Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296

Discretionary sanctions enforcement review

I would like to request a review of Coffee's enforcement of discretionary sanctions concerning an edit I made to Presidency of Donald Trump (diff), together with an edit made by El cid, el campeador (diff). Both of us feel the instant imposition of blocks and the subsequent logging of our "transgressions" at the DS log (diff, diff) were unusually harsh. Both of us are experienced editors, yet we both misinterpreted the "letter of the law" concerning the sanction. Neither of us have ever been sanctioned before. It is our view that while we recognize we both made a mistake, the matter could easily have been resolved with a simple warning. Our hope is that following a review, you will consider rescinding the notations in the DS log and (if technically feasible) modifying our block logs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just as a procedural note, someone may want to consider tweaking this archive which included the open sub-thread that seems to have led up to this thread being opened in turn (or consider formally closing it if that seems appropriate). GMG^talk 15:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks both on the merits and procedurally as the blocks have expired. There were clear sanctions violations by both of you and Coffee enforced them. The fact that he was willing to sanction experienced editors should not have any impact on this at all. It is experienced editors who are most often affected by discretionary sanctions. You both clearly violated the sanctions and were blocked accordingly. This was well within the discretion of the DS system. Just because Coffee has made mistakes that got a lot of attention here recently doesn’t mean his actions in this regard were mistakes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have just informed Coffee of this discussion. A bigger, redder box may be in order. No comment on the merits of the complaint. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks - I'm afraid you clearly reinstated challenged material, and El cid clearly made more than one reversion per 24 hours. This is highlighted in yellow when you edit the page. This does not mean I have no sympathy for your plight, and these blocks don't change the fact you are both highly valuable here. However, Coffee's blocks are well within reason. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect that would somehow challenge Coffee's right to make the blocks. I'm just saying that in this particular case, warnings would've achieved exactly the same purpose and I would hope administrators would prefer to use preventative, rather than punitive measures. Coffee even said as much on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect" <-- well, I for one very much wish that this thread, or something, had a "chilling effect" on Coffee making these kinds of blocks. He's been on a sanctioning spree that's been getting out of control. He's made at least three (not counting the blocks here) bad calls - all extreme over reactions - in the past ten days or so. This is not going to end well, and having Coffee "chill out" before it gets worse is probably the best outcome here. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• And it was a valid block that expired before he lifted it. It was not one that I would have made, but it was fine within the DS system. As it expired without being lifted, I'm not seeing the point of this appeal. You were validly blocked, and it was logged. It expired. You're now aware of the sanctions in this area, and you also have been sanctioned for violating them, so keeping it in the log makes sense. I'm aware that I have been one of Coffee's defenders since he has returned, but that is because he generally does do the right thing and of late it seems like people are trying to put every action under the microscope. If he had acted in a way that was outside of policy here, I'd be willing to say it, but as it stands, he didn't in my view. I'd also like to emphasize like 78.26 that this in no way is saying that you or El Cid are not valued contributors here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not of late, TonyBallioni. Coffee's admin actions are always backed by policies and guidelines but that doesn't mean they use the best judgement in making them. Even before they went on break I had my issues with at least a couple of them, serious enough that I said something (no admin is going to agree with every action another admin takes but this is almost always shrugged off as a judgement call and nothing is said). With this situation, Coffee made a technically valid block but I don't think your "of late" clause is accurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I was saying of late because after his return of course everything he does is going to be under the microscope. I don't think that is fair, but we know it is going to happen. Coffee takes a hard line on AE, which means that some of his actions are not going to be popular. I think he might want to consider taking it slower because of the microscope effect, but that doesn't make him a bad admin.
  As I said, I would not have made this block because I personally weigh things like whether the eventual appeal would create more disruption than the block prevents, but like you said, Coffee was backed up by policies and guidelines here, and that this is nothing like the previous thread with Volunteer Marek despite what has been claimed below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• No one is saying he wasn't technically allowed to make the blocks. And you're wrong about the comparison to Marek: he was ABSOLUTELY "technically" allowed to do that as well. Arguing that the "consensus required" tenant is somehow more tangible than the "behave civilly" tenant is silly in my book, and not really central to the argument anyway. The point of this review is that while the community acknowledges that these sanctions are inherently discretionary and will vary somewhat as a result, the community absolutely DOES NOT agree to be governed by an admin that acts Trunchbull-esque or clearly displays a wanton attitude toward our expectations of his behavior. Scjessey's block (and Mareks, and the exchange that led to this) demonstrate spectacularly bad judgement that other admins (including you, Tony) avoid by thinking with cool heads and keeping the needs of the encyclopedia first. I understand you have a history with Coffee that helps you see the best of what he is capable of, but right now that's not coming through. He is a HUGE negative to the encyclopedia right now, and something needs to change. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I called on him to voluntarily rescind the Marek action, and you are wrong: I don't have a personal history with him. I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break. I am able to see the controversy that is caused, and I think there are some legitimate criticisms (in the Marek situation, a 1 day topic ban was sure to cause more drama than it solved). At the same time this review accomplishes nothing: the block was technically good, the users are unblocked now, and all it accomplishes is to let people pile on about an admin doing what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. Especially since in every one of the situations involving AE actions of late, he has either rescinded the blocks when asked to or offered to do so. I don't think that an appeal of an action that is no longer in effect and that was sure to turn into personal drama about Coffee is a positive for the encyclopedia. As I said above, this isn't personal: I was never friends with Coffee before his break. I just also don't like seeing pile-ons and will speak up when I see it happening regardless of who the user is. I think there may be valid critiques of Coffee, but those are best handled in talking to him directly and not by an appeal of a valid action that has lapsed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

" I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break" <-- As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have no idea about any profiles of his break, high or otherwise (I have caught up a bit on it in the meantime, but I'm still hella confused and out of the loop), it is simply his actions that are problematic. I think best thing would if Coffee voluntarily stepped away from administratin', particularly in the discretionary fashion, the American Politics area for awhile. Note that he's throwing out these sanctions over relatively minor incidents - believe it or not, a few IPs or fly-by-night accounts aside, there's not all that much going on in that topic area right now (prolly cuz holidays, but still). Most of these sanctions are just simply not necessary and they screw up the normal editing and consensus building process. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Look at the way Coffee uses a user's history of blocks in his arguments about why discretionary sanctions are warranted to understand why this could be viewed as "severe" by the editors on the other end of this. So what the blocks have expired? Does the bad judgment that led to the blocks also have an expiration date? Will the editors with these silly blocks on their records be subject to escalating sanctions by another judgement (either deserved or undeserved)? Surely you understand why "sweeping this under the rug" would be a net negative for everyone involved. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)This review does serve a purpose: revealing the community's expectations for admin judgement when using their most serious tool: blocking. Perhaps the tide will change, but so far, there's a pretty strong signal that admins are expected to use restraint and discretion before blocking editors, and not simply apply black-and-white thinking. In another instance, Coffee sort of considered an alternative to blocking before he blocked Casprings, by giving him 10 minutes to self-revert this edit (see user talk:Casprings#December 2017). In my experience, Casprings would have gladly self-reverted without complaint if give a reasonable opportunity to do so. He did not need to be blocked. If this review does nothing more than showing Coffee that he needs to recalibrate his approach, then it will have been worthwhile.- MrX 19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh come on! How people manage to maintain their cool with this admin should be met with the awarding of barnstars all around. "You have 10 minutes?" Look at Caspring's response, and you can get a feel for just how absurd this action was. How is this acceptable behavior? 172.56.21.117 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is a stupendously stupid block - even if technically correct that it is 'allowed'. It is not 'required'. Firstly that ridiculous consensus required DS has already caused problems like this, where it promotes a first mover advantage. Secondly blocking someone for 24 hours, 24 hours after the offense is completely pointless. BLOCKS ARE PREVENTATIVE NOT PUNITIVE, and a quiet word to Scjessey would have sufficed. Blocking with 'be told!' is overkill. This is not the first knee-jerk admin action Coffee has done recently and I think its time for a comprehensive review of their fitness to be an Admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad blocks - The purpose of Arbcom authorized discretionary sanctions is to quell disruptive behavior like edit warring, personal attacks, and POV pushing, so that we can focus on improving the encyclopedia. We are not a bureaucracy that is required to slavishly apply prescriptive remedies, otherwise admins would be required to block in all cases where page restrictions are violated. Imposing harsh penalties like blocks on volunteers editing in good faith is profoundly discouraging, harms those editors' reputations, and creates a chilling effect on everyone who wishes to edit these articles. Past behavior should have been given more consideration and a polite warning placed on these users talk pages as is common practice among many highly respected admins.- MrX 16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Postpone. User:Scjessey, If you had remembered to notify Coffee about this request, you would have seen a big notice atop both his talk page and user page saying he’s away until January 13. Would you have gone ahead with this request at this time? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary. We already know that Coffee endorses these blocks. Also, he didn't say he wouldn't be available until January 13.- MrX 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the explanation he would have given here. My question to Scjessey stands. (The notice says, “Coffee is away on vacation in Indonesia from 24 December 2017 until 13 January 2018 and may not respond swiftly to queries.”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good question. The message does not say Coffee isn't able to respond, just that responses will not be a swift as usual. If that were not the case, I would agree postponing was fair; however, I don't think postponing is necessary in this case as long as due consideration is given to Coffee's response time (if responses are needed). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Horrible block but technically sound -- That you can do something does not equate to that you shall do something. This ain't a bureaucracy where blocks are made after 24 hours of violation of a certain clause, just because they ought to be. And, then, AGF et al. Winged Blades^Godric 16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad blocks, and not the only recent bad admin action/poor judgement, either. See [1]. Others have complained as late re: similar behavior from this admin - just look at the comments in the linked AN discussion. This is not an isolated incident. The following comment may be controversial and will probably be criticized, but perhaps, because of how and why he was "on break" for months, Coffee's return should have been addressed differently and with some monitoring? What we're seeing now in the way of his judgement certainly seems to speak to a need for...something (different than the status quo). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder why you feel that way https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AWinkelvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.13.199 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why you aren't logging in with your actual account and are, instead, being a coward. I fully admit I have a long block log and a history of edit warring, my last block being delivered by Coffee. That said, my comments regarding his recent actions have nothing to do with that block. My concern is for the harm he's doing by what appears to be a misuse of the power of the tools -- both to the editors he's sanctioning and blocking, his reputation, and the trust editors need to have toward administrators. Someone pegged it very nicely above: what Coffee is doing leaves a chilling effect and dissuades editors from editing. Certainly, that's not what admin actions are supposed to do. When that kind of thing happens, we all lose. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified Endorse Blocks This looks like it falls well within the guidelines for a legit block and that means it's a judgement call. I am not seeing anything that suggests that this was outside the bounds of reason. That said, I don't think I would have done it. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Excepting those situations that obviously fall under the broad heading of NOTHERE I tend to take a very restrained approach to blocking. To my mind anything other than a NOTHERE block should be a last resort, done only after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and where there is a strong likelihood of continued disruption absent a block. I don't think this situation meets that test. But again it is a judgement call and I do believe that this falls within the guidelines under admin discretion. And to be fair, I have been criticized a few times for my reluctance to drop the hammer in situations where others thought the need was real and immediate. [To block, or not to block. That is the question.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would go so far as to request Coffee not admin in any ARBCOM DS area. He has shown time and time again to give out blocks that are not really necessary, even if they may be appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is evidence of someone just wielding power because they can rather than someone trying to prevent disruption because they need to. Definitely NOT what admins are supposed to do or are entrusted with when given the tools. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say "technically allowed", because truly preventative blocks can't be unnecessary yet still be appropriate. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Coffee in this particular matter based on these particular facts. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if every clear violation of discretionary sanctions results in some amount of administrative action. The point of having rules is to ensure equality. Discretion is fine when the matter is unclear, and it is also fine even in clear cases as to the degree of administrative action. But more discretion than that guarantees inequality. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Edited18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Aren't administrator standards of behavior and appropriate use of the tools what should be supported rather than individual administrators? Your "Support" !vote sounds more like you're approaching the issue as if it's a popularity contest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying with the edited and underlined commentary above, Anythingyouwant. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's wait until Coffee returns - As someone who had Coffee strip his editing privileges (and later reinstated, though without apology or explanation), it might sound odd for me to suggest this. I think that Coffee, making certain blocks immediately before his holiday was a stupid, stupid move; you just don't do that if you aren't going to bearound to defend those actions - you. just. don't. That said, others here have said that the blocks, though malformed, solved the problem. While I think that suggesting that its all fine because it worked out is like saying that murdering 11 million people is a great way to open up the housing market.
Coffee should have the opportunity to defend his actions, and clearly needs to. While it absolutely sucks for those affected by those actions (and there's little to be done to recompense those affected if Coffee is found to have taken bad action), I think we have to be fair, and allow Coffee the opportunoty to solve the problem that he has created. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree if Scjessey was asking for Coffee to be desysopped: he's not though. He's asking for an assessment by the rest of us to determine if there is consensus to get the not-so-great blocks off of his "permanent record", as it were. We don't really need Coffee for that (and if there is any question about what Coffee might think about it, it might be helpful to take a look at the linked archived section). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks as procedure and note that best practice is difficult to determine. As others have stated, these blocks are sound and are within the letter of policy—this is not controversial. Whether the implementation of these blocks reflected best practice (and good judgment) is less clear. If I had been monitoring the situation, I would not have blocked El cid, el campeador. The violation there was technical—a simple note letting him know that he should not revert a second time to enforce the discretionary sanctions would have sufficed (in my judgment). Another issue raised is that the blocks came 24 hours after both editors had stopped editing the article. Late blocks often appear to be punitive rather than preventative; however, late blocks are often made in order to deter future disruptive behavior (WP:BLOCKP). This is another area where Coffee had to make a judgment call—making judgment calls often appears arbitrary. My reading of Coffee's response to Scjessey was that Coffee was attempting to be consistent with his procedures for discretionary sanction offenders. Consistent standard operating procedures reduce the arbitrariness of discretionary-sanction enforcement, though it does tend to lend an air of heavy-handedness. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of arbitrary lenience, but it is not clear that this is the better approach.

