plenty of admins who speedy-delete pages that obviously don't qualify except under a blatant misreading of the criterion (e.g. a page is deleted at XFD, and a completely different page on that topic is G4 deleted as a repost), and just like with the other criteria, G13 needs to reflect its intention clearly. The point is to delete content that's been forgotten by its writer or that's been rejected as inappropriate for the encyclopedia: if it's still waiting for review, and none of the other speedy criteria applies, there's no way it should be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Draft space is specifically designed to remove the urgency around controlling abuse in article space. We have time to sit and think. Guy (help!) 11:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

With respect @JzG: Mainspace urgency is within ~3 hours of being created. Draft namespace urgency is 6 months unedited. That's plenty of time to sit and think. But what would you consider "time to sit and think" would qualify as? Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13.
2. Maintenance edits, including declining review, are not counted when calculating staleness.

That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't quite see how those would work. They seem right, but are a bit vague in their expression. Consider the following:

Valid timeouts (and thus automatic processing to G13 is practical):

• Not submitted for review. There have been no reviews.
• Submitted for review. Reviewed, failed. No more edits until timeout. The last edit was a failed review.

Timeout was WP's fault for slow processing (so no G13 is appropriate):

• Submitted, not yet reviewed. Last edit is a review request.
• Submitted, reviewed, re-submitted, but still pending a re-review (any number of times). Last edit is a review request.

Impossible to judge automatically or trivially, thus must not be actioned automatically.

• Last edit is a "non-content, non-review edit". Neither a review, nor a review request. Automatically we can't tell what else it was, either a "content edit" or a "maintenance edit". In such cases though, we should err on caution, not G13.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think the principles Guy lays out are correct but agree with Andy that if we're codifying them in some sort of way (which is probably needing an RfC) that the language would need tweaking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Noting for the record that I originally argued that any edit (regardless of if it was a bot/non-bot) should reset the G13 clock to the the most objective measurement possible instead of leaving it to discretion to determine if the edit qualified for substantial. In fact when I ran a bot to action ArticlesForCreation and Draft space I followed the more strict interpertation to prevent accusations of bias in the evaluation of G13. I strongly suggest that JzG (and all those that want to change G13's interpertation/operation) to go WT:CSD and propose a change to the interpertation via WP:RFC and establish consensus. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any alteration of WP:CSD policy from a page other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13. Oppose the "good-faith" clause, bad-faith submissions are easily REJECTED/DECLINED by the ACFH tool, and resubmission without improvement is an existing reason to nominate and delete at MFD (see WP:DMFD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• support bot-like maintenance edits, not including reviewer responses, not resetting the G13 clock, however, it is unimportant. The point of G13 is that abandoned drafts don't exist unwatched forever. Another six months doesn't hurt. Support gnomes using a key edit summary code to work with G13 bots, if someone wants to do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose declining a review not counting when calculating staleness. A declined review should include a meaningful explanation, and it should be presumed that the drive-by contributor will need time to read and respond.

Oppose use of the word "staleness". wikt:stale is ambiguous. Stale does not equal old. Some topics are timeless and not prone to go stale. Others go stale overnight. If you mean "unedited for six month", use those words. Use words that newcomers can use without the barrier of enculturation to Wikipedia jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm basically on-board with this, but agree with the objections that criteria need to be clear-cut. So, to reiterate the "whose turn is it?" theme I talked about earlier (see the picture of the chess clock, above), I suggest:
  • A draft exists in exactly one of two states (not counting rejected). It's either waiting-for-review, or work-in-progress.
  • As soon as a new draft is created, the state is work-in-progress. When it's submitted (or re-submitted), the state becomes waiting-for-review. When a draft is declined, the state changes back to work-in-progress.
  • The draft template should prominently display both the current state and the amount of time since it most recently entered that state.
  • The current state and clock should be easily parsable, so people can write tools to do useful things. Useful things might be alerting the author that they're running out of time, possibly offering them the option of moving the draft back into their user space. Or alerting the review team that they're falling behind on processing the queue. Or tagging a stale draft for G13.
  • Once you've got that basic architecture in place, you could imagine all sorts of incremental improvements. Maybe a "I want more time" button. Anybody can click it to reset the clock back to zero. If you want, think of that as faking a state transition. People do that anyway by making a pro-forma edit; this just makes it explicit. Or, a way for somebody to edit a work-in-progress draft and explicitly request that the clock NOT be reset. You might want to do this if you're removing a copyvio or BLP violation, for example. Bot edits, of course, would not reset the clock.
  • The important thing here is that the state and clock are explicit. No fuzziness about "good-faith edits" or "content edits" vs "maintenance edits". This provides a clean separation between the logic that decides what state transitions to perform, vs the logic that takes actions based on those states. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: RE "I want more time" please review {{AfC postpone G13}} which resets the clock for annother 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've been around for a while, and didn't even know that template existed. My guess is essentially none of our draft authors do either. Having a button right up there on the AfD template that said, "Click me for more time" would be more obvious. And, as I said, having specific, well-defined, states would make it easier for people to write better tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both (but for a strange reason): I will concede that drafts that are waiting for AFC to review them that are nearing the 6 month unedited mark should not be G13, but we don't need a hard and fast rule to do that. I am invisioning a new BRFA that will modify Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 that will put an {{AFC comment}} in indicating that the page was in danger of being G13ed, but had an active submission template on it, thereby kicking the G13 down the road (from the bot's perspective). I opposed the inclusion of maintenance edits into G13 because it took the criteria from being 100% objective (it either has or has not been edited in the past 6 months) to a judgement call that invites wiggle room. Should Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 be approved, I intend to uphold the more strict interpertation with the bot and let editors make the judgement calls (and the responsibility for them). Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I like some of this proposal, but only with modifications:
  • First of all, I think the result of this discussion should be formally proposed at WT:CSD and gain consensus there, before the actual G13 criterion text is modified.
  • Secondly, I think that a review whose outcome is "Decline" should reset the G13 clock, because the draft author ought to read the decline reasons and any feedback, and have time to edit to address them.
  • Thirdly I agree that the clock should be, in effect, suspended while a draft has been submitted for review and is awaiting review. It is not reasonable for an editor to be told 'wait patiently" only to have the draft deleted because there was too large a backlog of drafts. I understand that this has not happened, and cannot happen for some time even if all reviewing stops, but the policy should be made clear. I would welcome an improved version of HasteurBot, and that might help avoid any such issue occurring, but I think it is better to spell out the procedures clearly.
  • Fourthly, I like the idea of states, but I would define them slightly differently than RoySmith. I think any AfC draft should be considered to be in one of the following states:
    • a) Never submitted for review;
    • b) submitted and awaiting review;
    • c) declined, awaiting further edits and re-submission; and
    • d) rejected.

In state b (awaiting review) G13 would not apply. The AfC template should ideally explicitly display one of these states. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• • @DESiegel: With respect, to your second modification, when the AFC reviewer declines the submission the clock is automatically reset because the decline constitutes a page edit by an editor. As to your fourth point, States C and D are effectively the same. I do agree that if a page is in state B, the G13 rule should be suspended, but this can be taken care of by a bot task to go through and add a AFC comment indicating the page was eligible for G13, but has been bumped because it was still awaiting review. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hasteur Under current policy, you are correct that a decline causes an edit which resets the g13 clock, but elsewhere in this thread and in discussions on WT:CSD it has been suggested that "maintenance" edits, specifically including decline notices, should not reset the clock, so I wanted to make clear my view that a decline should reset the clock. In short my second point is arguing for the retention of the current procedure, and against a change in that regard. In my view state c (declined) and state d (rejected) are different in several ways. I think that a reject should arguably not reset the clock, as a reject says that the draft is hopeless and there is nothing for the submitting editor to do, but I wouldn't feel strongly if it did reset the clock. In any case if the AfC templates are to explicitly display a state indicator, c and d should display differently. Have I clarified my comments helpfully? DES

^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and without an explicit statement in the CSD text, some editors may ignore a bot comment when manually tagging for G13, and some admins may also ignore such an edit when doing G13 deletions. It is better to nail down the procedure, in muy view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Interesting fact: The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions are populated by {{AFC submission/draft}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} as far as I can tell. Both of those templates don't have exclusions for the discretionary level. As such, the only way for someone to find these drafts that aren't in those tracking categories would be a back end query for all the draft pages and evaluating everything. While consensus may authorize a more loose interpertation, none of the categories actually support that Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm game for anything that lessens the scope of G13, but I oppose anything that broadens it even in the slightest. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support the exceptions but the "staleness clock" should apply from when the draft was last declined and/or significant edit, whichever is later. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • QEDK what defines a "significant" edit, and in particular, how should a bot be able to distinguish one? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @DESiegel: I don't know why a bot needs to distinguish it necessarily? Admins perform the deletions afterall, a significant edit is simply where the version that is resubmitted is not identical to one that was submitted previously (anyone gaming the caveat is pointless since speedy deletion is via discretion of the deleting admin). The AFCH helper tool can be modified to add a magic keyword for declines and the bot can deal with it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • QEDK When G13 was first implemented, pretty much all tags were placed by a bot. There have been several such bots run over the years. I believe that none is running now, but one is being proposed, as discussed just a bit above in this thread. Moreover, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is, as Hastur points out above, populated by AfC templates. Unless the AfC Script, templates, and proposed bots vcan detect what a "significant" edit is, neither the category nor any bot-placed CSD tags for G13 will match the modified CSD, which will make it much harder to find and tag G13s, even manually. So any rule should be one whoich can be in some way implemented by a bot or a script. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting that HasteurBot is back on the beat and is reminding all the pages that are at least 5 months completely unedited that their pages are in danger of being G13ed. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as clearly and simply proposed by Guy: G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Bot , AWB, and other minor maintenance edits should not restart the clock.

Why now make it complicated? G13 was an excellent deletion criterion when created and deleted drafts are open to refund. Hasteurbot does an excellent job; enough concerned admins, such as for example DGG, are checking the appropriateness of the G13s before actually pressing the delete button. On any G13 that can be sensibly salvaged, the G13 is declined - and there aren't many of those. With 6mio articles, Wikipedia is now well beyond the stage where every article should be kept if the author - mainly SPA - can't be bothered to complete it, even if it has a potentially reasonable title. As our founder once stated somewhere, the major effort should now be expended on keeping clean what we have. AfC and NPR generally do a good job of sifting out the new rubbish and that's what they're here for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose What we have includes what we have in Draft space, even if unsubmitted. For many months, I have taken unsubmitted hopeless somewhat promotional drafts to MfD, currently, they have more and more been kept, with the rationale, G13 will get rid of them, so why should we bother considering them individually. Junk anywhere in WP degrades the encyclopedia. Agreed, it's hard to find by searching, but not impossible. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Temporarily reinstatement of "Young Sinatra: Undeniable"

Page Young Sinatra: Undeniable should be temporarily reinstated per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 24. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 10:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Two companies merged, their inidividual articles remain

Film Journal International and Box Office Pro (incorrectly titled w/in Wikipedia as BoxOffice instead of BoxOfficePro) merged, leaving only BoxOfficePro. I discovered it by accident while trying to track down a review done by FJI that appears to have been purged since the merger.

1. Should the FJI article be copyedited to refer to it in the past tense, as it doesn't exist anymore, or
2. should FJI's article content be rewritten and moved to the BOP, with a redirect from FJI to BOP?
3. Lastly, I can't find the reference within the archives of the now husk'd site, so I shouldn't use it, right?
   - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Questions about editing should go to the help desk, a relevant WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject Film), or one of the village pump forums. But, to answer your question, the defunct company's article should not be merged or deleted; just change it to past tense and add a sourced statement to say that the company was merged into another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked here because I was under the impression that VP was more of a proposal ground for new ideas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Title blacklist help

Howdy hello! This regards a request at the AfC Helpdesk. User:Coe-1878 would like to create Draft:Kumares Sinha ("Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University"). However, "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha" is on the local title blacklist, and thus the user got denied when trying to create the page. I think that Coe-1878 is legit and not trying to spam, they've had three articles accepted through AfC and don't seem to have caused trouble. Can an admin help get the draft created/workaround the title blacklist? Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Note that creating the draft wouldn't be enough, since the user wouldn't be able to edit it (I was about to create it when I realized this) - the page can be added to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist to allow the creation DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why the editor could not edit a page with a blacklisted title, once it was created. However, if an admin creates it, the user loses the credit of having created the page. My suggestion would be to have the user create something like Draft:Kumares and worry about the title later. An admin could move the draft to the correct title. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconded on that, no reason why it cannot be edited. Created. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Coe-1878, happy editing! Primefac (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not that there's a real easy way to check, but I made this entry just recently because of a persistent promo sockfarm that kept creating obviously paid articles on members of this family. I don't think this is more of the same, though, but be wary of editors asking to bypass this filter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bikram Jit Sinha.. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a common name, and it looks like the sockpuppets are only creating user pages; would it be possible to allow User: for autoconfirmed and remove restriction from User talk: and Draft: pages? Peter James (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've adjusted the entry per your suggestion, Peter James, and we'll see how it goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Should this TFD be closed?

I relisted Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_25#Template:Tucker Beathard but am wondering if it should just be closed as "delete". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would say so, yes. Fish+Karate 08:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not the end of the world to have a TFD get relisted a second time. It will likely be deleted in a week; no rush.

  I do have to say, though, it's not particularly good form to relist a template that you nominated yourself. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of encouraging Wikipedia admins to have strong, unique passwords that are never reused on other sites...

Equifax used 'admin' as username and password for sensitive data: lawsuit.