Regarding the request for relief from Scjessey by a modification of the editors block logs or DS log entries: (1) The block log cannot be modified. The only way your block log could have an additional note added to it is by an administrator blocking you again for one second with an explanatory note. I doubt that another administrator is willing to do this without Coffee's agreement, though we have yet to hear from Coffee on this matter (and I doubt he will do this). (2) The DS log is both there to log violators and to log administrator actions, so I do not think it would be appropriate to rescind the note. It would be possible to add a sub-item linking to this discussion when it concludes--which there will likely be consensus to do. Malinaccier (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Scjessey:, re. block logs being unchangeable, this indicates otherwise. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Malinaccier: and @Scjessey: More evidence that the block logs are INDEED changeable [2]. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. Everyone knows that the block log is technically changeable via revision deletion and/or oversight. It is long standing policy that that would be considered misuse. Any admin doing so would be risking a lot. And besides, there isn't even consensus that this was a bad block to begin with. --Majora (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• If it wasn't your intent perhaps mind your wording next time, but the gist I got from your note is that you absolutely believe it can't be modified, and I linked to a longstanding admin who says otherwise. As far as consensus: this was a bad block. Almost every non-admin commenting has said as much. As for the admins themselves: almost none say they would have performed the block, though admit it is "technically" sound (yes, those were ironic quotes based on your last comment). This block violated the spirit of the trust that the community places in admins... Perhaps there's an argument to be made about DS in general, and I would certainly be interested in that. It doesn't change the crux of the issue here, though, which is that two four+ editors were blocked, banned, or had special permissions removed based on one admin's poor judgment. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Where do I even start. First wikt:technically has more than one definition. Technically as in based in the facts and technically as in software. Perhaps you should pick up on the differences? Second, just from counting (yes consensus isn't a vote blah blah blah) there are eight people who say they endorse the block and five who say it isn't (one of which actually lands on both sides saying it is a bad block but technically correct). As for non-admins or not, that has nothing to do with anything. Just like we allow IPs to voice their opinions with the same weight we allow non-admins to voice theirs. Everything as the same weight. Then, going by actual arguments, and not counting (which consensus actually is) there is pretty clear consensus that the blocks were perfectly within policy. Ergo, not anywhere near the level that would require breaking rev'del policy to modify the block log. If you want to change policy there are plenty of avenues to do so. This isn't one of them. Stop getting off topic. Stop complaining about how the policy is written and use what is currently accepted. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• You sum up my thoughts better than I could. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'll just add that I think that is an excellent exposition of the situation (both this specific one and DS in general). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that, recent events aside, if more admins were actively watching the American Politics pages and preemptively blocking DS violations, we would not have a small number of POV editors disrupting the area and driving long-time solid contributors away from this topic area. AE is a zoo just like ANI and the purpose and intent of DS has been vitiated by the unwillingness of Admins to enforce sanctions against obvious and persistent disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 Arkon (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctantly Endorse blocks as within DS policy. I'm torn by things like this, because I seriously dislike the way DS violations are often handled, and I think there are too many heavy-handed authoritarians working DS. That's largely why I steer clear of DS - because it frustrates me the way too often a good editor who has made a minor mistake gets blocked (or whatever) when a friendly word could have achieved so much more and left people a lot happier. Did Coffee deal with this in the best way? Not by a mile, in my view. Would I have made the blocks in question? Absolutely not. But Coffee's action falls within the currently-accepted range of options he had at his disposal. (And I just want to add that this does show good faith.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad block - Coffee's blocking of both editors was punitive to say the least, Yes both editors reverted after 24h however there should've been a stern warning from any DS-enforcer or another admin beforehand .... IMHO this was a bad block by far. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to time served Enforcement is preventative. We make judgements based on overall contributions as well as technical violations. There is no indication that continuing the sanction will protect the project. We don't need "examples." We certainly don't need sanctions on editors that now clearly understand why they were sanctioned. This is not a referendum on Coffee, it's an assessment of whether sanctions are required. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The blocks no longer exist, so I'm a bit confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Malinaccier: I appreciate your explanation of why it isn't technically feasible to amend my block log, and why it isn't appropriate to remove the corresponding entry from the DS log because of its dual purpose. Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I accept it will not be possible to get "relief" for what has occurred (although I cannot personally speak for El cid, el campeador, of course). If the ultimate outcome of this review is just to encourage Coffee (and other administrators) to more often issue warnings before pulling the block trigger on matters concerning discretionary sanctions, I will be satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As would I. Or maybe just, oh I don't know, ask questions? That seems easier than trying to squeeze toothpaste back into the tube. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks. It being "harsh" is totally irrelevant in my view. Technically, you broke discretionary sanctions. It is what it is. Mistakes happen and there really isn't a whole lot that can be done since the block was completely within currently accepted policy (which of course can always be changed if need be either through an arbcom amendment or via community consensus at the pumps). We expect (or at least I expect) that admins will follow and apply currently accepted policy evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Which is what happened here. There really isn't much anyone can do anyways. Block logs are permanent and striking it from the DS log page would just remove a useful link back. You are both still valued editors in any case. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks: There was no abuse of discretion here. Just because we wouldn't have blocked ourselves doesn't render the blocks improper or abusive. That's the nature of discretionary sanctions: The sanctioning admin is given great deference. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - a lot of the trouble here is caused by this ridiculous "consensus required to undo any kind of edit" provision (I know that's not what it says, but that is what it amounts to in practice). Which of course was invented by Coffee. This DS has been subject of numerous AE reports, it's confusing as hell (which edit is the one being challanged and which one is the challanger?), it's easy to game, it's easy to trip up over, it just fuels the WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area. All of this has already been said at WP:AE by editors and admins alike. Somewhat unsurprisingly, editors who edit tend to hate it, admins are split with some for, some against. There's enough "for" that the sanction has not been removed or rescinded. Some of the admins who are "for" argument is simply that it'd be a pain in the ass to remove it since Coffee has slapped it on so many pages - which is a particularly lazy, stupid, argument. Anyway. After my latest run in with this piece of bureaucratic dog poop I've been considering starting an outright "petition" or RfC on the "consensus required" sanction. Because of lack of time (holidays and all) I haven't gotten it together. Furthermore, I actually think it crucial that admins who administrate at WP:AE do NOT provide input - the petition should be limited to editors who actually edit the topic (which does include some admins, like User:MelanieN. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone who's reasonably active in the topic area, whatever their POV, ideology, religion, favorite OS, feelings about the last Star Wars movie, hates the provision. Which means that most likely it really is a very bad idea. Might around to it soon. In the meantime, the bureaucratic machine and love of silly, counter productive rules-for-rules sake, marches on. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  It takes all of a 20 minutes to throw together a RfC. An hour if you really need to think about it that hard. Or request a clarification from ArbCom as to the exact nature of this area. All of which is prescribed in normal proceedings. Seeing as post-1932 American politics is incredibly large it is logical to think that an enormous amount of articles falls under this DS. As for Coffee "making things up". No. That is part of the policy as well. An admin is allowed to impose prohibitions on the addition and removal of content as they see fit per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page restrictions. It really seems like you are on more of a crusade against Coffee than anything else. And limiting anyone from participating in a RfC is really not going to fly. Everyone gets their say. That is how Wikipedia works. --Majora (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

To "throw" one together, yes, maybe 20 minutes. To do it right takes a bit more work. Like diffs and past statements from WP:AE, WP:ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages, all the sanctions and why they were problematic etc. And all that takes a lot of time digging through histories. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer doing it right rather than doing it sloppy (and in fact, I'm not sure if RfC is the best way to go).

And yes, Coffee "made it up". I didn't say he wasn't allowed to do it. I said he "made it up". And just because "he saw fit" that does not in any way, shape, or form, imply that this was a good thing.

And no, I'm not on a "crusade against Coffee" (nice attempt at poisoning the well there, by the way). I'm on a crusade against a stupid restriction.

"You are complaining about how policy is written and then say that you don't have time to change policy" <-- Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm complaining about a policy (more precisely a discretionary sanction, not a policy), because it's a bad one, and yes, I don't have time to try and change it right now. What's confusing about that? Volunteer Marek 05:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not have any particular comment on the block here, but I intend to open a thread here about Coffee's use of the DS remedy "consensus required", when he returns from vacation. Kingsindian ♝ 

♚ 07:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:AC/DS is not policy and it does not have a "nature" that can't be altered. It is a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process. The idea that it should give admins the freedom to do anything they please is troubling. WP:ADMINACCT is still a thing. WP:AC/DS#guide.expect is clear that such sanctions should foster an environment of following policy and the purpose of Wikipedia, and preventing editors from gaming the system. That is not happening here. We have a broken editing restrictions slapped (sometimes preemptively) on multiple pages, by an admin who stays around long enough to block good faith contributors, and is then absent for weeks or months at a time. On top of that, the SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks that cause about 90% of the disruption use the editing restrictions to game the system.- MrX 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @MrX: I feel compelled to correct your misunderstanding of discretionary sanctions, if not for your sake then at least for the sake of anyone reading this in the future. AC/DS is authorised by the Arbitration Committee under its authority under the WP:Arbitration Policy, which enjoys very broad consensus among the community. Further, the procedure was reviewed and overhauled in a review a few years ago which saw wide participation from community members. It is used in topic areas plagued by disputes and partisan or disruptive editing, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and allows admins to take swift action to deal with disruptive editors or prevent disputes from getting out of hand. You may disagree with its application, but to say that it's a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process [to] give admins the freedom to do anything they please is simply not an accurate statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @HJ Mitchell: It may be authorized by the Arbitration Policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself, so I believe my statement was technically correct (see what I did there?). I was not aware of a review and overhaul a few years ago. Is this it: WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? If so, I'm not finding the wide participation. If not, would you mind linking the correct discussion?- MrX 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @MrX: It's not a policy in its own right, but it derives its authority from the ArbPol. Further, discretionary sanctions are authorised for individual topic areas as arbitration remedies. There's not really anywhere to go with questioning the legitimacy of discretionary sanctions. You'd have much more success starting a discussion about their application by admins. And yes, you got the right review (that was longer ago than I thought, I'm getting old!). It's a bit of a trail of breadcrumbs, I grant you, but the discussion took place on the talk page and is archived on subpages, starting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review/Archive 1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, if we had an RfC tomorrow to do away with discretionary sanctions all together I would strongly support. It's a backdoor way for ArbCom to unilaterally rewrite our policies on blocking and banning, it creates an ungodly complex bureaucratic labyrinth that's nearly completely indecipherable for new users, mostly seems to just send drama to AE instead of ANI, when AE is mostly just a more annoyingly formatted version of ANI anyway, mandates the use of BITEY templates that come off BITEY no matter how carefully they're used, and as often as not are used to stifle open discussion and bold editing as anything else. When they're used unilaterally (as everyone who is want to complain about AE is quick to wish for) it often comes off as daddy meting out spankings (as in this case), especially when it's admins handing out comparatively seemingly arbitrary sanctions to editors who are not seldom every bit as experienced on the project as they are. It's an open invitation for gratuitous public wiki-lawyering, because it's apparently the only place on the project where we collectively care much more about the letter rather than the spirit of "policy", even though, as pointed out above, it's not really policy at all, but rather a pronouncement from ArbCom, that has the effect of policy, despite coming from a body that is explicitly forbidden from unilaterally changing policy. To make matters worse, they rarely go away, even in instances where they haven't been used in several years, ensuring that when they eventually do get used, it will probably be from an admin who's never applied it, and a user who didn't even know it existed until they were given a nice BITEY template sure to do nothing but escalate the situation anyway.

This right here is exactly what you get when you turn sysops into authority figures rather than consensus enacters who mostly make unilateral decisions in cases where the action is so obviously warranted that a discussion would largely be a waste of time. We'd all be doing ourselves a favor if we collectively decided to ignore discretionary sanctions all together, and that goes for everyone, not just sysops. GMG^talk 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The discretionary sanctions in general are helpful. Only that one by Coffee is definitely not helpful. This is an entirely new type of editing restriction unilaterally invented by Coffee. I do not think that inventing new types of restrictions and modifying DS templates by individual admins has been intended and authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant. Template:Ds (linked to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. This can be a matter of clarification. Here is link to latest AE discussion initiated by Kingsindian. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it was closed nearly a month ago. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• • FWIW, I think its a positive sanction and that the other options are actually much more susceptible to gaming than it is, but that's neither here nor there for this thread. We've reached consensus to change that template to include parameters so it is not the default. We just need to implement that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this restriction, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This is not a helpful restriction for two reasons. First, it is frequently not obvious which consensus exists on the article talk page (a de facto consensus frequently exists even if this is not an officially closed discussion). Second, it may be not obvious if an edit represents insertion of new material challenged through reversion (the content could be included long time ago in the stable version of the page, removed some time ago, recently re-included, and then "challenged through reversion"). I do not think there are such concerns in the example leading to this complaint/thread. That was an obvious violation. However, many other cases previously discussed on WP:AE were not at all obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just to summarize, I think one needs a confirmation by Arbcom or a consensus of admins on WP:AE to create new types of sanctions. They should not be unilaterally invented and implemented by individual admins. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• (Redacted)

• Back history. You're close to another block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone care to collapse this? A lad insane talk 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't support Coffee's action as they seem to have created more disruption than they protected. I would just comment that the support in this thread for his action when he returns to editing will possibly strengthen his resolve to continue in the same vein, resulting in more disruption more threads of this kind in the future. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• The blocks were quite proper by the letter of the law, but poor blocks by the spirit. For a good-faith editor with no track record of disruption in the topic area, a stern warning would have been sufficient, followed by a block if the warning was not heeded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  While this is not really the place for this as it is further discussing the merits of current policy I feel it is food for thought in the eventually RfC that I don't doubt will come about eventually. If we allow admins to go by the "spirit" of policy then it leads to uneven enforcement and confusion as to what would actually occur (if I get caught by admin A I'd be fine but admin B I won't). Uneven enforcement is much worse in my mind than what has currently occurred. As I said above, I expect admins to enforce our rules evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Failing that leads to stratification of editors. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  I couldn't disagree more. When we're dealing with good-faith editors who have slipped up or lost their temper, any admin action should be the minimum necessary to restore order. In some cases, a warning or a gentle reminder is enough; in others, blocks or topic bans might be necessary. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. If they had been intended as system of fixed consequences for certain actions, ArbCom would have said as much. But such would be anathema to the idea that blocks etc are "preventative" rather than "punitive". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  I was going to say what HJ Mitchell said above but he has said it clearer. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say expectations of administrators and role of administrators lay out this spirit quite well within the law. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction. is as much the letter of the law as the letter of the law that allows these blocks. So is the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @Galobtter:. Much of the disagreement in this thread reflects the incompleteness of that page. I see no definition of Discretionary Sanctions. I see no clear differentiation between "sanctions" placed on an editor, "sanctions" in the sense of editing restrictions per page/topic, and "sanctions" in the sense of the broad restrictions imposed via an Arbcom ruling. One of many resulting ambiguities is the unresolved question as to how the annual topic-wide DS notice on a user talk page would warn the editor as to which articles and which unique restrictions apply to a contemplated edit. But most importantly, to return, is there any place where a definition of Discretionary Sanctions is published on WP? Perhaps I just don't know where to look. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I noticed when you endorsed the block Coffee gave me, you did not weigh in on the fact the block was given 29 hours after the violation. Given that the edit I performed was quickly reverted and then there was no further violations by anybody for over a day before Coffee then came in and swung his hammer, do you still think it was a good block? The long period between action and reaction is what troubles me here, because it was clearly a block of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I did. I would not have made the block myself (I am not generally one for making behavioral blocks of experienced users, especially in that time frame), but like Mendaliv says, just because I wouldn't have done so doesn't make the block outside policy. I also think that Majora's statement above is worth considering: Coffee tries to apply the policy and sanctions consistently to all users, which I think is commendable, especially in a field as contentious as arbitration enforcement. Combined with the fact that the sanctions are expired now, there is no reason to alter the DS log. I do think Coffee should take some of the criticism on board, but I think the people who are all but claiming he has gone off the rails are making things out to be much worse than they actually are. There is a good faith way to read these sanctions, and Majora has provided it. When read that way and in light of policy and all the other factors, I see no case for amending the DS log. I also stress that I still think you and El Cid are valuable contributors and that these blocks do not change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, when I opened this thread I did not mean it to be a "Coffee pile on" or anything like that. It just bugged me that the blocks had been issued for no apparent reason other than to punish two useful editors for minor transgressions that were already well into the past. I am not familiar with Coffee's work as an administrator, but if this is truly an example of him trying to be "consistent" with enforcement, then I think his general approach to this kind of thing is in dire need of scrutiny. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bad blocks. I didn't see this thread until just now, and I find it most distressing. Blocking two longterm good faith editors, without a warning immediately beforehand and/or a fair hearing at WP:AE, is distressing. I don't know why Coffee has seemingly become a "shoot first, ask questions later" administrator upon his return to Wikipedia, but this does make me question his current suitability for adminship unless he dials things way down and stops his aggression. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional Review Request