I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well it needs to be ten letters, so perhaps, "adminadmin"? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Given all the self-hype in their ads about how smart they are, that's pretty dumb. And I may come to regret this, but I laugh with derision at anyone whose password is only ten keystrokes long. -- Deepfriedokra 09:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying "1234" isn't a good password? :-P — Ched (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"4321" is better. Gotta keep the trolls and hackers on their toes. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not helping the thread drift, here, but this made me think back on when I administered an IBM System 36, which allowed only four digit (no alpha) long passwords. - Donald Albury 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm still working with several HR-related online services (think Workers' Comp and such) which have max eight-character passwords, or just a numeric PIN as their entire security scheme. The company is doing a board-mandated security audit in the near future and I'm sure they're just going to sit in my office and point at stuff that's batshit crazy insecure that I'm required by law to submit sensitive info to on a regular basis. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The auditors made me turn on password aging on that System 36. Unfortunately, it did not keep a history of old passwards, so a user could change their password every 90 days, and then immediately change it back to the old password. - Donald Albury 02:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is a Good Thing. Password aging decreases security. (Old man voice:) You want passwords on sticky notes in desk drawers? Because password aging is how you get passwords on sticky notes in desk drawers. Get off my lawn, you damn kids! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

dammit Oshwah, now I have to go change my password again! ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the hardest passwords to crack are 3 or 4 common words (like paisleyelephantslippers) because there is an infinite number of combinations given the thousands of English words and they are easier to remember than "randomly" generated letters, numbers & symbols. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

At XKCD Password Strength, for one. - Donald Albury 02:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to my advice for Wikipedia administrators choosing passwords, multiword passphrases are indeed easier for humans to remember and harder for password-guessing software to guess. It's a shame that so many websites recommend passwords that are hard to remember and easy to crack ("TrOub4dor&3"). Writing a proper English sentence has been found to be even easier to remember; "Paisley elephant slippers." instead of "paisleyelephantslippers" -- or better yet, make it grammatically correct and correctly punctuated instead of a sentence fragment: "The elephant wore paisley slippers." If you form a mental picture of an actual elephant wearing enormous patterned slippers, the passphrase will be easy to remember.

The final piece of the secure password puzzle is to keep a list of logon names, passwords, and security questions (so you don't have to remember them) and secure them with encryption and a single multiword passphrase that unlocks the password file. You can use a password manager (I recommend Password Safe[95]) or just save the passwords in a series of text files saved in a Veracrypt container.

So, using the veracrypt method, to access your bank's website, you would type "The elephant wore paisley slippers." to unlock the veracrypt encrypted container, open a text file named gringotts.txt, and see this:

 Gringotts Wizarding Bank
 https:/www.gringottsdoesnotcare.com/logon
 Username: [any name is OK. The username isn't supposed to be a secret].
 Password: V94noeJYQir346cf8ziYXeSO
 Security question #1: What is you mother's maiden name? 
 Security answer #1: Zasax Kathkap Judihi
 Security question #1: What high school did you attend?
 Security answer #1: Badfu Kech Livyawpa
 Notes: Called them on Feb 32 and asked them to convert my rai stones to bitcoin.

Note that the security questions also have random answers, and every site gets a different password and different security answers. A dedicated attacker could research you, and if your sister mentioned the name of your first pet three years ago on Twitter, your security could be toast.

Also note that there are times when you need to provide the answer to a security question over the phone, so they should be pronounceable.

Unless you are a terrorist and the FBI is after you, print out your passwords and put them (unencrypted) on a SD card or thumb drive, then put them in a safe deposit box. Then save your encrypted password container to a bunch of SD cards or thumb drives and keep a copy at home, at work, in your car, at your brother's house, etc. These are useless without your master passphrase, but if your house burns down you will be glad you saved multiple copies.

Finally, without looking at the answers above, can you type that elephant passphrase? How about that (less secure) troubador password? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to make me think about pink elephants. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa

I want create a wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa, But However it prevents me from creating the page by displaying

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"

Please enable to create this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaroche (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the blacklisting of "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha" mentioned above in #Title blacklist help is the culprit. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Chaturaroche, A title is typically blacklisted when there are multiple problems with prior versions. The blacklist can be lifted if an editor with substantial experience plans to create the article which doesn't appear to apply in this case. In this specific case, it would be best to create the article in Draft space. When you think it is ready, return here and an administrator will be happy to look at it and move it into main space if it is acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, see my note above - pretty sure it's blacklisted in Draft and User space. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, I had a nagging thought that this might be the case. Maybe I should have suggested user sandbox? I hope that's an option. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, I see that I should have read your link before responding. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how bad the disruption was that warranted this blacklist, but I'm tempted to suggest it was overbroad. That's a very common pattern being matched, which would, inter alia prevent drafts of any of the various redlinked articles in the Sinhala language navigation template. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in the above thread, I altered the entry so it should only restrict these entries in user space. As for the scale of disruption, we had (at the time of making the entry) 32 confirmed accounts (listed in the SPI; checkusers found more) over one week, all named "Sinha" plus a sequential number, drafting articles on people with this surname on their own user page, and occasionally in draft space. Since creating the entry, none. Yes, given the two requests here in the interim it was probably overbroad to include the draft and user talk namespaces but that has been fixed. Please ping me if it comes up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

New editor, kinda lost

Resolved

 – Blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of User:U + 1F4AD. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Howdy, @Ojvh: a new editor, has been making unconstructive edits, mainly around the topic of heads of state. It's not vandalism, but more of a possible confidency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirection request

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

---

Could Second International Congress of Orientalists be redirected to International Congress of Orientalists? The article is just 2 sentences and has 1 source. Melofors (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to make an article into a redirect. See WP:Redirect. I've fixed your link. Sandstein 21:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Melofors (talk) 04:21, 26 October 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.

ISIS leader killed - Get ready to post ITN

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

---

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed. Prez making announcement in just a few mins. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No rush. We'll wait for independent confirmation. The President has been wrong before - in fact, he tends to be wrong as a rule. WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I trust we will be relying on reliable sources, not POTUS. I doubt he did in fact whimper or cry, that sounds much more like the fantasies of a thug. Guy (help!) 15:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

While likely true, that's not really relevant here. I don't see any references to crying in the blurb, his article or the article on the raid (that hasn't been piped in yet). Everything seems to stick to the sources thus far. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 27 October 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.

Is this uncivil? It certainly is incendiary.

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but considering there was a discussion less than a month ago about User:Incnis Mrsi, it seems worthy to me.

I was doing a series of tautological edits, when Incnis Mrsi wikihounded me on three unrelated pages discussed at this edit warring arbitration page, insinuating I had an "agenda" and that I was a "stalker"[96]. That seems uncivil to me, definitely incendiary, and definitely baiting. This seems to be further proof that the uncivil behavior per WP:AGF continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an agenda – underwater (and other) tunnels exist too. A diff where the word “stalker” was directed at Leitmotiv or it did not happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I need to comment to you much beyond this, but starting a conversation with a link to a stalker page on my very own talk page that is discussing my edits, would seem to be directed at me. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

“ Some stalkers surreptitiously advertise this essay by tagging individual messages with {{tps}} replying to the message on the talkpage that they stalk. {{tps}} produces: (talk page stalker) ”

What now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, yeah I'm clearly unfamiliar with the term. You are self-celebrating the stalker term and it wasn't directed at me. Got it. Still my point stands: wikihounding, edit-warring, and using baiting language on my own talk page, and that my personal editing interests are an agenda (a loaded-term, if we are to be honest with ourselves). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is anything wrong with calling ongoing mass mangling of articles in disregard of objections an agenda? Nobody authorized the user to do this stuff, and WP:BRD is expectedly in action. There are several kinds of tunnels. An immersed tube is no less a tunnel than an underground tunnel. Also, some tunnels have sections protruding above the ground. Readers of Wikipedia should not be forced to make guesswork, especially if it’s only one user who wishes so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've already addressed most of this in a previous comment. However, I do find it interesting that only now are you willing to discuss the technicalities of "underground tunnel" but ignored that opportunity on my talk page when I pinged you [97].

Only now? Again, the discussion for Gun-type fission weapon (where underwater vs underground ambiguity was brought to attention) was started at 19:06 UTC. Five minutes before Leitmotiv blackmailed me with an edit summary, 41 minutes before Leitmotiv ran to AN/EW, and 1h 25m before beginning of this thread. Moreover, some 23 hours earlier I suggested the user to “cease… drive-by replacements” and encouraged him to edit out whichever is truly redundant. Can anybody instruct Leitmotiv, at last, to stop wasting resources of other Wikipedians on pointless lawyering? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith sir. I'm not responsible for your actions that result in a warning for edit warring. If you come on to my talk page, I assume you intend to fix a problem with me directly, instead you ignored me. chek chek chek Leitmotiv (talk)!

Addendum: Incnis Mrsi is also editing my personal comments on the edit-warring discussion and disingenuously calling my edits slander. I believe editing another user's comments is generally not permitted, even if they are right. In this particular case it wasn't a personal attack or slander, but misidentifying his previous blocking as a ban, which somehow was interpreted as a personal attack. Rather than correct the mistake, he hid that potential information altogether. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing calumny (which may also be called slander) is hopefully a legitimate action. As there are no templates {{calumny}} or {{calumny removed}}, another one was used. Also note the sequence of Leitmotiv’s actions:

1. 19:11 UTC – tries to intimidate me with an edit summary,
2. 19:17 UTC – posts a reply in talk:Gun-type fission weapon‎‎ #Operation Nougat.
3. 19:57 UTC – catches me on 3RR without a talk-page activity during those forty minutes.

Moreover, Leitmotiv supplied an irrelevant tangent hoping to deter criticism. But attempts to intimidate me here on en.Wikipedia are not cost-effective. Let Leitmotiv learn on own mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. You can call it slander or calumny, or a conspiracy for all I care, but it was simply a case of transposing "block" with "ban". Either way, the end result is the same: you were recently reviewed for uncivil actions and editing another's comments whether you think it to be a slander against you or not, is more uncivil and disrespectful behavior. Your comments that I have an "anti-underground agenda" is incendiary, confrontational, baiting, and not assuming good faith. In fact, I had to make a new rule for my talk page because you wouldn't respond to me, which in a roundabout way, is also not being civil in the most basic of ways: communication - meaning you're not looking to solve the perceived problem, only throw mud and wikihound. Now that I think of it, please assume good faith in my blunder of mistaking a block for a ban. I mean, I certainly didn't get that you were directly outing yourself as a stalker on my talk page. I assumed you were talking about me in some manner because of the language you used. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The user who dismissed feedback and resorted to intimidation in edit summaries, all within the last 40 hours, feels now wronged by alleged “mud and wikihound”. Not worthy any further analysis and any more edit in this thread by me. The site has a thousand of admins to dispose of trash here – good luck. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Another fine example of civility. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi, both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for your unnecessarily combative behavior on full display here. This is a collaborative project. Please start acting that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that the only people who have commented in this section prior to your note was Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi; that's quite telling of their hostility. Incnis Mrsi's conduct problems are not limited to Leitmotiv or even the English Wikipedia, but I do believe here that both parties are at fault. Vermont (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It could also be that because the thread was neglected till now. Had it been nipped in the bud with a response early on... ...? I don't think my responses were the best, but marginally better. I felt forced to come here considering the edit warring from the other party and the past history. Sorry to bother you all. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Just what is it you want from the community, Leitmotif? (Since you were the one who brought it up.) Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: I thought that was clear in the header of this thread. Is this uncivil behavior? No one has addressed that. I even wondered if this was the correct place to post this (no response). Incnis Mrsi has corrected me that his stalker comment was in reference to him. But on my talk page he accused me with baiting words that don't assume good faith by saying I had an "anti-underground agenda" (loaded words) and that I needed to be stopped. Since then he has added uncivil behavior in the form of editing my comments erroneously and representing them disingenuously. No one has addressed this either. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• More of the same: Character encodings in HTML

Is there nothing where this editor can't turn a trivial issue into an angry time-sink for other editors? We would be so much better without them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, missed that Andy has butted in. He has a “rich history”.