I would also like to submit my block for review. I made this revert [3] after reading the edit summary about wikilinks but seeing the wholesale removal of material. I therefore reverted an logged off. User:coffee left this warning [4] and followed that up with [5] . I had logged off and did not see either warning before I was blocked [6] . He unblocked me after a request [7] . Casprings (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just gonna be blunt, giving a user ten minutes to comply with an order is stupid to the point of being an abuse. I think Coffee needs to slow down or even stop. This is not the sort of judgement I like from an admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• The block was lifted and he noted that he Fully trust Casprings will hold to their word. You honestly can't find a more gracious unblock than that. You were aware of the sanctions in the area, and clearly violated them. I think the 10 minute warning was what has raised the most controversy about that block, and I'd encourage Coffee not to give time-limited warnings in the future because I think there is a rough consensus among administrators that they aren't particularly effective, but if he had blocked you without giving a warning he would have been fully justified based on the page level sanctions. People might not like the consensus required sanction, but it has never been overturned at any of the appeals raised against it, and it still must be followed. I don't see anything to review here given that Coffee lifted the block and the block was for a clear sanctions violation closely following when the sanctions occurred. Tl;dr endorse the block, and there is nothing to review here since it has been lifted and that has been noted at the logs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• You're right. Casprings should be grateful he was blocked, so he could be unblocked with such cordiality. *insert eye roll*. I used to trust your judgment, Tony. I sincerely thought I could turn to you as a lowly IP if I ever got into a rub. Your inability to see what is at issue here really disturbs me. Please take your admin hat off for a second to try to understand where these editors are coming from, without defending another poor decision based on technicalities. If anything, the fact that Coffee wielded that 10 minute timer around should elucidate his punitive, not preventative mentality behind the block to you. Cliff notes version: it a'int so great. 24.96.130.81 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I hope you still feel that you can come to me as an IP, because I would take your concerns seriously, just as I take your comments now. I try to judge all situations based on the evidence and the circumstances, and that includes if need be defending unpopular admin actions, just as I will stick up for IPs when I feel they are being mistreated. I do get the concerns, and if you look at what I have said in these threads, I acknowledge that people have concerns with Coffee's actions, and I think he should take them on board in the future. That does not mean that the blocks were bad: they were within discretion based on the policy. I think the 10 minute warning was a bad idea. He shouldn't use them again in the future. That doesn't mean that the sanctions weren't clearly within policy (they were as there was an unambiguous sanctions violation), nor change the fact that he quickly unblocked and made a comment reflecting positively shows that he did take the concerns of blocked individual into account.
  What I do not like seeing here is that we are asking for sanctions to be amended after the fact when they clearly were within policy, which seems to have been jumpstarted by one sanction being overturned against Volunteer Marek. Especially considering Coffee isn't here to defend explain his actions. There is a difference between expressing concerns that an admin might need to take it slower on AE actions and overturning valid actions that I might not have personally done. I think the latter makes the already difficult to manage discretionary sanctions system even more difficult to work in for administrators, and goes in line with SPECIFICO's comments above. Coffee should take into account valid criticism here, but that is not grounds for overturning an AE action. I hope that better explains my position: it is not saying that there are not things to look at, but that removing sanctions from the log that were validly imposed and have already lifted does not seem like a good standard to set, and would make DS more difficult to work in. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Arbitration enforcement administrator comment (aka Coffee - still on vacation) - I will take all of the above comments, criticisms and concerns into account as is my duty to do so. Enforcing Arbitration rulings is by far the most difficult task on this site for administrators, and indeed many admins won't even touch the area for fear of being taken to this board or any other stress inducing forum. However, I am always fully willing to explain my actions if need be. In this case the actions are exactly what they look like: 1. a 24 hour block on Scjessey for violating what is known as the "consensus required restriction". A process which is explained in detail on the talk page of the article, and which users are warned about in the editnotice prior to making their edit. 2. a 24 hour block on El cid, el campeador for violating the 1RR restriction, which is likewise warned about and explained. - I did not make these actions lightly. These are indeed long-standing users in our community, and it was not a move I took any enjoyment from as such. But, being long-standing in the community is not an exemption from our Arbitration Committee's decisions to reduce bad conduct on the site. And both editors had conducted themselves in a manner that was prohibited on the article by the discretionary sanctions system. So therefore they got the same blocks I would have placed on Jimbo if he had done the same thing. - What concerns me here however is that it appears that Scjessey (and this may just be pure coincidence, but it doesn't rub me that way) deliberately decided to make this noticeboard request when I was going to be offline. I'll explain how that makes sense right after I ping Jack, whom also was asking about my planned absence. @Jack Sebastian: While what you're talking about is likely the incident that I barely remember between myself and the former President of Wikimedia Australia and another sysop who used to be active (and who also regained their tools fairly quickly after the incident) I'm not sure it holds relevance here (I get how they can be seen as related as I was an administrator, but I don't believe my tools were ever used by the other editor in that incident). However, I will briefly explain that the decision made about 8 or so years ago by the way, way back ArbCom was done per the standard procedure which existed back then, wherein administrators could regain their tools - if stipulated as such by Committee ruling - after contacting ArbCom via email instead of requesting an RFA. As ArbCom felt another RFA was not required (due to my tools not ever being abused during the 24-48 hours the password was maintained), I simply asked for them back once I had been granted a high level clearance in the U.S. government, since I felt that showed I could be trusted to not act like an idiot again - which was verifiable (the clearance... not my idiocy of course, haha... that's still to be determined by the court of public opinion) - and ArbCom agreed, that since I knew I had been a complete idiot at the time and had given my word I wouldn't ever do something like that again, that I could have them back. - Back to the thread at hand: I asked Scjessey if they wanted the restriction lifted from their record entirely right here. This offer is what I commonly extend to first time offenses if the user states they are willing to adhere to the standards required going forward. This user simply ignored this offer, but said the block had expired and they didn't think they had done wrong, but they might have. Which is a worrying statement for anyone in my shoes, as such "gray area" replies makes it nearly impossible to tell if the user will continue the behavior. As such, I did not re-post my offer nor strike the action from their record (at WP:AC/DSL). They could have contacted me further... they did not. They also did not post a notification to my talk page when they opened this thread. Something I find hard to believe they were not aware is required. Perhaps others see what I see here: a blatant attempt to have a review of an administrator's actions without them being present. It's not that I hold issue with doing so, I just hold issue with not contacting me in any way to have the record changed before they came here... when there was literally ample opportunity to do so. I did all I could to make sure my absence would happen in such a way that continuity of administration would run smoothly in this area, which is why I had been watching both user's talkpages after the blocks (which were set to expire before my flight out of the country). El cid did not even make an unblock request (well Scjessey didn't either, but they at least commented after their block) nor express any concern that I can see before their block expired and did not contact me at any point to complain about the action. If they had, I would have gladly discussed it with them. I wouldn't have lifted the action however, as this was not their first edit-warring block (even though it was their first AE block for edit-warring). To the rest of the concerns, as I said, I intend to take them to heart. And I always welcome constructive criticism at my talk page. And I am always, always willing to change my action if someone can show me where my logic has failed (or even if an admin just truly trusts that the user won't commit a similar violation again - preventative > punishment). ArbCom has left us with a difficult task, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make difficult actions just because I'm about to make a trip. I didn't ignore the fact that I was about to leave nor not take the trip into account when making the blocks as I said above, but simply having a life outside of the site I volunteer for should not be cause for peeling back good, policy bound administrative actions that need to be done to maintain proper editing order. - I am willing to take any further questions you all might have, but be advised I will be offline again within the next few hours to travel and for more transiting tomorrow upon awaking. This trip had been in the works for the past year... I could not change the date of the wedding I was invited to participate in by the groom (especially when the Secretary of The Cabinet for the President of Indonesia was attending, among other dignitaries - and even more so, when the actual President is expected to be attending the second wedding I'm in transit to tomorrow). I truly wouldn't just go offline for just any trip when I'm working in these areas, I assure you. I fully hold myself to the standards expected by ArbCom, which is why I informed the Committee to expect my absence. Happy New Year to all! Please ping me if you reply. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Casprings block (which I just noticed is apparently also mentioned in a recent part of this jumbo thread) was perhaps hasty if viewed as some sort of punishment but I don't believe this can be seen as the case from a prevention stand-point (which is where all blocks should be made from in my understanding); I don't believe it was in error, as a clear violation actually occurred. The 10 minute requirement was simply an olive branch... not something I even needed to do (and apparently might have actually caught less flack if I had just blocked immediately, which is really confusing for any AE admin), as the Arbitration Committee has permitted immediate blocks if the user has been made aware of the active sanctions (which to my understanding they fully had been alerted per procedure on their talk page within the last year) and still violated page restrictions. However, I did indeed reverse my action once the user informed me that they would comply in the future, in exactly the manner as the offer I extended to Scjessey. I am more than willing to answer questions about this action as well (here or at my talkpage). But, I currently believe this action holds up to scrutiny as well. If not, I will gladly change how I enforce in like manner in the future (it is my understanding that an active ARCA is supposed to be clarifying this particular type of action for AE admins like myself at any rate, and I can assure you I will follow any motions decided upon exactly as they are decreed - as I have always striven to do). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I really think the consensus required provision should have been lifted during the last discussion at AE. This had a lot of support but no one was eager to lift it until Coffee is persuaded as the imposing admin. I think DS are important to keep things cool in a contentious areas, but consensus required has usually cased more problems than its solved, like we are seeing in this discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Only the Arbitration Committee can change that wording now as I will not be, since I have seen how well it works at Donald Trump (as almost every editor there has confirmed... even some who have gotten sanctions levied against them). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"since I have seen how well it works at Donald Trump (as almost every editor there has confirmed" <-- This is simply not true. Neither part. It has NOT worked well. All it has done is made a difficult situation worse and acerbated the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere in the area. Instead of discussing things and hashing out disagreements on talk, editors simply run to WP:AE and try to get their opponents sanctioned. Nobody understands what exactly the sanction entails - although in some cases it may be clear what is the "challenged" edit and what is the "challanger" edit, in many cases this is ambiguous. It has made article improvement difficult and has granted a veto-right to single editors, including fly-by-night, newly created account. It has been quite negative, if not a complete disaster.

It is also not true that "almost every editor there has confirmed". This is some wishful thinking on Coffee's part, at best (it even reads like a presidential tweet even). Who are these "almost every editors"? As has already been pointed out (by Seraphim System right above but also by others), whenever the matter has actually come up, among the content editors working in the topic area, as well as at least half the admins at WP:AE, there was significant support for removing the restriction - because everyone knows that it HASN'T worked. It's just that bureaucratic inertia and the institutional tendency of admins always supporting admins, even against content editors, that the restriction was left in place because no one wanted to step on Coffee's toes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask, who exactly created the exact parameters, strictures, and wording of the DS (seen, for example, here in the yellow box: [8]), and when, where and why was it done? (I'd also like to point out that Coffee was absent from Wikipedia for 8 months prior to December, and is therefore largely unaware of the current controversies and problems surrounding DS.) Softlavender (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The template is here. Coffee filled it out to mirror the restrictions found on the talk page template. You can see the history of that template here, including the history of the rather confusing "firm consensus" provision. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I absolutely did not know you were on vacation until another editor noted the fact in the thread above. Moreover, I simply forgot to notify you I had opened the thread, and even apologized for it as soon as someone mentioned it. You are completely off base with my motivation for opening the thread, and I would hope that going forward you would assume good faith. I had basically accepted the matter and moved on (as I indicated and then reiterated). Later, however, I was "pinged" by this edit from MrX and it got me thinking about the circumstances of my block, with the long delay before blocking in particular. I mentioned it here, and was told I should start a different discussion. It was only after I consulted the other editor involved that I decided to open this thread. And since you mentioned you consulted my block log and found an eight-year-old block to point at as additional justification for your action, but evidently didn't think my unblemished record since that time was relevant, I am entirely convinced I did the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Scjessey: First, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here if you so ask. But, that brings up a totally different question: why didn't you make a single attempt to contact me before coming to this noticeboard (especially) if you thought I was active, when I had already offered to lift the action if you promised to comply in the future (which includes understanding what you have to comply with as I mentioned above). The block was preventative and always will be. Second, I'm not sure if you read what I wrote correctly, but I said there were no actions that I could find of yours that I took into account, which is why I extended the offer at all: it was a first time offense. I took El cid's block log into account (not yours), when deciding to not leave an offer for El cid, as it held a very relevant piece of data within about 3 or so years time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: First of all, I apologize for misreading "I wouldn't have lifted the action however, as this was not their first edit-warring block" - I thought you were referring to my block log. With that out of the way, let me ask you a few questions:

1. If the block was "preventative", why did you wait 29 hours until after my transgression before enacting it?
2. Why didn't you think to question my edit on my talk page before enforcing the block, as most administrators indicate they would've done?
3. Isn't offering to "lift the sanction" after it had already expired not really much of an offer at all? (Context: it has been explained to me above that it isn't possible to edit block logs, or advisable to delete entries from the DS log, and I interpreted "lift the sanction" as ending the block, rather than any other action).
4. If you determined El cid's previous block for edit warring was relevant when deciding to block again, but my log didn't show anything relevant, why did we both get the same block length?