1. Insulted me (without provocation) in talk:Nutation;
2. Referred to me as to a troll and posted profanities;
3. Used his user_talk for defamation;
4. Tried to intimidate me with template boxes

   indeed, I removed his defamatory drivels, including that one in the preceding item;

5. Yet another “troll” in edit summary;
6. Menaced me again and posted ad hominem argumentation

   for comparison: the same exactly Andy vocally expressed indignation about me attacking other editors with edit summaries like “fixed consequences of atrociously poor categorization by the uploader”);

7. No Andy’s activity in talk:Character encodings in HTML during the last seven years.

In short, I propose to dismiss any thing by Andy_Dingley intended against me. Because of hypocrisy and obvious hostility to my person. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

… and the fresh stuff: Andy baits me, hoping to tarnish my reputation with edit warring Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Incnis Mrsi has also closed a thread here at WP:ANI that I disagreed with. They are correct that the subject should be notified, but that should be handled by notifying said subject - not shutting down the thread without any input. Also noting that on first blush, it appears that Incnis Mrsi is quickly headed for another block (likely lengthy) if their confrontational approach doesn't change, and change quickly. — Ched (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Any Wikipedian having a dozen uploaded files can be accused of file copyvio just with empty words – without any kind of supporting evidence such “tip” has zero merit. Moreover, an IP rapidly escalating his/her content dispute to an AN/I report already looks highly suspicious. Hence the thread should be dismissed by a reasonable admin. We likely see another threat directed at me – the third, at least, during the last two weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  How is it possible that you haven't yet understood that your constant combative behavior is what everyone objects to? If you merely endeavored to engage with less than maximum assholishness, no one would want you blocked. If you spend a few seconds, every time you address someone, to reduce the level of aggressiveness and hostility in your comments, the problem will be solved. Conversely, if you continue doing exactly the same things that led to being blocked for a month, as you have been, it will not be surprising if eventually you are blocked for longer, or indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  I do not aim to please everyone. Few extant Wikipedians (and more so certain banned one) hate me, but it fits into a usual wiki life full of acrimony. I also was harassed by several known long-term abusers, hence it is not easy to scare me. Certainly there are people who desire me to become gagged Commons-style. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  JBL reflects my sentiments exactly. This is my first run in with you. You came to my talk page very aggressively and unwilling to talk. My advice is the same as JBL's: had you approached me willing to discuss the matter instead of ignoring me on my own talk page, I would take your demeanor to be good-willed. But I don't believe that is the case, and that's just like my opinion man, and apparently everyone else's. This reminds me of the adage... if you have a problem with many people, maybe they're not the problem. You may not aim to please, but you should aim to finish a discourse you started, and civilly (civilly ≠ "aiming to please"). Leitmotiv (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• This has been open for ten days - with so little input, imo it is close to harassment now and should be closed. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

1. Indef block
2. Long block
3. Short block
4. Do nothing

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• #1 Indef (which, yet again, doesn't mean infinite). But there's absolutely no insight here into what the problem is, and so many editors are clearly tired of dealing with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• # Dispute resolution or an interaction ban between Andy Dingley and Incnis Mrsi - Andy Dingley repeatedly calling Incnis Mrsi a troll, which they are clearly not are imo personal attacks and need to stop. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Govindaharihari: DR is not possible because (as can be seen in the response to my comment above) IM is unwilling to contemplate criticisms or change their problematic behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• In light of the continuing aggressive and hostile behavior and the response to my comment above, I support an indefinite block: the behavior is unacceptable, a 30-day block led to no change, and there is no reason to suppose another bounded block will have a better effect. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Note that the user who repeatedly calls for indefinite block of me makes himself such edit summaries as Please go away -- in this instance, what matters is not having a stupid argument spread here and wasting yet more time over childishness. It is IMHO an unhealthy situation when such demanding users as Joel_B._Lewis—demanding with respect to others’ conduct—are unwilling to hold themselves to the same elevated civility standards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  You can't tu quoque your way out of dozens of people telling you over and over again that your behavior is problematic. I would happily take a civility block for the comment you mention, if it were accompanied by you ceasing to be unpleasant. (It is completely unimportant to me whether this would be achieved by you changing your behavior or by being blocked indefinitely -- I don't care at all, and I only call for the latter because you are unwilling to contemplate the former.) --JBL (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Who are most (albeit not all) people who whine about my “unpleasantness”? They have a considerable way to improve their own behaviour. They can live without making threats on me, without referring to Wikipedians as to “time sinks”, without silly edit wars over perceived redundancy, without blanking legit talk posts with Twinkle. And without expressing schadenfreude seeing a block against the opponent, last but not least. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, a total iBan for both of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked Incnis Mrsi, factoring in the previous block and their long-term blocks on Commons and Meta (which are known for being even more relaxed than we are on civility). This is not an indefinite ban, however, in any block appeal I would expect to see a recognition of the reasons why they were blocked and a credible commitment to do better in their interactions with other editors. The behavior of @Leitmotiv: is poor but without the long-term pattern I am not convinced that a block is necessary - however, I wouldn't object to it and that is why I am not "closing" this section. Ditto with the iban. --Rschen7754 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: I aim to improve, which is also why I came here. I'm tired of trying to resolve things with editors that don't want to resolve, not that there's a lot of them out there, but just one can drain you. Can you tell me in which ways I can improve? Perhaps with examples of behavior? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Some of the past comments in this thread: while it is tempting to repay someone's rudeness in return, it is better to rise above it. --Rschen7754 00:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: I inferred that much from other editor's comments. What I'm probably personally blind to, is what specific actions are the other editors and you talking about? I really am being sincere here, and the reason why, is because half of my content in my posts here haven't been addressed by the admins, which makes me feel they aren't reading my content - so I'm also inclined to think, maybe they're not entirely reading my comments. If that's the case, I'd love examples. So I can specifically change those things. I'm not saying my posts couldn't be interpreted as negative, I can often be a convoluted writer and not get to the point and be misinterpreted along the way. I would like to point out though, that from the get go I sincerely attempted to work it out with Incnis Mrsi from our very first interaction on my talk page, but he ignored me. That really highlighted how I felt future interactions with him would be, and I was more or less right. His original edit warring revert offered no reason for reverting. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Some of the sarcasm could have been dialed back in the comments above. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm trying my hardest here. By comments above, do you mean my previous comment to you? Or in this thread altogether? This vagueness isn't helping me. Sometimes I need to be beaten over the head. I honestly don't think of myself as a sarcastic person, so I'm more confused than we started. @Rschen7754: Leitmotiv (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  In this thread altogether. --Rschen7754 01:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Well I will take the hint. I put forth a sincere effort just now to get help and met with more vagueness. I kind of feel like my comments aren't being read. It's almost like, "pictures, or it didn't happen" meme. Sorry to be a bother. I still sit here with original questions and comments left unaddressed from early on in this thread. I suspect the admins aren't reading my comments in their entirety, I don't know what other conclusion they expect me to arrive at. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive personal attacks on me.

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:Elizium23 has been doing repetitive personal attacks on me and accusing me of bad faith. We have been involved in conflict and I has pinged several editors for third opinion and to came on conclusion but the user went for personal attacks.

1. It started on the talk page of Weeping crucifix in Mumbai. In this section, he accused me twice for WP:OWNing when I objected his synthesis in the article and asked for synthesis in RS. I didn't show any of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in the article and didn't stop anybody to making changes. He never showed differences for accusation.
2. When I said about what is written in RS then he said that only this can be good explanation, this can't be and used word absurd twice. After it, he capitalised word 'YOU' and again started personal attacks.
3. The same editor accused me of accusing him for bad faith on even noticeboard when discussion about the topic was going on and later told that you get yourself blocked.
4. I generally issue caution or warning after removing content and it is my habit to notify concerned editors. One can trace my all changes which I reverted or removed then I give explanation on user's talk page. When I did it on the talk page of ELizium23 then he called Your DYK sucks and get over it in both diff and edit summary.
5. Suddenly after it, he came on my talk page and attacked me for bad faith by WP:AOBF and without any differences. He even called me that I am kneejerk reverting his edits but in fact, I edited only few in which there was high Christian POV (I can assume it from disclosure of his COI) and I did it too with summary and replying on talk page.

These type of repetitive personal attacks and vituperative mudslinging are harming my presence on the Wikipedia and draining my energy. I can too fall on same lines and attack him personally by calling him as kneejerk and accusing him for assuming bad faith directly but I want to follow the policies of Wikipedia. I am looking for stringent action on the concerned editor for ad-hominems on me.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In my defense, your DYK does suck. Elizium23 (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANI

--DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 28 October 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.

Copyvios from: User:Ljwljw.001

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 just reverted a copyvio from this user on Ping An Insurance. Looking at the history, this is not the first time he has inserted copyvios into the article, and looking at his talk page, this is not the first time he has been blocked for copyvios. Unfortunately, this user appears to not understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright, and I believe that they should receive a block. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:32, 28 October 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.

Walk Off the Earth

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

---

Can an admin please G6 Walk Off the Earth? That is the correct capitalization, since "Walk off" is a phrasal verb, thus meaning that "off" is an adverb and not a preposition. Compare Turn On the Radio, All I Ask For Anymore, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Depending on which website you look at, they style it both ways. Hell, their own YouTube channel has it both ways on different videos. I suggest an RM to figure out how it should appear here. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: This is basic English grammar, which should be deferred to when sources contradict. "Off" is an adverb in this context and should be capitalized. Regardless I have filed an RM instead and you are free to vote there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion, just declining the G6 as an admin action. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 27 October 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.

Possible Error In Block Tables

Why are the block expiry dates saying "49 years ago" on the block table? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 19:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Because there's a problem with the bot that maintains them. It's already been reported to the bot owner. It will probably be fixed when he has time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought I woke up in the future lol. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser, did Bama beat LSU? Drmies (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank marine

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.

---

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

I have copied this over a second time for the same reason as the first, which is directly below. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([98], [99] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done a little while ago. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Frank marine has never left a post on a talk page, which is a concern. They also have run into copyright trouble. Some of their edits have been revdelled, for example at 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) (look at the page history and notice the strikeouts). They did create one reasonable article, Royal Thai Army Aviation Center, though I can't rule out that some of the material could have been copied from other Wikipedia articles, for instance List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. Unless Frank marine is wearing out the patience of the copyright enforcers, I don't see any current reason for admin action. There is a tendency for people who never communicate to get blocked, though I don't think we are quite at that point. As noted above there doesn't appear to be a case for COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [100]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This was addressed by an admin. Today it was archived, and you re-added the entire previous conversation as a new posting. What exactly is the point of bludgeoning this? The reported editor was warned that future issues would result in a block. If they ignore the warning, report them and they'll be blocked. There's no reason to keep this open. Grandpallama (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why relist it when it has been open 18 days already, as per Grandpallama, just archive it again . Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: I get your frustration and do agree given the number of copyright problems this editor has had, and their lack of any communication or indication they understand it's not unreasonable to indef them at least requiring some acknowledgement before they are unblocked and allowed to edit here. At the same time, I can also understand the PoV who feel it's best just to wait. The recent copyright problems this editor has caused seem to be minor even if frequent. From what I see, while they did so in June, it looks like they haven't recently added copyvio text from other places to articles which tends to be harder to detect and cleanup, and significant wasted editor time if it's only noticed after significant work. I see some mention of copyvio arising from copying within wikipedia. While I agree this is a significant concern and just recently mentioned the problems in another discussion, it's also sort of different from external copyvios since it can be fixed via proper attribution without needing to delete the text. It looks like their biggest problem is uploading images which they shouldn't be. They're not lying about the source or who own's the copyright of this image or otherwise being deceptive. So these copyvios seem easy to detect and cleanup. Further, while they got a lot of notices and some templates, it seems there has been limited direct discussion and some editors seem to be very poor at reading templated comments. The fact that they seem to be active in an area it's likely we don't cover so well probably also means people are have a greater wish that we turn the editor into a constructive one. So while I won't be objecting if this editor is blocked on what's already happened, I also don't think it's worth persisting in asking they are blocked without further misbehaviour. If they make another copyvio, whether images or copying within wikipedia, then ask again. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

On October 24th, he again copied and pasted unattributed text from another article [101]. And despite being warned about it on the 21st, he continues marking all of his edits as "minor", including the one containing unattributed text [102]. When he created the article on the 24th, it contained a maintenance template that dated to last May, which tells me it was probably deleted at some point and he recreated it without any of the issues being fixed. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the 10/24 copying and pasting looks like a pretty clear repetition of the behavior, post-warning. I don't know if I yet support a full-on block, but it looks like more than just a warning on the user's talkpage is now merited. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @OrgoneBox:, Grandpallama. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. Given they're still causing problems, I'd support an indefinite block. To be clear, I mean that in the normal sense. It doesn't have to be a permanent block. If the editor starts to talk and gives some indication they understand the problems and will work with us to stop making copyvios, then an admin should feel free to unblock them. It shouldn't be a cban no matter that we had some discussion over them here. Also someone, probably whoever blocks the, should give some explanation more than a template even if brief of what they need to do to get unblocked.

I don't see any point for a time limited block. I mean maybe that will convey editor this is a problem and they need to take it seriously but frankly there have been enough problems and the editor is still not talking even after directly approached. So we have no reason to think it's going to stop just because we block them for a time.

By way of explanation although copying within wikipedia without proper attribution isn't IMO as serious a violation as copying from external sources given that you should not need to delete the text simply provide proper attribution, it's still a potential copyright violation and this editor has been told of that before the final warning. Yes a lot of editors don't understand that, but most of them respond when people approach them. I'd add that if the editor is copying from deleted articles, this article would need to be undeleted or at least the contributor list copied to the talk page for compliance.

More importantly, if they're copying from deleted articles, they run the risk of copying text which was deleted as external copyvios. I don't know if this happened here, but even though this is a collaborative project, no one should need to have to make a lot of effort to work out where an editor got the content from and if it's an external copyvio as collaboration goes both ways. For example, if the editor was the sole contributor of the text they copied from another article, then no attribution is required. In that case a simple solution would be simply to say so in the edit summary when adding the content. Even if they don't, a quick response when people approach them of problems would also probably be enough.

But this editor has given no reason to believe that they are paying attention to anything anyone says to them let alone that they understand or care about copyright. Whether that's because they can't work out talk pages or what is ultimately a moot point per WP:Competence. (I see similarities here with another recent case where I supported an indef of an editor, mostly because even though they did respond, all they said suggested they either didn't understand or didn't care about copyright violations and they seemed unwilling to engage further or at least give some reassurance it wouldn't be repeated.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hows that block coming along, he's still running wild with no care in the world - FOX 52 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Time to do something. User:Frank marine has moved on to edit warring at Royal Thai Air Force, while never responding when people want to talk to him. I have blocked User:Frank marine indefinitely for continuing conflict with our policies and with other editors. Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the problems won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 30 October 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.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Melissa Ohden

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

---

Could someone please delete this page under G8? To give some context, the corresponding article was deleted back in August. ToThAc (talk) 00:20, 30 October 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.

Copyviol

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.

---

Replicating strategy is a stub copied from its only reference, which is marked copyright and has no license attached. --151.70.4.22 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I removed the copyright violation and revision-deleted the versions which contained it. The topic is very far from my interests, and I am not qualified to judge whether the remaining one-line stub satisfies our notability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 30 October 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.

Miss Universe 2019

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 protect on Miss Universe 2019 because many editors still always add unsourced and rumor details in the article, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:21, 31 October 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.

Jjj1238

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 about contributions of newest editor Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he always like to undo many details in pageant page everyday like he is own all of pageant pages and didnt agree other editors details or editing.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously doing this again? Your edits are extremely disruptive, and I am sorry that they get undone because of that. Follow the rules or don't edit. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

and sometime he like to add rumor details, fake news sources or unsourced.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: so you cant tell me to stop edit or using Wikipedia, you are not Wiki owner. and you should open your mind to accept other editors on Wiki who are edited on pageant pages not only MU 2019 page, your are not pageant page owner on Wiki. Do you think you are only one editor who can add details in pageant articles?--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:47, 31 October 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 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.

---

can i remove any message in my talk page if i want? because i want to move it, so it's my talk page. Is it againt any Wiki rules? Because look like Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a problem with me that i removed messages in my talk page. thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrdkmkm:, this is perhaps a little better suited to the WP:TEAHOUSE unless you want to more specifically dispute @Awesome Aasim:'s behaviour. That said, the relevant rule here is found at WP:REMOVED, which says that you can delete (though archiving is better) most things on your user talk page. Don't selectively delete comments to make a conversation look like it took a different route. There are also things that shouldn't be removed but can be.

If you're going to mention someone else in an AN thread, make sure to post so on their talk page (I've done so, even though you aren't requesting sanctions). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the issue. I apologize for my mistake; apparently I was stressed at the time of writing this post. May need to attempt another WikiVacay. Awesome Aasim 09:39, 31 October 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:Evrdkmkm

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.

---

Evrdkmkm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in nonstop disruptive editing on the Miss Universe 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Their most common violation is removing sourced information repeatedly for no real reason (accusing it of being "rumors" and "fake news" although the article itself is not addressing it is an absolute fact), in addition to breaking the three revert rule and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. They have been warned repeatedly about this behavior (although they have blanked their talk page to hide these warnings). Diffs can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, although this is just an assortment and their disruptive editing has been going on for weeks. Evrdkmkm has also not assumed good faith or civility with other editors. As can be seen on this very page, they reported me twice for warning them about their disruptive edits and were warned by an admin for doing so (diff), and have left nasty comments towards those warning them in their edit summaries (diff) { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] }

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 Institutional Racism back

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

---

A WikiEd student accidentally moved Institutional Racism to his sandbox, and then to namespace. Can a page mover or admin move it back? It is currently at User:Institutional Racism. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You are fast. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you for reporting a problem that is easily solved and doesn't involve people being horrible to each other. Refreshing! --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

perhaps, if I hat this quickly, I won't give anyone a chance to point out I screwed up the move, and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus had to fix it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 1 November 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.

Standard Offer request by SithJarJar666

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 has requested unblock under the standard offer - bringing it here for discussion.

I followed the standard offer and stayed away from editing Wikipedia for six months. I would like to come back and do my best to help the encyclopedia-the days of making nonsense articles to try to get in WP:DAFT are over for me. I regret those days, and I want to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. So I ask that you would let me back into the wiki. TheSithLordJarJar (My contribs) 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Userlinks: SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please add Support or Oppose comments below. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Actually, nevermind; checkuser shows IP socking last week. Sorry guys, as you were. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:24, 1 November 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.

Helpneeded

Both WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are extremely backlogged, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinked because I'm feeling lazy tonight. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You helped! El_C 00:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought about giving you an admin's barnstar for performing a "tedious, but needed admin task," but was feeling too lazy too. It's the thought that counts, right? creffett (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, barnstar awards you! El_C 02:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Other than 1 full protection request, the RFPP side of the backlog has been eliminated by several admins, with particular thanks to @Muboshgu: Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• RFPP is clear. I've responded to all open requests. I also took down a few AIV requests, but several others are a bit complex and require someone who knows the background to investigate and understand whether or not it is bad-faith editing (it's not simple vandalism) so I left those for someone else. --Jayron32 14:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Grays incident

I would appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on this article. The name of the driver has been widely published (poor editorial judgement by British media IMO but that's another issue). However I think it is a violation of BLP (more specifically WP:BLPCRIME) to include it in wikipedia - non-notable person, no charges. On the Talk page discussion here, Kingsif appears to make light of my concerns. He has made major contributions to this article and brought it up to ITN standards and I certainly don't want him blocked... I just think the article needs admin oversight. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this request, and the mention of me specifically, is completely unwarranted; as the talk page shows, I make the comment about not including the driver's name well before MaxBrowne2 got involved at all, and again at ITN, because of BLP. My objections to Max' edit was that some information about the driver warranted inclusion as it was relevant to the context of the incident; you'll also note that I did not edit war over the entire section he removed (Max removed→I restored→Max removed again, and I left it), and we were in friendly discussion, several hours before this notice was posted. Thus, there is no indication that I (or any other editor) needs watching, nor that any BLP violations would be about to occur (especially on the name of the driver, the only think Max mentions here as being worried about, which I ruled out first). I mean no disrespect, Max seems like a cool guy, but has just taken this a bit overboard. Kingsif (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you "mean no disrespect" you could start by not joking about the deaths of 39 people by suggesting the article be named "2019 Grays 'goddamnit Pete I said check all the freezers!'". Fish+Karate 08:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of disgusting commentary on that talk page. Certain editors should be a) ashamed of themselves, and b) blocked. ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the most egregious stuff I could find, and revdelled an edit summary, if I've missed anything feel free to let me know. Fish+Karate 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not condoning any of that ill-judged commentary. But gallows humour is a common reaction to tragedy. See e.g. this piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Good humour punches up. Fish+Karate 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try and get a few Trump jokes in. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Call it a lapse in judgment, because I know I wasn't thinking about the article subject when making those jokes; if I had been, I know it's not the place for even a touch of gallows humor. Kingsif (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that the edit summary meets RD2, but I won't challenge or argue it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Further to this, it would be good if someone could come along and assess the current move discussion. The current inertia is frustrating; there seems to be consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory, but they can't agree on what to change it to so nothing gets done. Basically any of the suggested titles is better than the current one, though "Essex Lorry Deaths", widely used in British media, seems to have the most support. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruption at Alexander Dvorkin - need advise

I had some colleagues coming to my talk page pointing to each other in relation to the disruption at Alexander Dvorkin.It is apparently some old editing dispute which is proliferating from the Russian Wikipedia to which I have no relation, however, there is indeed quite some disruption in the page history, and I am not involved in any way, so I am willing at least to reduce this disruption. Can anybody have a look whather it falls under Pseudoscience DS? In this case I could have just installed a 1RR restriction, but I am afraid it would be a stretch, and it looks like no other discretionary sanctions apply? I guess not Eastern Europe? I will appreciate any advise (or action). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The only true disruption is in the history of this page: Talk:Alexander Dvorkin - Tempus did not make the slightest attempt to discuss something there; instead, he immediately started canvassing with personal attacks on me, like "с данным участником не представляется возможным ведение какого-либо диалога" ("with this participant it is not possible to conduct any dialogue") [103]. When I turned to Ymblanter for help, he instead opened this topic.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″Tempus did not make the slightest attempt to discuss something there; instead, he immediately started canvassing with personal attacks on me, like "с данным участником не представляется возможным ведение какого-либо диалога" ("with this participant it is not possible to conduct any dialogue") [104]″ − Because this examples of discussing (especialy this) execellent show how you dialogue with me. And block-log in Russian part of Wikipedia exellent show how you speak with another participants, including admins. Do you want me to call them here and they themselves have confirmed everything? It’s not at all difficult. And in block-log admin, that blocked you here for 2 weeks, wrote, that the reason: ″Excessive Edit warring and personal attacks″. And don't forget about this dialogue with your friend. And after that you say, that ″The only true disruption is in the history of this page: Talk:Alexander Dvorkin″ and that I ″immediately started canvassing with personal attacks on me″? -- Tempus (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• (especialy this) - yes, a brilliant example. Our dear colleague repeatedly violated the 3-revert rule in order to return stupid errors to the article (like the Kazan Khanate as a combatant in 1437 (even before the foundation of this Khanate) [105]. In the end, he did not even receive any warning. Actually, all you need to know about administration in ru-wiki.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging pages to stop notices

Resolved

 – Old versions associated to a blocked/locked account were restored. This is a one-off resolution, not scalable to many pages. Please follow phab:T46787 for a potential future solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: I'm asking for you, so please indicate if you even want this.

PamD is suffering from too many notices because they created Districts of Russia. By merging that page with an older donor page and moving it back to Districts of Russia, I think the page creator should change.

Here's a possible donor: the user page from Lamborghini Urus. A blocked sock from an LTA, so they won't mind the notices. Alternatively someone could delete the page and recreate it, but that would remove the page history. - Alexis Jazz 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, @Alexis Jazz:. If this can be done I'd be delighted: I had no idea such a manoeuvre was possible. Ironically I only created a redirect, which was then overwritten by an article, so I'm not really the page creator anyway. PamD 22:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not artificially insert authors into an article history, causing readers to assume they are part of the attribution chain. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: They can see the diffs. Lamborghini Urus would have only only written an R, so no part of the attribution chain. PamD only created a redirect, so PamD isn't part of the attribution chain either! You could also try to remove or split PamD's edit, I'm not sure this would change the page creator, but the result of that would be that Underlying lk would be spammed with notices, which isn't very nice either. Perhaps some old bot edit could be found instead. Maybe it's possible to merge an edit from Lamborghini Urus and hide it afterwards. I'm not sure if Lamborghini Urus would still be the page creator, but it may be worth a shot. I would offer an old edit of mine, but I don't want that notice spam either, so that's not an option. So what do you suggest? Noting that "PamD just has to put up with the shit" isn't an acceptable answer. - Alexis Jazz 00:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: the mute pages idea in phab:T46787 certainly seems like a good way to go - but also, anyone can just disable "Page link" notifications, we got along for a long time without them. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: that ticket has been open since 2013, I think its status can be changed from "open" to "pipe dream". - Alexis Jazz 01:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to test an experimental fix for this on testwiki, will report back. Also not a great idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! - Alexis Jazz 01:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The tests are not wonderful (had to do with manually editing the author field and using XML upload), there are special extra checks for the author of the first version - not impossible, but I don't love the look of the history if that got used. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• In this specific page, there is a deleted prior version that deleted based on the contributor being banned (it was also a fork from Raion). @DragonflySixtyseven: any objection to undeleting the old versions? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this particular restore being done as a workaround, but it's not scaleable. DS (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Restored. PamD you are no longer the "Page creator", so hopefully this fixes your immediate problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Alexis Jazz: Splendid! Thank you very much for your help. Now we wait to see if the Phabricator thread makes any progress for the general case: there are other editors being plagued by unwanted notifications, but possibly not many articles are getting quite so many new incoming links as this ... though come to think of it every article linked from that infobox will have just as many. PamD 06:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Longstanding edit filter request needs to be addressed

See this request about EditFilter 891. It's been ~2 months now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Loosening my unblock conditions

It has been about six months since my last appeal of my editing restrictions, and I think that my understanding of policy regarding redirects and my common sense has significantly improved for me to understand what is tolerated and what is not acceptable. Over the past several months since my unblock, I have made constructive edits to article space. I recognize what is inappropriate for user/talk space, and have made changes since. I have recognized my limitations as well, and have made sure I never attempt to do what is outside of my capacity. Finally, I have reverted vandalism, recognized speedy articles and other deletion-policy-violating pages, and received no complaints/been open to feedback compared to before.

My old username (for the record) is UpsandDowns1234, and I affirm that I will make improvements to Wikipedia or risk being blocked if my restrictions are loosened or lifted. Awesome Aasim 03:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• For anyone reviewing, these are the conditions offered to the user upon their successful ban appeal just over a year ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Seems to have abided with the conditions and also to understood clearly the issues that led to the initial ban and later restrictions. I support lifting the restrictions as the user's request also shows commitment to reform. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting block review: Katfactz

• Katfactz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yesterday (UTC) I saw a request for full protection of this article at RFPP. I investigated and found that this user was removing content referenced to a source they appeared to dislike for POV reasons and against consensus, stating that their opposition was due to the source being offline, while two other users observed that the content had been discussed and consensus reached previously and corrected the reference to an archived version, which Katfactz still reverted. Since it appeared that Katfactz intended to continue removing the content (they had done so three times by that point) I declined the protection request and blocked them for 24 hours for edit warring. In responding to the block, Katfactz revealed personal information about one of the other editors, Jorm, which I interpreted as malicious outing (along with a diatribe of personal attacks) and so I escalated their block to indefinite and revoked their talk page access. I had checked Jorm's user page before doing so and did not see where Jorm openly reveals this personal information (their real first name), however after Katfactz submitted a request to UTRS, Beeblebrox pinged me to say that this is not outing and I should revise my block log entry. I agree (in retrospect) that Katfactz' actions do not constitute WP:OUTING, however I have declined to modify the block since I believe that Katfactz is still wielding Jorm's real name as a personal attack, and because their two UTRS appeals have been declined by other admins.