Finally, you ask why I did not approach you directly, which is a fair question. My answer is that I was seeking a review of your actions (as indicated in the thread title), and seeking relief (if technically possible) from the sanction if a consensus formed that your action had been inappropriate. I think any sort of review must be independent, rather than any sort of "self review" process. I hope this makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Before I delve into your other 4 points, I would like to table them while we hash out my first concern. Do you realize that I was offering to remove the sanction entirely at one point? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: No, I did not realize that. I thought you were offering to end the already-expired block. If I misunderstood, then I am sorry this review has caused you so much trouble. I'm still a bit miffed about the other stuff (the 29-hour delay in particular), but much of the air has gone out of my outrage balloon. I can see you have a few other things on your plate, so feel free to circle back when you have time. Hopefully, the thread won't be prematurely archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Then it looks like this may be a large misunderstanding. I am happy to strike the record of your sanction if you can give me your word you will abide by the any discretionary sanctions you run into in the future - page restrictions and otherwise. The block was made at the time it was made due to (I believe my memory is serving me correct here... but I'm starting to cut it close to the time I need to head offline to ensure I make my next flight at 4am so my mind is a touched stressed, and might not have this right) you having already been in discussions with other editors about your edit but you hadn't reverted it yet. This is because the way Arbitration rulings are usually enforced is with a very hard stick, and once editors have been informed of sanctions existing in the topic-area administrators expect them to already be editing in a fashion that is proactively ensuring restrictions and whatnot are not being violated. It sadly always comes across as punitive, but I assure you such actions are meant to be preventative (including attempting to prevent a mass influx of the same types of edits, even from different users... as was the case all across the Trump topic area before the DS system currently in place was implemented [and continues to be the case every single time someone succeeds at a DS challenge, unfortunately lots of gaming is afoot due to the contentious nature of the topic - something which caused me to have to run to ARCA several times last year to ensure I was properly enforcing ArbCom's intent]). The reason for the 24 hour block is that it is the minimum for a 1st offense AE block. While El cid had indeed violated our edit-warring policy before, they had not been blocked for violating an AE restriction... so as I understand ArbCom's intent, such offenses still receive the standard 24, which escalates from there if further issues are identified. The reason for the 10 minutes was actually in my eyes to be nice... I didn't intend that warning to come off as assholic. The reason I saw it from this perspective was that you had (as far as I recall) already been in a discussion regarding the particular edit, so I considered that to have been a decent enough heads up prior to my 10 minute window. I hope that makes you somewhat less angry at this situation, although I know that being blocked isn't ever a fun experience. As I said, I did not make the call lightly or with haste. I thought it over for quite a bit before placing the 10-minute warning. If though, as I said, I can trust this won't be of issue in the future, I will strike the block in the AC/DSL record and notate your block log to disregard the block levied (so as to not sully your reputation). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I think you might be confusing/conflating two of your enforcement actions here. The first part of your comment seems to refer to the issue you had with my edit. As I have already indicated, I have never knowingly violated discretionary sanctions and I have no intention of doing so in the future (I believe DS is an important tool). I did not realize my "transgression" was a violation until another editor pointed it out on my talk page, by which time it had already been reverted, so I left it alone and moved on. It was not until 29 hours later that you blocked me for it, an action which came as a complete surprise to me (and the chief reason for me asking the matter to be reviewed). I believe the "10-minute warning" thing you are talking about refers to an enforcement action you did concerning Volunteer Marek, which is a matter I am not really familiar with. Anyway, if you are still offering to perform the log alterations with respect to our interactions, I would be most grateful and would certainly promise to abide by the letter of discretionary sanctions going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The 10 min warning thing didn't have anything to do with me. That was the bad block of Casprings I believe. Yes, I know it's easy to get lost of in all the bad blocks and sanctions Coffee has handed out shortly before going on his vacation. Sorta illustrates the problem, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the ridiculous Arab-Israel level of contentiousness the Trump topic area seems to carry with it, nor the large amount of actions that have to be taken regardless by administrators every day when we're active. It's all part of my devious plan to avoid scrutiny by attracting it and then having my vacation stressed out by constant emails regarding notifications (up to 40 by the time I got on today). Truly a sign of a WP:ROGUE. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What has nothing to do with it? What specifically are you replying to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are correct Facepalm. After properly looking back, it appears this is why I thought it would be preventative, since it appeared that you disregarded the issue with your edit. At this point however, since it seems I don't have reason to be concerned about any violation in the future, I will gladly take the actions stated above (which I had meant to be offered well before the block expired). This does not impact the expired block on El cid for blatantly violating 1RR after a prior history of edit-warring. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I hadn't violated DS with my edit. Since it had already been reverted, I didn't take any action (but warned El cid about his breaking of 1RR). Anyway, I will happily accept your proposal and I thank you for giving this matter your attention, despite all the other crap you seem to be having to deal with. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey:  Done - To all others: I am going offline now. I hope to pop my head back in soon, just to close a few AE threads if no one else has grabbed them. Otherwise, I will not be very reachable until around the 13th or 14th. The Foundation should have my cell number, and the ArbCom knows how to reach out to me while I'm out here. As always: I am fully at the behest of ArbCom when it comes to AE actions. And, as such will never do anything they tell me not to and will reverse any action they deem necessary. I've only ever wanted to assist content creators to have a non-confrontational/smooth editing experience. If you find me not acting as a content creation facilitator, please let me know. That's something I will always immediately want to rectify. Happy 2018! (I'm going to try to get an hour or so of sleep before this next flight, cheers!) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As one last afterthought (which might have been expressed somewhere else above): Maybe it's not that good an idea to be very active, as an administrator, in controversial or high-profile areas when your current agenda forces you to be unavailable for periods longer than a week. Evidently, there is a strong likelihood of such actions causing questions which sometimes only you can answer. Currently, I think your own activity here would benefit from less operative hecticness. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • @Coffee: might have either his 'Jack Sebatians' confused or events - since I have no idea what he was talking about in reference to Australians presidents and whatevs. The incident I noted in my "let's wait and give the editor a chance to respond" was where - in a content dispute wherein you jumped to the wrong conclusions and - inexplicably - stripped me (and only me) of my editing abilities (rollbacket, etc.). Even when it was pointed out by others that you screwed up, you remained silent until all the heavy lifting was done to solve the problem. I find it disturbing in the extreme that you confuse the incidents that happened less than a week ago with something that happened a year ago. I was only disappointed in your shoddy decision-making process before. Now, I am wondering if you have the adequate amount of memory or maturity to wield the admin tools. Your continued mistakes are a red flag that something is going wrong with your ability to handle situations correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I misread your comment it seems. I thought you were talking about when I had lost *my* editing tools way back about 8-9 years ago and had perhaps received them back without proper explanation. I will gladly take your question at my user talk page if what you're looking for here is my explination of my reasoning when I believed your actions justified removal of editing tools, and why I decided to replace them on your account. I'm still in transit currently so I don't have all of the facts in front of me right now. However, this thread is about two particular blocks and the consensus required provision itself, and for the sake of clarity for reviewing administrators, I would prefer if that topic was able to stay focused. If you would like to discuss my medical history however, I'm going to have to tell you that is not acceptable ever. If the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation do not believe I am too incompetent to act as an administrator then any comments regarding otherwise need to be made to them, as they are fully aware of my health's status as far as I know. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about COPVIOS

Do minor one or two line verbatim WP:COPYPASTES need to be reported for speedy delete or rev-del? I will generally remove this as WP:PLAGIARISM/minor COPYVIO, but I don't think it would ever rise to the level of something that needs to be rev del'd. I don't think anything should be rev del'd unless there is a legitimate concern about protecting the encyclopedia from legal liability - I am asking because it came up in a draft I was reviewing Draft:United Nations Environment Assembly - I haven't reported it for speedy deletion, this is a free encyclopedia and I don't want to be overzealous about policing COPYVIOs - I was wondering what the usual practice is for this. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki, to answer your first question, yes. If there is a copyright violation, even if it's only a sentence of two, it should be removed and a revdel requested. In the draft you reference, it is definitely not enough for a G12 nomination but that entire opening paragraph is copied verbatim and thus entirely appropriate for redaction. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK so I would report it at the copyright notice board then? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's a clear-cut case (like this one), just remove the offending and use {{revdel}}. If you do not have the time (or inclination, as some reviewers claim) then you're welcome to report it using {{Copyvio}} and someone else will clean it up. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting bulk revision undeletion for Richardson family murders

• Richardson family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a long and admittedly tortured history, I would like to requests that all the revisions of the aforementioned page that have been scrubbed due solely to the inclusion of the name "Jasmine" in the article, now be restored. While these administrative actions were likely done with the best intentions, I think in hindsight it has been established via the talk page that such actions were an improper exercise of the REVDEL functionality, and in any case with the name now finally restored to the article, I can see no reason to keep those revisions hidden. Note that any revisions which were deleted for reasons other than the inclusion of the aforementioned name, such as defamation or the insertion of additional personal information, I do not (I think wisely) include in this request.

Note that I have not notified the administrators who performed these actions on their talk pages of this discussion. The reason for this is because I believe this is purely a subspecies of content matters (I do not take issue with any of the administrators or the actions they performed), the list of admins who have performed these revision deletions is lengthy and stretches back over seven years, and I believe that our recent discussions on the talk page in any event provide sufficient notice of the direction the community has moved in. If you think I made this judgment in error, you may ask me to make those notifications anyway, or else create them yourself, for which I would be most appreciative of.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

--Ipatrol (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The most recent of that pages RevDel's were by admin @Gadfium: - will talk message them for comment here. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall how this page got on my watchlist; it isn't a matter that particularly interests me, although I have been involved in New Zealand-related articles where court orders suppress names. I have been aware that Ipatrol has been making sensible arguments on the talk page, and have not taken any action on the article since that started. I have no objection to the restoration of the edits in question.-gadfium 05:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol New Year Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol New Year Backlog Drive

• New Page Patrol is running a backlog drive with the intention to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles that currently stretches back to April of last year. The backlog drive began on January 1st and will run for 4 weeks.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users to join this project. If you don't have the NPR user-right, please review the granting conditions and APPLY TODAY.
• If you are keen to help out, please review our instructions page and join us! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seven days ago

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.

---

What happened to me a week ago was the exactly the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Discretionary_sanctions_enforcement_review

I had an idle Saturday afternoon, so I would look at Compostela, Cebu where I had been living for a few months. I looked for the paragraphs about World War II. I was surprised that the whole section for Guila-Guila was missing. There was hardly any edit summary – all it said was "‎World War II: fantasy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compostela,_Cebu&oldid=795235903

It seemed exactly a vandalising, so restored it, with the summary "rescind vandal"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compostela,_Cebu&oldid=817749193

I was surprised that within 6 minutes, the original editor reverted my edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compostela,_Cebu&oldid=817749193

It was then I found that the original editor was an administrator Nick-D. I was surprised that administrators couldn't write edit summaries. I was even more surprised to find that I was given a 7-day block. What for? User talk:49.145.129.105 As usually, judge and jury were made too soon to make any fairness. Nick-D – kangaroo court – how appropriate! (I see in his page he says he wants users to be named.)

Not the first time I'd seen it.

Now I want to correct and improve the section on Guila–Guila. 49.145.139.148 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Since 2008 one or more IP editors who often come from an address similar to this one (and various others) have been adding a mix of totally made up World War II battles to articles on Philipino locations, or information with grossly exaggerates the scale of battles which did occur to these articles and articles on the battles. For a while a few years ago they were operating as User:Randelearcilla - the sockpuppet category includes some of the subsequent accounts [9]. The material here is a classic case of the genre - no large battles took place in the Philippines during 1943, and that described would have been one of the largest battles of the entire Pacific War (the entire Japanese garrison in the Philippines was not this large in 1943). All the details appear to have been made up. I watchlist articles the vandal hits as they have a habit of returning months later to re-add it. As they tend to hit multiple articles over a few days when doing so, I block the accounts. As such, when this material was re-added, I blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your edit claimed that this single minor skirmish (in which around 200 Filipino troops and irregulars inflicted an estimated 232 casualties on the Japanese) involved "80,000 Filipino troops, 14,400 Cebuano Guerrillas and 210,000 Japanese troops" and resulted in Japanese casualties of "2,610 killed, 8,533 wounded, 3,400 captured". This is an extremely obvious hoax—to put things in perspective, that's considerably more troops than took part in the Normandy landings. ‑ Iridescent 11:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm the one that declined their unblock request then and the one blocking the IP for block evasion now. Based on behavioral evidence, I believe that this is a blocked sockmaster but I didn't relate them to the one indicated by Nick-D above. I can see similarities to a different one that can be gleaned from this history. It may be possible that the two sockmasters/cases are the same but that may need more analysis. I feel comfortable blocking based on the one.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Copy-paste move

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

---

Draft:Army–Navy Cup looks like it was copied and pasted into the mainspace as Army–Navy Cup by its creator. I'm not sure if a WP:HISTMERGE or other cleanup is needed here so was wondering if an admin or someone else more familiar with these things would mind taking a look. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I believe WP:NOATT applies. If so, the draft can be deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN for helping to sort this out. I thought it might be NOATT, but wasn't sure if that meant the draft needed to go to MfD or something else needed to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

White space vandal returns.

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.

---

He/she's back as User:2804:431:D719:6BAE:B9C4:4B12:C247:C444, adding/removing white space on virtually the same articles. Wish Wikimedia would investigate this person. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked again. It won't stop him, but it will slow him down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Poptop43

Hello,
this user has been making a large number of good faith edits, but most all of them are nonconstructive. This includes grammatical errors, factual errors, and adding information that doesn't follow guidelines. I am not sure what other approach to take than to post this here. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them abut it on their talk page? I see a comment they made in April expressing some frustration about being reverted (not by you) but never being told why. Given their comment about being in practice since the 1970s, I think we are probably dealing with an older person who is knowledgeable in the real world but hasn't necessarily grasped Wikipedia culture (which can be confusing and Byzantine for anyone). Reaching out in plain language might help bridge the gap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. As a physician he may have of lot of knowledge to offer but seems to not fully grasp Wiki policy (and who can blame him?) I'd suggest reaching out and offering some reading material or advice. Justin15w (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple failed login attempts

I'm getting more than 10 failed login attempts on my account a day. Any other admins being hit so heavily? Stephen 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I occasionally get hit, but not everyday. When it happens it's a lot of attempts.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We'll soon be able to see IPs from failed login attempts. That will hopefully improve things. The functionaries have been getting hit with this issue lately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Will all editors be able to see those, or just admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Same question -- "we" meaning CUs, admin, or the users concerned by the failed logins? FWIW, I've also been getting hit, and have had reports of others as well. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If so, I'm eagerly awaiting this tweak. GAB^gab 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears the proposal is phab:T174388 and it would show the IP used in a failed log-in attempt to the user regardless of the user's rights. Johnuniq (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

Spambot

I know one of you admins blocked a bunch of accounts marking them as "spambot" yesterday or the day before--the accounts were named along the lines of this new one, User:加群：①②①②①② 有惊喜寥荣 . Thanks, 209.51.172.145 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There’s about 20 accounts in that format, which I’ve blocked. They had stopped so perhaps they had been caught by another method. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Malcolmxl5. They don't pay you enough. 209.51.172.145 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not. <grin> There were also about ten in the format: 加我①②③劳闷. These are blocked as well, perhaps the bot will get caught by the autoblock. All the accounts have been globally locked too though that wasn’t my doing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Malcolmxl5, if you're still on the clock, perhaps you can have a look at [User:Eastonwalker24]]--private info from a minor. As an IP I can't blank it. 209.51.172.145 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac has taken care of it. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, from a different source. Next time please (pretty please) email OS or an OSer rather than placing it on one of the most-watched boards on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. 209.51.172.145: contact details for OS may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

POINTy edits by Montanabw

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.

---

Montanabw has been trying to prove a point on various agriculture-related articles. Please TBAN him from that WikiProject. JackpottedPlant (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You need to provide diffs of the edits in question. I don't see any such edits. Further, I notice your account was barely five minutes old when you started this thread; it calls into question your actions in starting this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The quacking is deafening. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of similar threads here on the drama boards. "User:Herpleblerp is doing something I don't like at a vaguely specified location. Block them for me. Totallynotasock 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)". You've got to wonder what these people think they're going to achieve. Has anyone ever been fooled by this kind of nonsense? Reyk _YO! 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing that they use these tactics as if no one has ever tried it before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruption at First-move advantage in chess

• First-move advantage in chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review the recent flurry of activity at First-move advantage in chess. There have been repeated attempts by two editors to insert an unreliable source (Stack Exchange) into the article, and repeated edit warring. I'm already on 2 reverts so I don't want to carry on with this this. 222.153.250.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since no-one had warned User:MeixiangKazuki that they had exceeded 3RR, I have given them a final warning. They haven't actually reverted for 12 hours, and at least they are using the talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

:The talk page discussion is just running into a brick wall, and probably should be closed by a neutral party. IMO consensus has been established but one party refuses to acknowledge it, repeating their arguments ad nauseam. Classic IDHT. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (struck - WP:ANRFC initiated) 222.153.250.135 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Contact role accounts

Due to phab:T182541/phab:T178842, any contact role accounts need to have an edit or logged action for Special:EmailUser to function for those that are not Bureaucrats, Stewards, Global renamers, or WMF Support and Safety. Making a dummy edit will re-enable emails from all users. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to strike these out as they become active. The role accounts with no edits are:

• User:Arbitration Committee
• User:BT Security Investigations
• User:Bureaucrats (No longer used for email)
• User:Cambridge CERT
• User:Oversight
• User:University of Adelaide IT security
• User:Wikipedia Information Team

I also removed User:Schwartz PR from the cat, but anyone is welcome to re-add them if they feel it's necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that some of these users are indefinitely blocked and therefore they can't make the dummy edit --Sau226 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

They were also created between 8-10 years ago, and I very much doubt they're actually used. The important ones have been dealt with (except the WIT), but I figured I should list them all "for the record" as it were. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anybody confirm whether they are used anymore? Coren is inactive for over a year.Maybe, the arbs ought to know something!Winged Blades^Godric 08:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please disable email access

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.

---

• Bartholomew.J.Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked and their edit oversighted after this report. He has now start sending me obnoxious email with taste of his oversigted edits. He has only 2 oversigted edits, please administrator should disable his email access. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.

2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.

6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

Multiple person 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.

---

• Mayergrade367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Interesting thing I discovered HERE. It seems that the account in question is repeatedly cutting down the article to a redirect and then restoring it. I've never seen a user edit war with themselves before, but based on the edit summaries, there are multiple different people using the same account and arguing about whether the article meets notability requirements via edit summary. Not sure what to do in this case... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Could always block as a shared account. That or DE. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User notified as required in the big orange box. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reported to SPI; the page should probably be G5'd (all of the major contributors are the same editor, spread out over 3 SPIs). ansh666 08:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is Tamara787 again. There was a vandalism-only account with the same interests that popped up in the CU results, which means we're probably going to get more of this kind of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Site ban proposal for Darkness Shines

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

---

I was hovering around the events of today's block of Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I subsequently took a look at their block log. Blocked over 20 times. It appears to me that this user has been given too many chances, and is a net negative. Edit warring, personal attacks, a 1RR violation in the past, this IBAN, ArbCom sanctions. It's time to show them door.

• Support as proposer. !dave 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose looks to me like a kneejerk, ill-considered reaction by the proposer. - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose doing this while DS can't defend himself here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Drive-by sanctions should be held in disrepute. This is non-sense. Nihlus 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Disgusted by this proposal and preceding events. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, and don't let that boomerang hit you in the ass on your way out. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unfair to block soneone this way when they cannot even defend themselves, Someone speedy close this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Wait until the current block is over, to see if he does better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural comment I note My name is not dave removed this discussion: the usual practice is to ask for such proposals to be closed rather than to remove them. As a procedural observation there are many precedents for editors being community banned while blocked. The usual procedure is to copy any posts the editor makes regarding the ban proposal on their talk page to the central discussion page. Being blocked doesn't somehow lead to temporary immunity against being banned, for fairly obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (look for "blocked for no good reason") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Where to report death threats?

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

---

Where is the appropriate place to report a death threat made on-wiki? DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be wrong but I think death threats need to be sent to emergency[at]wikimedia.org .... –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Threats of violence should be reported to emergency. And it can probably be rev'deled or oversighted depending on the severity. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:999. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew about Oversight, didn't know about WP:999. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Rohingya article farm is mushrooming

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

---

Hey. I'm not an adminly person, don't wanna be, and don't know anything at all about all the adminly crap one has to go through to make decisions about merging, moving, etc. I did put a pair of merge discussion templates and Talk page discussions on Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar and Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (requesting merge of the latter into the former). Now I wake up and there's a 2016 Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar and a 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. It's only January now; sometime in July or August I guess we'll see the creation of a 2018 Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar article, and then... so on and so forth.

I don't wanna take the lead in this discussion or in adminly actions; I don't wanna do anything at all actually. I just wanna see these articles dealt with on a manner that is logical, parsimonious and consistent with standard Wikipedia practice. The topic is becoming an article factory. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Lingzhi, you chose the wrong place to raise your issue. This is in fact a talkpage discussion. You missed something because probably you are not familiar with the early history of these articles. Anyway, see Talk:2016_Rohingya_persecutions_in_Myanmar#Article_haphazard,_case_complicated for a summary. And, it is not "mushrooming"; it is the proper separation of articles. -AsceticRosé 04:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite probably in the wrong place, and quite possibly missed something, but Good Granny, six months from now are you gonna create a 2018 Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar article? Sorry. Lacking logic of any kind. The articles aren't that big. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Global ban discussion for User:Avoided

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

There is currently an RfC at Meta for User:Avoided, an active member of this community. The RfC can be found at meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Avoided. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

C𝒪uba's User 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.

---

I really want to edit my user page and introduce myself, but it has been blacklisted and restricted to administrators. can you please unblock the page User:C𝒪uba? I really want to edit my own user page. C𝒪uba (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

C𝒪uba, your user page is at User:C𝒪uba, and I see no reason why you cannot edit there. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's on the title blacklist. Try creating User:C𝒪uba/blah blah blah or whatever. —Cryptic 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right, it can't be created, not edited. My mistake. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

C𝒪uba's Sandbox

Hello, I am C𝒪uba. I hope you are doing well. Unfortunately, my sandbox has been restricted to administrators and I cannot create it. Can you please unblock my sandbox? Thank you.C𝒪uba (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@C𝒪uba: The WMF software is reporting that your sandbox page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C𝒪uba/sandbox) never existed and has never been deleted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed the thread above. Out of curiosity, is there a reason why that page is blacklisted, or is the parsing of the special character by the URL generating too many special characters? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  As the error message says, "Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles". This goes extra for usernames; part of their purpose is to facilitate communication with other users, and having untypeable, paste-only glyphs in them works directly counter to that.