I'm putting this out to the community to determine the correct course of action going forward, whether that's to restore the original block length of 24 hours, restore talk page access for a new appeal, overturn the block immediately as being a bad admin action on my part, make an explanatory entry in the block log, maintain the block, or whatever else the community determines is appropriate.

I've also restored Katfactz' talk page access for the express purpose of commenting on this discussion, and I would appreciate if someone else would monitor their talk page for comments to copy over since I expect to be offline for the next 10-12 hours at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• The user is a net negative. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would keep the indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Plenty of editors have tried to explain to them that talk page talk is the proper venue rather than edit warring. The rambling on their talkpage when it comes to the unblock requests just further illustrates a POV push. I am open to hearing opposing sides when threats to Wikipedia and edit warring aren't involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I did not consider it outing; I’m open. I considered it ... rude? That they referred to me in a familiar manner. I do not think they are here in good faith. —-Jorm (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It would be interesting to get some outside input on the matter, I am a bit surprised it was not brought to ANI where there are more watchers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality, not quantity. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Good block It seems they have a singular (SPA) purpose here, and that's to muck about the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 pages. I don't see any good faith in their editing. Without a complete 180 in approach and an unblock request that displays that they understand what needs to change, I'm with Drmies as "Net negative" = leave indef in place. — Ched (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• For clarity, I agree that it was needlessly rude to use his real name, outing or not, and that that is a behavior that is often indicative of someone who is WP:NOTHERE, and possibly a returning banned or blocked user. I was not suggesting amending the block itself, just the logged reason, as outing is (as it should be) taken rather seriously around here. If it was really outing, the proper course of acton would've been to redact it and contact the oversight team, not to advertise it. (and, not to put too fine a point on it, I can't see how the blocking admin didn't see his real name on his user page, where it has been predominantly displayed for about nine years) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, I agree with Beeblebrox. I also wasn't suggesting that the block is modified, just the block log and I did actually specifically mention the block log on the user's talk page. It is quite clear to me that the user is not here to build Wikipedia. Their behaviour on Wikipedia and UTRS is not good, they have resorted to issuing threats to report Wikipedia to the media. However, outing has not happened and the block log should be amended to reflect this as that is a very serious allegation.-- 5 albert square (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Log entry should be revised. Outing is a very serious matter, and the log shouldn't incorrectly characterize the blocking behavior, even if a good faith mistake on Ivanvector's part, as it may mislead or cause problems later on. No opinion on the substance of the block. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• support indef, and definitely fix the block log. Threatening to involve the media, civility issues, and generally not engaging in constructive discussion all say NOTHERE to me. creffett (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support' some kind of sanction, presumably lengthy; NOTHERE does apply. KatFactz has ~30 edits to articles and 20 to talk ([106]); of the former, 29 are to articles on mass shootings (majoritively in the US), and of the latter, all are to talk pages on the subject ([107]). Now, there's nothing wrong, in itself, with being effectively a SPA: many of us are, and particularly on niche and popularly emotive topics, that's an excellent thing. But the difference is when is only a SPA in order to push a certain point of view in one's own interest rather than that of the encyclopedia. And that's what Katfactz is doing. For the record, I also disagree that there's any actual outing; pace Jorm, but it's in Big Black Bold text at the top of their user page, and I don't see, then, how one can limit its use to merely those one gives permission to. But still, it clearly wasn't being used in a friendly manner, with the intention of improving relations: no, it was—equally clearly—being weaponised. Not good, very poor approach, easily sanctionable.
  TLDR; good block, reasoning not flawed, just needs tweaking. ——SerialNumber54129 07:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef I think it's pretty clear this person isn't here to edit collaboratively, and that's non-negotiable. If we had an unblock request which addressed this then an unblock might be possible, but we don't. No, there wasn't any outing, but edits like this are clear personal attacks nontheless. Hut 8.5 07:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support this good block; while there was no real outing as per our rules, the intent to attack is rather clear. Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef This guy has an axe to grind, and isn't here to be useful to the mission of the encyclopedia. This was a good block. --Jayron32 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• When the editor leaves comments like:

  Douche. Katfactz (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we have made the right choice to block. Mkdw ^talk 17:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - An IP posted a message on the blocked user's talk-page. I marked User talk:107.77.218.115 as dynamic, and it might be worth looking into or at the very least address their question. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looks solid to me Buffs (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry

Esteghlal–Tractor rivalry is the main article and has been deleted for 3 times. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry.

Draft:Esteghlal F.C.–Tractor S.C. rivalry and Draft:Esteghlal–Tractor rivalry, These two pages are in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden but what is being done right now is not true. Lexy iris (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: Please also check Esteghlal F.C.–Tractor S.C. rivalry and Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry. Lexy iris (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Tumbleman?

I received an email alerting me to a possible Tumbleman sock. It looks plausible to me, but I am not a Tumbleman specialist. Anyone able to review this please? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman Guy (help!) 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Help Please With An Edit

Hello everybody,

I am not good with tech! I am writing with info for an article for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army This is the article. I have managed to add a line about my grandad who fought in this army. He is now 96 years old! I have written "A decision, signed in 2002, on behalf of the President of Poland promoted Mr. Marian Pawłowski to a higher military rank of second lieutenant." I have placed this in the Post-War section. However, I have some images to accompany this that nobody else had! I will attach them to this. Please can you upload them and link them to my information about my grandad that I have written?

My images are of his secret ID with his code name and also of the document from 2002 (that I have edited and written about) where he was promoted for his duties in the underground army.

IT WILL NOT LET ME UPLOAD THE IMAGES TO THIS MESSAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThatPavaldo:: I have undone your edits. You should not write about your family members in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not your family's photo album. See, generally, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Sandstein 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein

How on earth can a German comment on the Polish uprising?! It is not my fault you feel guilty for your families part in the war. I was not uploading a "family photo" as you said. They are relevant documents. You really should sort yourself out and not be bitter that your country lost two wars that it started. @sandstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You do not own Wikipedia. You should not be blocking people from serving the wider community with documents just because you are bitter about Germany's Nazi past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded legitimate images of documents from the war. Until now they have been undocumented and unseen. I thought Wikipedia would like such material. However, Sandstein not only removed them. They then mocked me and said they were family photos! You need to watch your moderators on here! If unchallenged they are a bit like Nazis! This particular one appears to be German too! Please do look at the DOCUMENTS I uploaded and tell me which ones look like a family photo! They are of historical documents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ThatPavaldo You aren't likely to get much help based on these posts, and if you continue to harass Sandstein you might be blocked. If you calmly explain the situation, others will be willing to help. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't a good place to display family memorabilia, and while your grandfather's promotion is important to him and to his family, it isn't necessarily suitable for a global encyclopedia. Your behavior toward Sandstrein isn't acceptable - he removed the material correctly, and any more comments like those above will result in removal of your editing privileges. I'm growing tired of Polish editors attacking German editos for being German. This must stop.Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

sandstein and 331dot

You know what? Forget it. I wanted to help Wikipedia and have donated money. Sandstein has made it personal and now I will probably no longer help. The sooner this site is closed the better in my opinion now at this very moment. I was posting first hand source material of an actual soldier during the WW2 uprising in Poland. It is original and does NOT show any people. Only shows ID! This is pertinent because it is codenamed! I will politely ask here that sandstein reavulates their poor judgement and reinstates the historical imagery. Sandstein said that what I posted was "family pictures!" Marian Pawlowski is my grandfather, however there were NO pictures of him! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please edit the existing section instead of creating new sections(click "edit" at the top of the page or near the section header). I get that these family documents are important to you, but this is a global encyclopedia and materials need to be pertinent to that context. The documents would also need to be publicly available for verification.

You may donate money to the Foundation or not; it has no bearing on Wikipedia activities. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Following up on their talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of blocking and username policy

A discussion has been started at WT:Blocking_policy#Impersonation_blocks on the application of blocking policy, and possible changes to a policy page. The did not seem quite the thing for WP:CENT, so I am mentioning it here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ban for Никита-Родин-2002 from editing English 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.

---

This user has been socking for past 5 years. I think it's time for them to be banned from editing English Wikipedia. Can community propose ban for this user? --46.211.15.43 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering that they're already long-blocked, if they're socking or otherwise ban-evading, then there's no need for a community ban, just open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, see WP:3X. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 4 November 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.

Changes to CheckUser team

Per his request to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are removed. The committee sincerely thanks Deskana for his long service to the CheckUser team.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

History merge needed

Resolved

 – History merge done Graham87 06:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The content at Eragrostis setifolia appears to have been copy-and-pasted from Draft:Neverfail Grass (Eragrostis setifolia). Can an admin please perform the needed history merge? Peacock (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

All done. Graham87 06:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing in tendentious areas

User:Bringeroftruth92 has been making seriously tendentious edits esp. at Death of Jeffrey Epstein and Christine Lagarde, operating from what appears to be a right-wing, anti-media, anti-etc. stance. The synthesis in the Lagarde article (this stuff about interest rates) is unacceptable. Whether "convicted criminal" should be in the lead is a matter for talk page discussion, I suppose. In the Epstein article, they're adding a link to, guess what, a video from Project Veritas. I am going to revert them again, and again, because these are serious violations and I am going to cry BLP, particularly since they don't wish to discuss anything (their username and this edit should indicate sufficiently where they come from). I'll warn them about edit warring too. I would appreciate a second or third admin looking at this; thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) The "stuff about interest rates" is proven in scientific research. It is you that is the science denier. (2) Lagarde being the first woman to head the ECB is still in the lede, it was removed elsewhere because it was in the future tense ("would become the first woman to lead the ECB"), so inappropriate now that she is appointed. (3) Her being a convicted criminal is public record, see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html I think you are engaging in bad faith and you should stop. In addition, you blanket remove my edits al together, without attempt to rewrite or keep parts. And you do not use the Article's talk pages. Bringeroftruth92 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Three times this has been added to Neoliberalism [108], without explanation of relevance there. 2601:188:180:B8E0:90F:5543:AD50:8804 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The "stuff about interest rates" as a brake on growth is synthesis. "Science denier" is kind of funny. The criminal record, as I explained, can be discussed on the talk page. It is obvious that you either haven't read or aren't acting on WP:BLP, which indicates that tendentious material should be discussed first; admins enforcing the BLP here err on the side of caution. No, I haven't removed all your edits, though they probably all need looking at; I am not going to rewrite your NPOV material and synthesis. Shall we talk about the Veritas video? No, because there is no need to; I'm just waiting for the rest of the admins to wake up, have their coffee, and check this noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Didn't even need coffee to figure that one out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure grants bureaucrats new discretion in processing resysopping requests

Main page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

There's been a closure of the above-linked RfC resulting in significant changes to the resysopping procedures used by bureaucrats.

These changes need to be written into the policy page at Wikipedia:Administrators before the procedure page at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats can be updated to reflect the changes.

Note I've expressed some reservations about the closure in a personal capacity, but will be continue to be guided as a bureaucrat by whatever policies achieve community consensus. –xeno^talk 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this

Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata

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.

---

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata
• Draft: Operational Chow ring history
• Copy-paste move to undo a move in good faith, causing more problems
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination)
• History of Draft:Microfunction

Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful.

So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace.

I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I have reverted the disruptive edit to the draft page Draft:Microfunction that overrode the outcome of the MfD (which was merger). After revert, I had finished the merger and redirected the page to mainspace. I ask other editors: which is more disruptive? A constant attempt to override the community consensus and disrupt the ordinary content development? Or having math draft pages in the draft space? I personally view this topic ban request itself as a disruption and has been put forth in the dishonest manner (whence, my proposal for interaction ban below). Again what is the real disruption? as opposed to the perceived but unreal one. -- Taku (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

On closing the thread, it is a probably good idea to close the thread after #AfC and G13s is closed; since depending on the outcome of the latter, the problem behind this thread might become moot. —- Taku (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ideally I'd like to count the 1 successful refund backwards, but I understand that may be problematic. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'll let TakuyaMurata weigh in before I !vote, but I do feel like the proposal does a good job of addressing the issue while being minimally invasive. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have followed this User:TakuyaMurata & perpetual storage / refunds in draftspace for some years. Although I don't fully understand why Hasteur can't just ignore it all, I do agree that TakuyaMurata is using draftspace outside the ever intended scope of draftspace, and that he is perpetually perverse and obstinate about it his idiosyncratic use of draftspace.

I would prefer the following:

User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
Your views on draftspace are an underlying cause of this whole dispute. Put these views in a useressay, and in the meantime stop drafting in draftspace. Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:

"TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)..."

No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

{{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TLDR: Taku was disrupting rule/policy/guideline/suggestion pages so a topic ban was proposed to restrict them from disrupting As the one who penned the topic ban I'd like to provide some context. The reason why we only went for discussing suitability of pages in Draft namespace is because at the time Taku was making proposals making counter proposals, and edit warring on rule/policy/guideline pages to argue effectively that GSD:G13 is "optional", that WP:REFUND can be requested indefinitely, that the requirement for improvement is only a "suggestion", and that their entire future topic dump is not only allowed, but encouraged by the charter of Draft space. Making counter and retalitory proposals to attempt to get his critics sanctioned or banned (see proposed Interaction Ban below) only demonstrates that TakuyaMurata still does not get the message. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Please be civil. Calling such actions "foolish" or "perverse" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m not criticising any person, just the end result. An unintended consequence, it was unexpected that Taku would put his head down and insist on carrying in practice on with his idiosyncratic opinion on how DraftSpace should function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support the proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. It makes more sense to ban Taku from all use of draft space than to ban him from talking about it while he can still use it. The current situation makes no sense, but it is clear that Taku is using draftspace as a dustbin. It is also true that Hasteur, and another previous editor, have been going to absurd lengths to keep draft space clean, but there can be abuses both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Query @TakuyaMurata: Why not move these to user space? Where is the harm there? Buffs (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  They indeed may hesitate to do so, but that is contrary to policy:

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."