  Isn't the title blacklist supposed to prevent registering names that match it, anyway? Or is that (yet another) blacklist? —Cryptic 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Only the global blacklist applies to usernames. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Go to WP:RENAME, Pick a username that doesn't have the silly non-typeable characters (IE Couba will do (providing it's not taken by another user)), Once renamed Hey presto you can create any subpage you like!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Your username with the "𝒪" is preventing you from creating a sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've added an exemption for this username on MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist so that they can create subpages. It can be delisted if the user decides to change their username. That people can create accounts but not use their userspace is a problem, but I don't know of a friendly way to fix it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sirlanz

Can someone please review User:Sirlanz's contribution to the AfD on Michael Rogge? I'm concerned by the tone of the nomination, the bludgeoning attitude and the nasty comments left on the article creator's talk page, where he starts off with "I have just put up your page Michael Rogge for deletion and used the word "rubbish" in my reason." The well-meaning editor later comments "Personally, I lost some motivation to write further, after the rude and unfair comments." If there were a "chill, dude" button It would be very handy for this case. I did notice that Sirlanz has been here for something earlier. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I invite anyone who is interested in looking at this to conclude that the IP editor concerned has, from the outset, been concerned to shoot the messenger, taken an article ownership attitude and failed to engage in a reasoned discourse. As for encouragement or otherwise to the creating editor, clear, cogent reasons have been given all along for the nomination so as to guide the creating editor to see the critical fundamentals of our encyclopaedia. Subsequent activity by that editor (clearly, the editor has not been so disencouraged as to disengage from his/her endeavours) shows a positive improvement, i.e. better concern for sourcing in particular, so the suggestions made by this request for review are not well founded. I would add that the activities of this IP editor (not the creator, it must be noted) in editing the subject page since nomination for deletion have included a good deal of exaggeration and departure from the sources provided, in an attempt to rise a smokescreen over the original material objected to by me so stridently. There were very good grounds for my concern about having such material on our encyclopaedia. There is another view, I accept, that we can just have WP look like IMDB or other friendly social sites; that is not my view. sirlanz 08:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The point here is that you should try to be nicer to people. Your attitude is bringing down the project. That was also mentioned in the last ANI incident. Finally, I made zero incorrect or leading edits. (Also, could someone move this to AN-I? I posted it here by mistake.)104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is evident that this IP editor, who has been active in that capacity for less than a month, is well-versed with the mechanics of WP. It is fundamentally unfair that he/she should initiate attacks of this kind under a deliberate veil of anonymity. This is a factor to be taken into account in dealing with the matter. sirlanz 08:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I note that the subject AfD has now been closed with the page being preserved in its current form. Thus, what remains to be dealt with is the criticism of the IP editor of my strident comment on raising the AfD. I was appalled by the page. It revealed nothing whatsoever of notability. It had no independent, reliable sources. It read like a family history (with expression and grammar defects, too). In a word, there was no reason to suspect that the subject was more than a nobody. And the creator had walked away and left it in that condition for four days which is a strong indication that they were blithe to its defects and content for it to remain for all to see in that condition. If there had been any hint of something of value there, I would have been spurred to look into the sourcing (as my long history testifies (13,000+ edits in the main space) to see if it could be improved but when something falls so miserably below the bar, I do not believe it is the job of the visiting editor to do the fundamental work of the page creator to see if it is possible to reach the minimum level of acceptability. From my perspective, I would never dream of creating a page in that condition (no useful sources, no notability except to his grandchildren, perhaps). I thought it essential that my frank view about the page be known to the creating editor so that he/she would not go around WP repeating the same sort of thing. My objective has been fulfilled in that regard, as we can see from the creating editor's response both here and in his/her subsequent approach to editing. We have a cleaner, better WP as a result. I differ from the view that we need to encourage new editors at all costs. We do not need more incompetent editors, we need more competent ones; less poor material allowed through the gate means less editing capacity required, i.e. we can have a great encyclopaedia with fewer, better contributors. This editor has responded admirably and we have certainly acquired a useful additional member to the relatively small active editor cohort. All to the good. sirlanz 08:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I haven't even clicked a single link, but I need to comment on something I've been seeing pop up everywhere the last couple months - IPs are not second-class citizens. It's not "unfair" for an IP to make a complaint about a user, and it's not "unfair" for an IP to know how to edit Wikipedia (nor is it unusual). We are all acting under "deliberate veil of anonymity" (with the exception of people who for some reason or another post their full names everywhere). If I were making this complaint you'd be arguing the substance, not me. So can the "it's just an IP bitching" line and actually argue their point. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The line drawing attention to the status of the complaining editor is important. An IP editor (and particularly one with an obvious deep experience on WP but whose current IP identity spans no more than a few weeks) who attacks a registered editor on his past history, as this IP editor has done here, has the unfair advantage of not having anything about his/her past performance and activities on WP similarly scrutinised. The IP editor's credibility and reliability cannot be assessed at all whereas everything about this editor (me) is an open book, a ten-year history of substantive editing . This is the same principle as that whereby a party who calls a witness' character into question in court is bound by law to then face scrutiny of his/her own character. Secondly, the IP editor can fling his/her stones here, then walk away and flip his/her IP. There is zero reputational investment by that editor here and, yet, as I have said, he/she can waltz in and criticise. As we have seen, everything I do is on record, including something that happened over two years ago now cited here. So this current complaint is not being held on a level playing field because the complainant is an IP-flipping IP editor. sirlanz 07:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sirlanz: makes an interesting argument but one that I do not think stands up under inspection. In a real-life courtroom, a witness can declare "I saw Prof. Plum in the pool room with the candlestick". Assuming no other witnesses, the jury has the duty to assess the credibility of the witness, and does so by listening to other evidence relevant to the credibility of the witness. The actual identity of the witness and their entire history are key to this investigation. In contrast, if someone makes a claim in a Wikipedia "case", we don't take the claim at face value or even investigate the credibility of the claimant, we asked for diffs and independently examine the truth or falsity of the claim. A claim made without links can be dismissed, unlike a real-life courtroom, so the reputation and credibility of the witness almost never is relevant. (One can probably find some edge cases where a range of interpretations can be given to a particular factual statement and the background of the claimant might be relevant, but those are relatively rare.)

Sirlanz Also notes that an IP editor "can fling his/her stones here, then walk away and flip his/her IP.". True, but I'm comfortable that most regulars here will assign unsubstantiated allegations with the weight they deserve in a Wikipedia case, i.e. approximately zero.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I must thank Sphilbrick for an accurate observation: in principle, every piece of information required to assess editor performance is on the WP record; all the facts are in, unlike the way courts work (struggle to get hold of evidence from the real world). But to discard my objection to the IP editor's unfairly invulnerable position as complainant is to presume that those who consider and assess the facts relevant to the complaint make themselves acquainted with all of them, i.e. read all of the edits and their summaries, drill into all of the source documents cited along the way and read those, too. I have no doubt that that would virtually never happen, nor could anyone fairly suggest that it should - just not practical. So the assessors will take clues from what is reported to them by the claimant and respondent and be guided thereby to what they (the assessors) think relevant and of assistance to making a fair assessment. In the course of so doing, the assessors may be affected by the cloaked-identity IP editor's attack on the credibility of the respondent. Therein lies the gross unfairness recognised in the courts for centuries. In any event, if those who look into this adopt the careful reasoning of Sphilbrick, I'm in safe hands. sirlanz 13:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Arguing the point is precisely the problem here. Read my material (here and in edit summaries): the IP editor, like Primefac, has no interest in the substance of the matter under consideration but merely on the style of communication. The IP editor has not made any effort to address the specific question, in specific terms. I still await someone taking the time and showing the depth of genuine interest in our encyclopaedia to make an argument, grounded in fact not generality, for notability of this subject. sirlanz 01:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I have been brought into the discussion, I thought I should state the truth, that I was indeed demotivated and discouraged by some of the unfair and pointed remarks regarding the AfD and that it made me stay clear, until I received encouragement from this editor on my talk page. Nevertheless, I did learn quite a few lessons from some of the edits made by the veteran editor and I am thankful this difficult experience made me a more responsible WP editor and respect the opinions (whether positive or negative) of more senior editors. However, I am not happy about the non-convincing manner of removal of some relevant content (e.g. valid filmography entries) that was carried out over several edits in the last day(s), and I hope these shall be reverted back soon. I think I will not comment any further on this here. Thank you for your concerns and wish you all a wonderful and successful 2018! Sahrudayan (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to rely on hope; rely on reliable, independent sources (I've not found any) and go make the edits as you wish. sirlanz 01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Our IP editor has stayed around long enough on his/her current IP to create a paper trail: Here, just days after raising all this dust about my blunt "rubbish" comment, he/she, in the self-same forum (AfD), commences his/her comment with "A very large piece of garbage." If there were another sentence from me here, it would surely contain the term "hypocrite". sirlanz 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I was astonished when I read sirlanz's post. sirlanz writes: "I have just put up your page Michael Rogge for deletion and used the word "rubbish" in my reason. I have no intention to offend anyone but it is essential that we all have some understanding of where our standards lie. The page is appalling trash because it is a completely self-serving CV/family history and written in a style not befitting anything holding itself out to be an encyclopaedia." (emphasis added). If I were the recipient of such a message, I'd feel frustrated and somewhat attacked. I'd encourage sirlanz to keep an even tone and to refrain from unnecessarily sharp language – please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, that everyone here is volunteering their time, and that there are plenty of other worthy nonprofits for people to volunteer with when editing here becomes unpleasant. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Old Tired Sockpuppet Investigations

There are, by my count, seven sockpuppet investigation cases that were last edited in calendar year 2017 but have not been closed. This is probably just a side effect of years. Can some administrator please look at them and close them, unless action is needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I would bring this to the attention of the SPI clerks at the clerks noticeboard. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Locked out of alt 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.

---

Could a willing sysop please block my alt account, Away Lander, as I apparently have misplaced the password for it and have no intention of using the account anytime soon. (See [10] for proof the account is mine.) Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. Home Lander (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

PAID/COI editor with two accounts

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management. Admin input would be welcome. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's rather a long thread, I'm afraid. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Commented out "shortcuts" to !voting sections per my comments at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management: I think a few people thoroughly assessing would be more valuable than admins being treated as some sort of voting machine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Log as community sanction?

The Proposal (block) subsection of the Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management thread at WP:COIN has just been formally closed ("... block Tony Ahn, under all accounts ..."). I'd like to explore the possibility to log that as a community sanction. Would that be the best way forward? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it not already? Guy closed the discussion as consensus for a block for all Tony Ahn's accounts, and applied the block(s) with reference to the discussion, so that makes it a community sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Or are you saying that you want to make it into a community site ban? I don;t think that generally happens unless there's an extensive post-block history of socking. As it stands, the blocks are not -- as far as I understand it -- personal blocks made by one admin (Guy), which Guy or any single admin could overturn, but are community blocks which would need a community discussion to be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, just before retiring ([11] [12]) and being blocked, Ahn had written: "We are going to cease using Wikipedia in the next 24 hours" ([13]). Might indeed be an idea to convert that into a site ban, as a preventative measure: 24 hours have passed and Ahn didn't take down the publicity with which his PR firm offers Wikipedia services, nor does Ahn take any responsibility for current or future meatpuppets – thus the commitment to "cease using Wikipedia" seems lukewarm at best, and seems like a decision he might overturn any time. A site ban would have the advantage that such change of heart would be easier to counter, and pass through community approval before being effectuated under the radar. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been involved with the "block vs. ban" discussions a number of times, and I generally come down in favor of a site ban (if it's warranted), rejecting the counter-argument that there's little or no functional difference between the two, since the site ban just seems weightier to me. However, on a practical level, there's really very little difference between reverting the edits of an community -indeffed editor and reverting those of a community-banned editor. Maybe you've got a little more leeway in reverting the edits you suspect are those of a banned editor, but that's about it.

Given that, if you see edits that you believe are from Tony Ahn, I'd just revert them and then report them, as the more reports of block evasion and socking there are (or unreported paid edits connected to the business), the more likely that you'll be able to get a community ban.