  Additionally, you can mitigate that by posting a note right at the top stating that constructive edits are welcome and appreciated. Likewise, there's no reason such information cannot be incorporated into existing articles. Such information doesn't need to be 100% perfect. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Query @Hasteur: What is the harm in allowing a draft to linger? Why the rush to delete at 6 months? Why is it 100% ok in userspace, but not in draftspace? Buffs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Again, could you look at the states I mentioned below? "perpetual", I agree that can be problematic. But that's just not true; the drafts started by me do get finished and get moved to mainspace as part of existing articles or standalone articles (or deleted in MfDs); I don't think there is an exception. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't notice your response. I have responded to you below. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, let's keep it here. You have at least 4 articles in draft space for over 3 years that I've seen presented as evidence here: [109] [110] [111] [112]. I don't know if there are more or not...I don't care. There's no reason to hang onto these in draft space this long. Hasteur is coming across as brash and draconian, but he also has a point. Your claims of "I don't have articles perpetually in Draft state" doesn't hold water. You do. By doing so, it unnecessarily adds to a list of articles that need help. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole thread is pretty involved, and I don't really want to support or oppose any particular remedy, but for what it's worth, I wanted to point out this comment and edit summary made by Hasteur to me in an AfD discussion which is apparently related to this stuff. Whatever other issues are going on between these two, it feels like it's spilling over elsewhere (to me in this case, who wandered in fairly innocently). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  You are invited to read WP:BADGER and see how your commentary throughout the entirety of that AFD could be perceived as an attempt to water down and argue to a "No Consensus" position. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Present as further evidence: Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory G13ed, restored, G13ed, restored, G13ed again, G13ed again (this time by @Credo2020 Unumisit: and sustained by @Fastily:). Clear demonstration of the same back and forth game of putting things in G13 space only to not do anything about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Proxy edit to keep this discussion open. We need to take action. Previous attempts to sanction that resulted in "archive for stale" and "no consensus have emboldened the editor in question to continue further disruption. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Votes

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

---

• Support as proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I'm amazed that this problem is still hanging on by its fingernails. I agree with Hasteur that an end needs to be put to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I took an extended sabbatical/temper tantrum from Wikipedia and the other persistent statuser has been indef-blocked for what appears to be reasons beyond the scope of this locus of dispute. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's very good to have you back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it is clear that someone is upset, MFDs have also resulted in a keep vote. An MFD that results in merge or redirect also should then not be overridden by a G13 nomination or deletion. Probably drafts that have survived MFD with some result other than delete should be tagged so that subsequent editors know how to proceed. I think that much of what is there should be in Taku's user space if he wants to hang onto it longer than years before promoting to article. Undeleting is fairly simple, and Taku is one of two users that I will undelete for on request even if nothing was done to improve since the previous undelete. Other serial undelete requesters I will question to see how interested they are on improving the draft. But as you can see I agree with TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the last time this came up. My take on this hasn't changed since then. I think TakuyaMarata is being absurdly stubborn about this. But, he's also been a highly productive content creator. What he's doing may be silly He's being an ass, but it's relatively harmless and the effort that's been put into this vendetta far exceeds the benefit of chasing down a few ancient drafts. I am reminded of the North-going Zax and a South-going Zax. Move on to more important things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I will support almost any measure to check Taku's insistence on using draft space as an archive for what are essentially topic titles. The previous topic ban, which had to do with discussions of policy, has not worked because it just causes Taku to engage in preterition about draft space. Something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as formulated (also see below). First “undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace.” seems moot since I never undo constructive edits (only the disruptive ones). “TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft” doesn’t quite work since I also routinely request refunds of drafts created other than me. My understanding is that there is no community consensus that having draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is disruptive. What is disruptive is precisely a thread like this. Drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace. If some particular old draft is having an issue, there is an MfD for that. I don’t understand the issues here. I agree with RoySmith; I am getting tired too. Can we just move on? See also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning. Is this really how we want to Wikipedia to work? -- Taku (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support this unfortunate solution to TM's WP:Failing to get the point; if he would simply move all his (and he makes it very clear he is the "owner") content to his userspace, we wouldn't be here. But no. The draftspace is for drafting, and abuse of the six-month G13 window is detrimental to the efforts of many editors to build the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. These drafts are usually viable mainspace articles, or at least viable parts of mainspace articles. I have restored plenty of them at WP:REFUND when I wouldn't have done so for another editor, for exactly this reason. Wikipedia does accept articles on technical or inaccessible topics, denigrating them as "post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts" isn't helpful. Preventing somebody from writing them just because they take a bit long and don't do so in their own userspace isn't helpful either. I do also have to object to the statement above that "Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect." The MfD in question was closed as Keep, so Taku has a point there. Hut 8.5 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban as such, but I do support moving all of these useless substubs to his user space, since a) he's made it clear they're his private personal property, and b) the vast majority are unlikely to ever see the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't solve the problem with Hasteur's fanatic obsession with keeping the draft space "clean". Prefer interaction ban below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - draft space isn't meant to hold articles forever. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Could you please clarify? I don't think that's anyone's contention here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  It is Taku’s contention, which he is topic banned from talking about, and it is the rationale behind what he does in draftspace, which he s banned from explaining. Perverse? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Without getting into rationale and such, the relevant stats is that (1) like 90% of drafts started by me are moved to mainspace within 1 week (2) almost all other drafts are finished within one month or two (3) there are a few exceptions that can take months or even years to finish (often due to referencing matters) but are eventually moved to mainspace. (4) There are absolutely no drafts that are kept indefinitely. —- Taku (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it takes years, there is no reason you can't move them to user space and work on them there. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ok. I have to agree that say "10 years" would be too much (I don't think there is a draft that old). On the other hand, for me, a one-year-old draft don't seem problematic. Technically I am not allowed to discuss the draft usage policy. But, for me, 2 or 3 years seem to be acceptable amount of time to be allowed before the drafts need to be userifyed or require some other form of intervention. If some editors really believe I intend to keep drafts "perpetually", I can agree with some terms making it explicit that's not the case (since the drafts are not kept perpetually anyway, I don't lose anything.) -- Taku (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, please don't bait Taku. The question at hand was directed to another editor. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bait?? I’ve been trying to help Taku out of this shallow hole for years. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing the evidence to support such action at this time. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - prefer #Yet Another Proposal below. – Levivich 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is nothing wrong with editing a draft to prevent its deletion, nor is there anything wrong with requesting refund(s). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I keep an eye on the list of math draft pages and have worked to get them moved/merged to main space. (See tropical compactification, Macaulay representation of an integer, sphere bundle, Nakano vanishing theorem.) I've never felt that Taku has tried to "own" drafts he's started in the sense of ruling over their actual content or trying to disallow other editors from making changes. On the face of it, Draft space is a reasonable place to keep these items: the subject matter is sufficiently esoteric that few people would work on them no matter where they are stored, but it's no real trouble to make constructive contributions (fixing notation, adding references, etc.) at a rate that keeps them from all going stale. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 13 October 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.

Alternative proposal: interaction ban with Hasteur

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 completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: A few have suggested the proposal is invalid because it is a counter-proposal. That’s not really an argument; please discuss the merits of the proposal independently. — Taku (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the argument is being made that it is a retaliatory proposal, with no supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. (If “retaliatory” is a reason for the rejection of the proposal, the first proposal/strike should also be automatically rejected; that’s why it’s not an argument and the vote is invalid. It cannot be one-sided.) -— Taku (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Suppose as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hasteur being the main person voicing objection to Taku's use of draftspace does not mean that Hasteur is the only person troubled by Taku's non-standard use of draftspace. Taku, please take your drafts to userspace. Anyone can collaborate with you there. To generally invite others to work on your mathematics drafts, use subpages of WikiProject Mathematics. Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. You use of draftspace is disrupting the fragile working of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  And "Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users" is precisely my problem. Because it is not and it is not intended to be. Draftspace is precisely the place for the collaborative development of the content. -- Taku (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There is so much history of practice that demonstrates this to be wrong. Draftspace is not functionally suitable for collaboration. WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: I believe your statement just above violates your previous topic ban. I suggest you strike it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I wish to object to the views being expressed here by SmokeyJoe, specifically that Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). and Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. I do not think these accurately reflect either a general consensus, or current practice. I am an "established user with long term activities" I believe, but I routinely use draftspace when i start new articles. I am actively working on a draft now, started less than a week ago. I also normally advise relative newcomers, particularly at the Teahouse to start new articles in draft space, often but not always under WP:AFC. I have collaborated with other editors (usually one at a time, that is I and one other editor) in Draft space. I cite as an example Holocaust Wall Hangings now in mainspace, but in Draft when i did most of my edits to it.I stongly object to statements that such uses of draft space are "perverse" or not approved, and are evidence of disruption. As to the proposed topic ban, it seems drastic to me, but i have not reviewed the actions on which it is based, and i express no opinion for or against it at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

These "views" are not so much my "views" but my observations of what happens there, both as a wikipedia editor, and from real world experience with others, who didn't know I am a Wikipedian, telling me of there experience with a Wikithon. It is not how I think it should be, but my observation of how it is. For real newcomers, draftspace is a place of isolation from the real community. Newcomers should get into mainspace, where they meet real editors interested in the same pages. Draftspace reviewers may be all nice people, but rarely are they genuinely interested in the draft topic, and rarely do they engage with the drafter before the drafter submits their draft.

Draft is not for established users with long term activities. I stand by that, with a small exception only that a few admins make use of draftspace (I am aware of you and User:BD2412 doing this). These few admins are very non-representative of long term editors through being admins, and not being intimidated by the routine deletions, or by the considerable apparent power imbalance between drafter and reviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that draftspace is underutilized as a place to start articles on needed subjects. I think every red link in a list of notable people or topics, or in our lists of requested entries, should automatically get a draft to be built upon. I would allow drafts on topics like those (such as my thousands of drafts of missing state supreme court justices) to be tagged with a bypass to the six-month deletion protocol. bd2412 T 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BD2412, I am not familiar with your thousands of drafts. Why is it not a good idea to create each as a stub? I notice that you get your drafts up to a high standard, much higher than minimally required, before moving to mainspace. Is this excessive meta:immediatism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I mean these thousands of drafts. Well, now under 2,000. The typical one of these currently looks like this, which is below stub standards, but these are all obviously inherently notable subjects for which sources can be found, and I get one fixed up and moved to mainspace every few days or so (or someone else does), so they should all be done before 2030. I'm working on the no-deadline model here. bd2412 T 03:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Impressively organised list! I strongly support the "no deadline" model. I think it is an option to mainspace the lot, even with "YEAR to YEAR" text, although I understand that others differ, and less organised people than you would make a horrednous mess. It would be nice if trusted people could apply a {{G13-exempt}} tag, so that non-admins could use draftspace on longer tie periods. I have suggested that people, like Taku, could use WP:WikiProject subject pages or userspace, but the "Draft:" is desirable other the others. Like I said to DES, my statements are my observations on how draftspace works for newcomers (i.e. badly), and they do not reflect my preference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Again WP:Failing to get the point, TM ignores all the other editors that have a problem with his edits in the draftspace and his misuse of WP:REFUND. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  If I am misusing WP:REFUND and the draftspace, that depends on what is the proper use of the draft space. Many other editors seem to be more bothered by the dispute itself not the drafts. This proposal will end that dispute. -- Taku (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- silly tit-for-tat retaliatory proposal. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose just talk calmly to each other, and interaction can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Except the user seems incapable of working with other editors in civil manners; here is one evidence User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning (maybe it was a bait for me to make mistakes?) —- Taku (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban (Hasteur banned from interaction with TakuyaMurata) - by their own words Hasteur came back from an extended wikibreak just to push this issue, and wasted no time recruiting all their old allies to go after TakuyaMurata again. Hounding is defined as "the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Many editors commenting here are not familiar with the history of this dispute but I am, and it's been going on for years. Every time it comes up we see that Hasteur (or rarely one or two other users) has a bee in their bonnet because someone has got in the way of their principal activity of purging things from draft space. The problem of draft space being used contrary to Hasteur's personal criteria is a problem for Hasteur. The problem for the community is the massive waste of time and energy we go through each time six months passes from the previous dispute when Hasteur brings it up again. Forcing Hasteur to stay away from TakuyaMurata will solve that problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as malformed. As phrased, such an IBAN is not clear as to whom is banned and who isn't or if it's both. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn’t think that matters; it is all the case that User:Hasteur first makes a disruptive edit (e.g., vandalism on draft pages or overriding the community consensus) and I revert the edit. One way ban on him or two ways don’t make a difference. — Taku (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Such a funny thing, calling a Bold action Vandalism. Clearly someone hasn't read WP:NOTVAND in a while. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Both of you stop your snide remarks toward each other, the disparaging remarks, and stick to facts. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Retaliatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  This is quite odd; it is ok for User:Hasteur to raise a concern but I, on the other hand, am not allowed to raise a concern? I have been thinking that an interaction ban is needed for some time and this thread just gave me a push for proposing it. Perhaps this emery vote shows you actually don’t have a counterargument for this proposal. — Taku (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I invite the proposer to read WP:PUNISH and self strike this proposal. On one hand we have a demonstrated pattern of disruption including attempting to get their critics Interaction banned from TakuyaMurata, and on the other hand we have repeated suggestions/warnings/consensus debates all saying the same thing. I further refer to TakuyaMurata's continued WP:NOTTHEM arguments that everyone except themselves is responsible for their current position. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Solomon-like alternate proposal

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

---

Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, second choice to what I guess is proposal 4 (see my comment under the original "alternate proposal"). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - When cutting Gordian knots, a two-edged sword is often useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Abstain: This is not something I can support, obviously. (People forget but I routinely work on math drafts started by editors other than me). But I am not going to oppose it either (otherwise I will probably be ass). — Taku (talk)
• Oppose Going with the a pox on both your houses or the "cut the baby in half solution" is a non-starter for me. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as absurd. Hasteur is needed to help with draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Goes way beyond anything needed to solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see good edits from both people...they just need to know when to back off rather than continue discussing. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the solution below better, which addresses the issues without resulting in the encyclopedia losing both editors' constructive contributions to draftspace. – Levivich 02:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - User:SmokeyJoe has persuaded me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 2 October 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.

Yet Another Proposal

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

---

Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances.

Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil.

Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support here should be construed as support for the whole package. It was never intended as separate proposals. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I perceive this to be a "dilute any consensus to effectively nothing" proposal (when a RFC is initially proposed with 3 options and progressively gets counter-proposed up to 13 different options) to make closing this even more difficult. Second I note that the TBAN (as currently written) could be interperted as prohibiting TakuyaMurata from making any improvements to articles already in draft space. Should Taku wish to make an improvement they will have to move it to WP Mathematics space or to their userspace. I perceive this to be less than desirable. My goal is to get the drafts off the CSD:G13 rail and actually moving towards being workable mainspace content. Third, The locus of dispute moves is intermixed between a content (the drafts and their stale-ness) and conduct (labeling Bold actions as Vandalism, yelling at opponents through edit summaries, accusations of lying, etc) that makes it such that conduct and previously observed patterns of behavior are germane to the topic of "willful/WP:IDHT/WP:NOTBURO resistance to community improvement". Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
  I discover (through some method) that Draft:Example Math Stub has been created by TakuyaMurata in the past, has been unedited in at least 200 days giving the impression that it is abandonded/stale, and has a practical mainspace larger topic. To affirmatively test the community consensus I nominate for XfD and request a redirect-merger so that content is preserved and I introduce into my nominating statement the history of the page. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban?
  Second: Effectively same as the first, except instead of nominating for XfD I redirect the article to what appears to be an appropriate mainspace partent topic as a WP:BOLD action, leaving the actual merger as an exercise for a knowledgable editor to perform at their leisure through the page history of the Draft still being available. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban? Is TakuyaMurata prohibited from reverting the redirect?
  Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  Valid questions. No, none of these fall afoul of such a ban as you aren't addressing TakuyaMurata. Based on the limited information you provided, TakuyaMurata is allowed to contest such a redirect. We aren't looking to just delete everything. I'm seeing a lot of drafts that are resulting in good additions to articles. Edit warring will result in standard bans. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  After seeing clarification, Support Topic Ban, Oppose Interaction Ban As referenced below, providing the perverse incentive to silence one of your critics is never appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (but prefer 2 year period to 1 year): This seems the most sensible proposal yet (kudos to proposer Buffs). As I said, if some editors really believe I have been and still been planning to use the draft space (or user space) for the purpose of keeping my personal study notes, this agreement would address that concern very well. My only gripe is that “1 year” seems too short (just because sometimes I don’t have time to edit Wikipedia as much as I like, depending on my real lift situations). — Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose without the interaction ban: I cannot understand User:Hasteur couldn’t agree with the requirement to be civil. I hate to say but it proves once again that the whole thread is ALL about their personal grudge against me. The community needs to send a strong message that Wikipedia is not their playground. —- Taku (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Taku is invited to read AGF is not a suicide pact and reconsider this incivil aspersion. It's not a personal grudge, it never has been. It's always been about your use of the Draft namespace and how it is significantly divergent with the community consensus. Following the edits of a editor who has repeatedly demonstrated a deficiency in their understanding of standard operating procedure is not just acceptable but endorsed. This is something I would have expected an editor who has been editing wikipedia for over 17 years 12 July 2002 to have learned long ago. Hasteur (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  Taku isn't a saint in the matter, but, no, WP:HOUNDING is not endorsed by WP. That you see it as your mission IS a problem. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support and kudos to Buffs for the well-rationalized proposal. As for the length of Taku's restriction, 1 year is plenty; if you haven't addressed a draft in a full year and some other editor wants to do something with it, let them. If someone improves it then that's what we're all here for, and if it gets deleted you can ask for it to be restored to your user space for when you do eventually have time for it. While wanting them to stay in draft space for others to collaborate on is a noble goal, the simple reality is that in several years none actually have attracted anyone to collaborate. I would offer to help, and I think I have before, but your topics are well above my level of knowledge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support – 3 years is too long for a draft to be in draftspace, but Hasteur also needs to step back from policing Taku. This is a simple but surgical solution. – Levivich 02:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This is a user who seriously believes that it's appropriate for mainspace to have content like "Let M be a real-analytic manifold and X its complexification. (The definition of microfunctions here)." Diff You need to be followed carefully (no interaction ban), and if you do this frequently despite cleanup, you need to be shown the door. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You're looking for this diff I think, not the idly adding a reference diff you actually linked to. But yes, this is typically how mathematical information is presented. Maybe it shouldn't have been presented this way in an encyclopedia article, but you could have tried to fix it instead of just blindly reverting, couldn't you? This seems very "damned if you do (promote your work to use in an article), damned if you don't (develop article stubs left in draft space)", doesn't it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur (Also there's a typo in the first line, "or" for "of".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur as BMK. Taku is exploiting everyone's WP:AGF while Hasteur is trying to apply the norms that apply to draft space: it is not perpetual storage for someone's notes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for the specific TBAN. I think it is a more complicated version of my own proposal: "User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  I concur. It IS a more complicated proposal. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the limited IBAN. Apart from some heated uncivil comments, for which I blame the community for allowing this long running perverse situation of allowing someone the idiosyncratic draftspace behaviors while banning them from talking about it, there is nothing in support of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  At some point, someone has to step up and be the adult. We cannot continue to have levels of hostility like Hasteur is bringing to the table. Regardless of the "perverse situation", Hasteur is accountable for his own actions. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as far to complex to enforce. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Extremely complex and difficult to follow. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If there is any doubt that the issue revolves around TakuyaMurata's misuse of Draft space consider Draft:Simple Lie algebra that was nominated by @CASSIOPEIA:, the G13 was sustained by @Fastily:, Taku then turns around an immediately gives a misguided REFUND request that Hut8.5 does. [113] This is precicely the kind of behavior that needs to be curtailed and demonstrates it's not just me that finds Taku's usage of draftspace problematic. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see the comments at #Votes. No matter how you frame it many (majority?) other editors don’t share your view. — Taku (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (both): Taku contributes constructively to WP as a whole, but the particular aspect of draft usage by Taku involving old drafts is unusual and has been the source of heated discussions. It's reasonable for Taku to be able to contest deletions raised at MfD, but the consensus should be the end of any such matter. The behavior of Hasteur towards Taku has been uncivil and hounding on more than one occasion (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3); a limited IBAN in that direction would prevent future issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 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.

Last attempt

Rationale: (same as above, but now easier to enforce + clarification). TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may.

It's obvious the community's patience is wearing thin, but package deals like the one above won't pass muster as they are all-or-none (despite attempts to separate them...not the intent at the time). Ergo, it's worth looking at each in their own regard in as simple of terms as possible. We can always lessen them or make caveats later. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging those in the previous discussion that haven't weighed in Levivich Ivanvector (If I missed anyone, please add them) Buffs (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: what are you asking for here, and why is it shoehorned in mid-discussion instead of placed as yet another yet another new proposal at the bottom of the thread? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not another proposal, just wanted your feedback below as you gave responses elsewhere. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. My feedback is in the "Taku's alternative proposal" section below all of the "simplified" proposals. Although I've supported some sanctions above, in general I feel as though Taku's suggestion is a more constructive solution than more preventative measures which don't actually resolve any issues with the drafts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated. Thanks! Buffs (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 1

Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old.

• Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not against removing the "that are over 1 year old" portion. Buffs (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support though I would prefer striking the that are over 1 year old Time for him to prove that the contents are worthy to be moved to mainspace, or to move them to any of the numerous alternatives. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I think that the general consensus in this thread is that drafts started by me are generally worth of moving to mainspace. The issue at hand is a matter of usage not quality of content from what I can see. —- Taku (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you create these, and don't do diddly with them until someone points out the things you've appeared to forget about for years. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hasteur, you've made your point a month ago. Please, let the community put in its input now. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: with respect please observe Taku's replies of "22:56, 21 October 2019" and "01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)" in which they claim not getting sanctioned is the same as explicitly authorizing their behavior. If that is the behavior from Taku then every member of the community is strongly encouraged to expediently dispel the misconception. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not addressing whether he gets it (I don't think he does). I am addressing that you are not his personal arbiter. You are not the gatekeeper for his actions. I'm saying YOU have made your point and enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support, without the "over 1 year old" if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Abstain: Buffs makes a good point that the drafts can still be developed outside the draftspace. So, I’m not going to oppose it. But I oppose removing “over 1 year old” (as I don’t think short-term drafts are an issue). —- Taku (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a solution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Taku contributes constructively to WP as a whole, but the particular aspect of draft usage by Taku involving old drafts is unusual and has been the source of heated discussions. It's reasonable for Taku to be able to contest deletions raised at MfD, but the consensus should be the end of any such matter. It's not clear to me if "contest" here means giving an oppose !vote and reasoning at MfD or for WP:REFUNDs and deletion reviews. Taku should be able to participate in MfD (at least in some limited capacity). — MarkH21 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - A solution, as one of the supporters puts it, implies there is a problem. I see many complaints regarding the user this would affect, but I do not see where they have gone awry of tangible guidelines. I simply see an individual doing their best to cope with our flawed draft system and overboard cleanupism (just as percievebly "bad") from other parties. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 2

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.

---

Two-Way IBAN for Hasteur/TakuyaMurata: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed, and vice versa.

• Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Misbehavior should not be rewarded with getting their critic silenced. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the community has already weighted in this option. I personally think this is the simplest/least disruptive way to put an end to the dispute, though. —- Taku (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No logical reason for this. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  The bickering and needling between Hasteur and TakuyaMurata in this section alone are evidence enough, IMHO, but YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  That shows a need for people on this noticeboard to decide whether indefinitely keeping sub-stub drafts is desirable in terms of the purpose of draft space and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  The whole thread has nothing to do with that question; please see my clarification comment below. The question is if there is a community desire for accelerating the development of the drafts started by me (but not the others). —- Taku (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I think that the Hasteur -> Taku direction is more problematic than the other direction with incivility and hounding (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3), but if Part 3 is not passed then this would also help solve the relevant issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  I concur. One needs only read this thread to see that there is ample evidence of incivility (via unnecessary snide/needling remarks) and tendentious editing. Buffs (talk) 17:22, 30 October 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.

Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 3

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.

---

One-Way IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Misbehavior should not be rewarded with getting their critic silenced. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose And definitely no logical reason for this. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason given. Please address the fundamental issues about whether sub-stub drafts should be kept indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Rationale is based on behavior here and elsewhere (see above and below for multiple examples). @Johnuniq:, for you to jump in here and declare after a month that we're not discussing behavioral problems is REALLY perplexing. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The behavior of Hasteur towards Taku has been uncivil and hounding on more than one occasion (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3); a limited IBAN in that direction would prevent future issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, it appears he believes it is his mission and endorsed by WP Buffs (talk) 17:29, 30 October 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.

Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 4

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.

---

One-Way IBAN for TakuyaMurata: User:TakuyaMurata must cease all communications with/about Hasteur, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. False equivalence and you should have known it. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Comments like this are part of the problem. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, adding sections to an already long discussion is part of the problem because it distracts from the fundamental issue regarding the indefinite retention of sub-stub drafts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Just for the clarification, the consensus on the thread is pretty clear that “indefinite retention of sub-stub drafts” is undesirable. I don’t think anyone (including me) is arguing against that. —- Taku (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the point. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for limited IBAN for discussions; in fact, I will just start self-banning myself right away. I here declare I stop engaging in the discussions with Hasteur. (Just not productive as we all know). —- Taku (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: The communications in this direction don't seem to really be the issue. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 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.

Taku's alternative proposal: the math project takes over

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

---

Proposal: Let Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics take over the matter; precisely, let the project decide where to put long-term math drafts (in draft space? user space? project space?), promote them to the mainspace, delete them, etc.

Rationale: From reading the comments in the thread, some users clearly believe/suspect that (1) I'm using the draft space to keep my personal notes indefinitely as opposed to draft articles worth of moving to mainspace and that (2) somehow I "own" them and oppose moving them to maispace. If the problem is with me as an individual, as opposed to a process, I think this proposal would mitigate such concerns in the simple non-disruptive manners.

• Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed No. NIEN. NIET! That's been done before only to have you object and we go back to where we started before. We just move the pile of smelly offal from one location to another. Clean up the pages already in draftspace like Draft:Hamiltonian group action and many others. Also your old history in draftspace is littered with numerous Copy-paste moves with are Copyright violations because the attribution history is missing, yet another indicator that there's still numerous garbage in draft namespace that needs to be fixed. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you opposition is based on the fact that Taku objected to this in the past, then it's no longer relevant because Taku is clearly willing to agree to it now. If you were in favor of this proposal in the past, and Taku is in favor now, then wouldn't it solve the issue? — MarkH21 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Nope. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  So you’re perfectly happy with the things as they are right now???? I routinely work on the the drafts started by me and the others and finish them to the mainspace I’m lost. Maybe you just want to disrupt Wikipedia because you’re bored or something??? The problem is, as you clearly keep proving, is that you have a problem with me as an individual personally obsessively. So the only way to somehow dipersonalify the problem. This proposal can help that. —- Taku (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  I routinely work on the the drafts started by me And we determined that was a false when I can go through your edit history and find at least 10 pages created in 2014 and 2015 that have not been touched or improved except when someone has to take you to task for it. Please, dig yourself annother deep hole. Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  By “we” you mean you. I get you don’t like the way I use the draftspace, as you have amplified proved. It’s just you (and the others who are unfamiliar and misinformed or have differing point of views). The draftspace is not your toy. It doesn’t belong to you. It is the community that decides some usage is wrong or not. There is no general consensus that there is a problem with my usage of the draftspace, as the thread has shown. You’re the problem; that’s the general consensus of the thread. (Sorry, this was not called-up on). — Taku (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC) we

  If you're going to assert falsities to defend your position, any editor is right to disprove the statement. Please be so kind as to redact this personal attack as it only demonstrates which layers of the Hierarchy of Disagreement you argue from and which I do. Hasteur (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  The community has already spoken; see #Votes above. — Taku (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  You keep saying that like it authorizes your behavior. It does not. Hasteur (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Let’s step back then: there are clearly differing views on the draftspace usage. We belong to the different camps. It is not you who choose what behavior is acceptable or not. You and me both need to let the community makes a decision. There has been an ample time and the conclusion is that, while some prefer me to alter my usage in the draftspace (to make you happy), there is no consensus that my behavior is against the goal of Wikipedia as a whole. —- Taku (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  If there is really a community consensus that the long-term drafts need to be touched in some forms in a non-disruptive constructive fashions (e.g., moving out of the draftspace), this proposal at least prevents me from opposing that action. —- Taku (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Please strike your comment of 01:54 as that is commentary on the suitability of Draft Namespace and G13 and therefore a direct violation of your Topic Ban enacted here. G13 is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. What is suitable for Draft namespace is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  No reminder should be needed. Could a block be enacted please? (Colored and Bolded for attention) Buffs (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is no topic ban violation; I merely stated the fact we disagree and explain the rationale of the proposal. In your logic, I cannot even mention a topic ban or make a proposal here. That’s perverse. —- Taku (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This doesn't solve anything. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: I don’t understand: it precisely does that: many users excluding you and Hasteur are voting on the ground explained in the rationale. Letting the math project to have a control over me *precisely* solves the heart of the problem. For example, it may decide to use the project space for draft articles development. —- Taku (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• This has been going on for a disproportionately long time and is now a time sink. As a non involved admin I have reviewed all the discussions and if there is no clear consensus from admins to the contrary within the next 48 hours, I am going to effect an indef block for clear violation of the terms of the Tban per this ANI as enacted by Primefac. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, wait, that’s absolutely unfair. I agree that the patience is wearing thin. But am I the only one who is solely responsible for that? I didn’t start the thread; I am merely responding here. The discussion is dragging on because there is no clear consensus. Again that’s my fault?? I will stop editing this thread if that alleviate the topic ban concern. —- Taku (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, if it helps, I can agree with the term “I am prohibited from editing and participating in the deletion discussion of draft pages in the draftspace that are started by me over 1 year ago.” We can close the thread with that consensus to save everyone’s time. —- Taku (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung a unilateral indef block seems inappropriate. Given his block history he doesn't seem to have violated his TBAN before. Indef seems a little steep for a first offense; perhaps a month or a year? A TBAN on draftspace articles over a year or a complete TBAN of draftspace seems most appropriate given the consensus above. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: if you were going to block because of the topic ban violation highlighted above you should have just done it. Saying you're going to block for no other reason than this having become a timesink (which is accurate) but you're only going to block one of the editors involved would make your action pretty open to criticism for administrative abuse. You cannot seriously evaluate the timesink effect here without also considering Hasteur's repeated obstruction to doing anything about it that isn't deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector that's not what I said nor even implied. Guard yourself against casting aspersions or putting your own spin on my words, but if that's your take, just get on with it and close this shambles yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I side with Ivanvector on this one. I see no aspersions being cast, only reasoned criticism and alternatives to something that could be seen as contentious or heavy-handed. It was a factual description and, like my concerns, one based on the facts of this situation, not you personally. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: (of 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC))With respect, the link to the block log shows quite clearly that the @DeltaQuad: block of Feb 14 2018 included in its reasoning Topic Ban violations. As such, coupled with the continuing disruptive and tendentious editing and the age of this account that there should not be soft hands conducted with respect to this account and the voluminous discussions that have been had.Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I missed that one. However, it should be a standard escalation in blocks for a second offense (48 hours -> indef is a little steeper than the standard escalation). A couple of weeks up to a few months would make more sense to me. Buffs (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems a bit inappropriate. If I understand it correctly, this proposal from Taku is removing himself from the draft process due to concerns about his usage of Draftspace. This proposal does not regard policy discussion regarding Draft namespace nor the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace, it's a proposed delegation of these drafts to another entity. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support As a participant in WikiProject Mathematics, I think this sounds fine. (I'm not an admin, don't plan to be one, and don't generally pay attention to AN; I just drifted in from the WPM talk page.) Why not let the only people who have the background and interest to work on abstract mathematics articles decide which of these fragments are worth keeping and which might as well be discarded? Seriously, it's not that big a deal. Really: check out the list of math draft pages — it's not very long at all. check the page history, too — things do get promoted from there, even if some hang around and grow stale. And I think describing these as smelly offal is a bit uncivil. At worst, they're back-of-envelope kind of notes, not things found in the liquid at the bottom of the trash can. (I have worked to get these improved and promoted, when they fall close enough to topics that I recall from my miscellaneous studies; see tropical compactification, Macaulay representation of an integer, sphere bundle, Nakano vanishing theorem. As I said earlier, I've never felt that Taku has tried to "own" drafts he's started, in the sense of controlling their content or trying to forbid other editors from making changes.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Noting that this response appears (in my perception) to have been sollicited in a non-neutral manner in violation of WP:CANVAS Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think you know what canvassing is. Please stop trying to maximally extend your dispute. (Note that I do not take any position on the question under discussion here, just that I do not want productive fora to become further loci for unproductive arguments.) --JBL (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Under NO definition is this canvassing. Hasteur, this kind of action is why I'm promoting an IBAN on you. It's completely unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per XOR'easter. What this dispute has needed for years now is for someone else with the mathematics expertise to weigh in with a non-WP:TNT approach to the content - I'm expecting that to be something like "keep what is useful and delete the rest". If it took a mild canvas to get there then that's pretty much exactly what we wrote WP:IAR for. I support whatever XOR'easter (or anyone else from WikiProject Mathematics) thinks should be done with these. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So, you'd support some good reasoned IAR to: Redirect these topics to Mainspace articles that are close to the described topic? (Rejected by Taku) Enroll all of these drafts in the Articles for Creation process to give a clear indicator of what a 3rd party editor thinks needs to be done in order to get these drafts to mainspace (also rejected by Taku), or maybe Move these drafts to Wikiproject Mathematics space (also previously rejected by Taku), or moved to Taku's userspace (also rejected previously by Taku). It's only when significant sanctions being threatened that cause Taku to suddenly be more accomodating for a few months only to come back and quietly undo the agreement after the heat is off them. I hope you'll see that this is it a persistent problem. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  I see that that's your view of the problem, yes. In my view, the problem with all of those approaches has been that these are very specialist math topics, and none of us who have tried to move things along have had anywhere near the level of competence to properly assess them. I have some background in applied (not pure) math and in one of the cycles that these came up I tried, but they're way over my head. That, coupled with the unfortunate fact that Taku (like many academics) is just not very good at communicating specialist knowledge to those with different levels of education, and also persistently poor at following through on the stub drafts they've peppered about here and there. I'm sure part of that reluctance is a result of your persistent badgering but at some point the other shoe has to drop - as you said and I agree, the draft namespace is not for storage of one's highly technical notes on topics they might write about some day in the indefinite future. From observing this over years I have faith that Taku's behaviour has been an effort to prevent these notes from being handled improperly by editors who don't have the knowledge to handle them correctly, not just obstruction for obstruction's sake. I've been confident all along that as soon as some other specialist mathematics editors offered to take this on that it would be resolved in short order, and since they now have, I'm willing to give it a chance. But this is really, really, the end of the road for these stubs. If Taku and editors from WikiProject Mathematics don't find a use for them, and we're back here in six months with the same pages still with no significant progress, don't even post a thread, just ping me and I will mass delete the lot of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  With respect, WP:Mathematics has been tried on two occasions already so the "Some day we'll get a specialist mathematics editor who can sort it out" is not looking promising. Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  All of the drafts from those instances became articles or were deleted, and the second discussion looks like it was moreso about the temporal nature of Draft space rather than the actual drafts. Those old discussions don't seem pertinent to the proposal here. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Totally agree with XOR'easter. Again, I am interpreting this to mean that Taku steps away from the long-term fate of old math drafts. If other remedies are undesirable to others, this would work fine. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable, but it is not clear how namely can the project “decide” what to do, specifically. Holding a vote for each case would make too much distraction. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per XOR, who makes a pretty compelling case. – Levivich 05:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support As a member of the Mathematics project, I think that that project would be a much better place to resolve this issue than ANI. Paul August ☎ 01:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Except that a local consensus cannot overrule community norms. That is, a project should not be the arbiter of whether certain drafts are kept beyond the purpose of Draft space. It would be great if someone wants to develop a draft to create an article but this dispute regards the fact that no one has been doing that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not overriding community norms, it's having the project go through the drafts one-by-one and deciding on them. In my understanding, that was not attempted before and was not the point of discussion at AN or ANI before. Just because nobody has been taking care of the drafts before does not mean that nobody from the project would do so if this proposal is accepted. There are several active WPM members here advocating for the proposal. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • There is a misunderstanding because of course people are welcome to develop drafts. You don't need a resolution at this noticeboard for that. The only point is, whether a draft should be deleted if has not been developed for six months. Draft space is not supposed to be an indefinite web hosting service. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @MarkH21: since you clearly didn't read the links the first time, I invite you to read 2 previous attempts where WP Mathematics was sollicited to try and clean up the group of these drafts. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages,_again. If what you're trying to say is we have to draw the projects attention to every single outstanding issue individually, I will gladly play the game but I have to say it's exceedingly poor form to require reporters to enumerate every last defect when we've already identified a group of pages that share certain characteristics. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the accusation - very much appreciated. I did read the attempts from two and three years ago relating to a few particular drafts which were eventually assessed and relating to the explanation of the temporal nature of Draft space with Taku. With regards to this proposal, there's no need to make repeated requests at WPM. We can make a concerted continual effort to manage the list of drafts, which was not done before in my understanding.
          Regardless, this proposal seems to actually be about Taku walking away from these drafts (which I support) rather than WPM's past handling of drafts. The relation to WPM is him picking caretakers. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Your reply above to my previous pointing out the 2 previous attempts to get WPM to address this and your reply of 04:06, 6 November 2019 UTC suggest that you didn't read either one of the threads, so yes I'm going to point out where you've failed to read associated information. If you had bothered to read, you would see that in both cases I gave specific examples of the group of draft pages I expressed concerncerns about, but by all means feel free to improperly claim the moral high ground. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
            • You're incorrectly accusing me of not reading them and doubling down on maintaining that I didn't read them. I read them before, and I directly referenced them in both of my replies. You're still trying to tell me that I didn't read something? Stop being ridiculous. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 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 to close this thread

It's been too long now and this is lingering like a Sword of Damocles. Could an uninvolved admin please make a decision about the points brought up and close this? At this point, closure is better than this nebulous status. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect, we now have to consider a new aspect: As I was reviewing my previous changes, I discovered a new editor appears to be absorbing Taku's drafts: User:Math-drafts which appears to be in violation of both User name policy (suggesting this is a shared/role account) and an attempt to avoid scrutiny/frustrate the consensus of the community by moving the drafts out of draft space to a "Math-drafts" user's space in volation of Circumventing Policies/GoodHand-BadHand/and Role accounts per WP:ILLEGIT. The scope of disruption has been widened, I do not consider this fit for closure at this time. Hasteur (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I made a formal request earlier (for the oldest open proposals at least). I think anything about this new user mentioned by Hasteur is an issue (possibly requiring an SPI) that is separate from the previous proposals which can be suitably closed. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Just so there is no confusion: the declared alternative account was created simply to begin implementing some of the rough consensus above (to move some old drafts out of the draftspace) with anticipation on the closure. The account itself will not make an edit; it exists merely for the technical purpose. I am not waiting to address the general concern about old drafts in the draftspace shown in the thread. -- Taku (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hasteur I see no malfeasance or disruption by Taku in these actions. Likewise, I don't see it as an inappropriate usage of an alternative account. It is exceptionally clearly marked. Your characterization of these actions is a continuation of your incivility. You appear to be seeing misbehavior everywhere when, in fact, there is none. I request that you back off and let the community decide. You are not Taku's personal chaperone for Wikipedia. You do not have the authority or responsibility to dictate his actions.

Likewise, TakuyaMurata, I see no reason you couldn't simply put these under your own user sub-pages. There's little need for an additional account. Buffs (talk) 17:27, 7 November 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.