You can certainly try for a community ban now -- all it takes is making a proposal for one here -- but I rather doubt it would get consensus at this point, with no post-block activity to report. In general, Wikipedia shies away from sanctions in advance due to possible expected actions. Of course, I've been wrong plenty of times, so the choice is yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the main benefit of a cban versus an indef-aka-"de-facto-ban" is that with the latter, it's entirely possible for one sympathetic admin to overturn it at any time, while the former is The Will Of The Community and requires the community's consensus to undo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I would anticipate that an admin should take a block that has been discussed by the community to the community for discussion. At the point, if the unblock fails to gain consensus, the banning policy makes it clear that it is a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to whether a single sympathetic admin can overturn a block made on the basis of a community discussion:

I wish that policy (or at least our understanding of it) was clear on this point. A block issued by an admin on the basis of a consensus in a community block discussion should be considered to be a community action, with the blocking admin simply being the vehicle to put that action into effect. It should not be available for overturning by single admin action, either by the blocking admin, or by another admin with the acquiescence of the blocking admin -- as would be the case with a normal block -- without there being another community discussion to authorize lifitng it. This is certainly true of a community site ban, and should be true of a community block as well, since the block is no less The Will of The Community than the ban is. (In fact, it was my understanding that that is the case.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a follow-up: this argument doesn't denigrate the role of the admin corps in community-decided blocks. If a community discussion reaches a consensus to block, and no admin is willing to put it into effect, that amounts to a de facto "pocket veto" of the block decision by the entire corpus of admins, a strong statement that the block discussion was unfair or ill-considered in some way. This acts as a check against unwarranted community action. But once an admin has accepted the consensus, and made the block, it should be considered to be the implementation of a community decision, and not an individual block by that admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

1. The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
2. There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Men's rights movement community sanctions

WP:MRMPS were imposed in 2011. Although subsequently modified, AFAIK, they were never lifted. In addition, the only way they could be lifted is by a consensus of the community. Recently, the template that was used for the sanctions, {{Community article probation}}, was deleted per this "discussion". I put discussion in quotes because it consisted of two editors only, Noyster and Jc86035. As a result, the template advising editors of the sanctions was removed by a bot. Another discussion was begun today for a related template that goes on other pages using the same "rationale" as at the first discussion.

Frankly, I personally don't care if the sanctions are lifted. Not because I feel they are no longer necessary but because they are messy to enforce and gave me headaches when I did enforce them (I generally bowed out of both the problems with the articles and the enforcement a while ago), but you simply can't delete a procedural device that effectively deletes a community decision. If you don't like the damned templates, then create an alternative that otherwise keeps the status quo. And it's not my burden to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I was under the impression that they were superseded by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which should (probably?) apply to Men's rights movement and related articles like Domestic violence (the only article using the template) because of the "all pages related to […] any gender-related dispute or controversy" clause from the GamerGate case. Does there need to be an RfC to determine whether to discontinue the community sanctions process? Jc86035 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me as well that DS should supersede MRMPS. I'm not sure that we need any more process than has already occurred around the GamerGate and Sexology sanctions. See this link for some recent discussion and arbcom action on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

While I think WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions encompass the MRMPS, I think we would need an WP: ARCA to have it officially be superceded. Sanctions and notifications are handled slightly differently in MRMPS then with discretionary sanctions. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In the past, Arbcom has often wanted to have a full case before deciding to apply new rules. But they might be persuaded to handle it with a motion if it could be billed as a clerical or maintenance change. For instance, they could add the line 'Pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms..' could be added to the discretionary sanctions statement in WP:ARBGG#Discretionary sanctions. As part of this action, they should abolish the existing Mens rights community sanction. (Compare how Arbcom rescinded the community Gamergate sanction when they created their own GG sanction). Alerts to editors were still being given out in 2017 under WP:MRMPS, so the sanction regime is not obsolete. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to repeal article probation (placed there because WP:General sanctions is the only page explaining article probation). Note: Article probation is no longer used by ArbCom, having been superseded by DS, leaving us with community article probation. The only area where a community article probation notice has been validly placed (i.e. based on any community discussion) in recent years has been the men's rights area, based on this from 2011; but the men's rights area is surely already covered by the Arbcom Gamergate DS: any gender-related dispute or controversy. There was just the one notification to an editor in 2017, and the last actual sanction recorded was in July 2015: Noyster (talk), 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

An entire general sanction deprecated by two users?

According to the deletion nomination, {{Community article probation}} was being used on 75 pages to notify users of standing article protections. Because two users agreed at TfD that article probation in general is obsolete, the supplemental template was deleted, which led to the automatic de-listing of active sanctions across 75 pages, without any community consultation or notice, and without any guarantee that all of those pages were protected by a new sanction that continued enforcing the existing consensus? Did that really happen? Two users wholly deprecated an entire class of existing and active general sanctions that were in effect on 75 articles? Men's rights movement is one, where are the other 74 articles that just had their community sanctions erased by two editors and a bot? How many community discussions were unilaterally cancelled? MRMPS was one, how many others were there? This was horribly out of process and the above confusion shows just how badly thought out this was. Deprecating every remaining article probation should have been proposed to the community at a noticeboard or via an RfC. Unfortunately I don't see any realistic path ahead other than just accepting it, and removing article probation from the general sanctions page, but I will point out that this was a drastic measure done without community consultation, in the most hidden way possible and in a way that is not realistically reviewed or overturned. Poor show. Swarm ♠ 23:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Here are 68 of them. I'm not sure if there are any others that were removed manually at that time. Jc86035 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I took out 5 that were unambiguously time-expired.[14] My initial motivation for starting this was finding that all uses of the template since 2014 and many before then were by individual editors, not based on any community discussion – out of process if you like. Before starting the TfD I checked all the 75 pages and that is the basis for my TfD rationale: extant valid uses of the template were confined to 4 topic areas all since subsumed under discretionary sanctions. Now I might have done better to seek comments elsewhere rather than rely on the TfD. The outcome would have been the same but if people are that upset about these proceedings, there is the option to undelete the template and category and revert the bot edits, and we'll go through the process again: Noyster (talk), 01:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] According to the deletion nomination, most of them were added improperly, e.g. a blocked sockpuppet added it to this talk page, whose article appears to have nothing to do with men's rights or any other community-imposed probation. Swarm, do you agree or disagree with the statement from the TFD? No opinion on the men's rights article and similar topics. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noyster: If you're entirely confident that there were no legitimate active sanctions that were de-listed, that makes me feel better. Based on the list of pages that were tagged with that template, it appears many of them are not under new DS, however it's not exactly easy to crosscheck each page with the list at WP:GS to see whether it was legitimate. @Nyttend: My gripe is actually not with the proposal to wholly deprecate the concept of article probation. It's just that it was done so without community review. I disagree that it was done in what is essentially a hidden venue by two users, and I wanted to go on the record as saying that it was done improperly without an assessment of whether it was necessary. That said, if nobody else is worried as to whether there's collateral damage to clean up, then I won't beat this horse or demand any sort of overturning. Lack of objection in itself constitutes consensus. Assuming we don't have to worry about any other topic areas, let's take the common sense stance that we all seem to agree on fundamentally: men's rights article probation was inherently absorbed by the Gamergate DS. Besides any templates in need of updating, no formal action should be necessary to facilitate this change. If there is actually some disagreement over this, we can go to Arbcom and request clarification, but short of that, it seems obvious that Men's rights fall under the purview of those DS. I think we should just get it over with and remove article probation from WP:GS. Swarm ♠ 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Do the article probation sanctions need to be rescinded/replaced formally by community consensus or by an ArbCom decision, or is it enough to remove them from the page? Jc86035 (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to do with ArbCom, who have already stated that they are no longer using article probation: Noyster (talk), 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous editors' persistent vandalism on pages relating to the LDS Church

Hello. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for over 10 years now. Much of my focus has been on articles relating to the LDS Church, and I have developed not only a great cooperative relationship with many others who contribute to content on my watchlist, but also an extreme distaste for anyone who is knowingly vandalizing such pages and ignoring the warnings that have been provided to stop doing so. Regarding one such individual, I need to report a major issue that recurs on a frequent basis. Almost every time I access Wikipedia, I come across edits by someone who adds them anonymously using various IP addresses. The content of those edits usually references an individual by the name of Joe Walz, with the point of the edits being how that individual is relevant to the pages in question. Sources unconnected to this Joe Walz are usually erroneously cited to verify the relevance of this person to such topics. The latest example, which I have reverted, can be found here. The main problem with these edits is extended by the fact that the editor behind them finds a variety of IP addresses and locations he uses to perpetuate this vandalism. I put him on notice of his violation of Wikipedia policies on the talk page for the latest address he used, then on reflection considered it best to put him on notice that I would report him here, which I have now done. I should also note that similar edits on the part of this individual have been reverted by others almost as soon as they have been added to other pages, but the episodes of this issue have been far too many to list every one. Enough is enough. His edits clearly violate Wikipedia policy, and he is very much a repeat offender who will likely continue this vandalism unless he is prevented from doing so. I am all for giving earnest contributors every opportunity to comply with requests to follow Wikipedia policies, but it is clear that, despite numerous invitations that have been made to this individual to do just that, he has no intention whatsoever to actually do so. If action could be taken to nip this conduct in the bud, I know I am not the only one who would appreciate it. A quick review of other articles relating to well-known subjects about the LDS Church will verify that this is happening all too regularly. Thanks for taking time to read and act on this notice. I appreciate everything you all do to keep Wikipedia safe from those with ill intentions. All the best. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jgstokes, you will need to supply more diffs to help us. You haven't established your point although you have stated it. With more proof, you can establish your point and we can help consider solutions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jgstokes, that would be a good idea. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, Jgstokes, go to WP:SPI and type that name into the search box that they spam into articles and report back to us if you find a case. Hint: as a checkuser I cannot make correlations between IPs and accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As one of the others who has repeatedly reverted this IP troll, whose trollery extends beyond just LDS-related articles, let me give a little more history and context. These IPs are all IP socks of User:GeraldFord1980, and this is the relevant SPI. I've been keeping a running list (here) of the all IPs that showed up in that SPI and that have made "Joe Walz" vandalism edits since the SPI. I can provide specific diffs if that would be helpful. Occasionally the IPs get reported at AIV, with varying results. This is essentially a game of whack-a-troll. Find a "Joe Walz" edit, revert it, move on and don't feed the troll. I would love if there were a more permanent solution, but I doubt a range block would work and the only other solutions would be to blacklist "Joe Walz" edits or have a bot automatically revert such edits so actual editors don't have to be constantly checking for these. But the troll would just change tactics, and then you're back to a "don't feed the troll" solution. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like an edit filter might help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow, this actually explains this bizarre nastygram I got about a month ago after reverting this nonsense! (I assumed Joe Walz was some YouTuber I'm too old to have on my radar.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting user talk page

I see that Jeevan naidu has redirected their user and talk pages to Jeevan King, apparently their previous account. I'm a bit confused by this, because it breaks notifications, and makes it harder to track their contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps they could be directed to WP:CHUN, which would probably solve their issue (if the u/name if available of course). Their reason for doing so actually seems rather progressive—that is, disassociating from caste politics? Which WP:ARBIPA topics are unfortunately plagued with, as we know. Just my reading of it, of course. Further: I see they have not yet been advised as to this discussion? It also-somewaht belatedly!- occurs to me that ANI for this—without even raising it with the user—is surely a trife heavy-handed? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  I brought it to AN because I wasn't sure if it was a problem or not, and I wanted additional feedback. And yes, I should have notified the user. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xeno already renamed then from Jeevan naidu to Jeevan King as seen here. They then recreated the Jeevan naidu account on July 2, 2014 (or attached it since this was before the SUL rollout). They should probably go to WP:CHUU to fix it. Nihlus 17:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ahhh- Nihlus: So they probably were following the CHUN instructions to "Once you have been renamed, bear in mind your previous account name could be taken by a third party. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account name and create redirects linking the accounts" after all....?! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • If that's what they did, they got it exactly backwards. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Back in the day the software would sometimes mess up a bit and the user would stay logged in to their existing name which got recreated even though we renamed them. This user never ended up using their new name and apparently did not understand or follow my instruction. I've moved their talk page back in place. –xeno^talk 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• For the record, I do this with my alt account: User:MPants at work is a hard redirect to User:MjolnirPants. The same is true of my talk pages. It helps to keep things centralized, and I've added a link at the top of my talk page to my alt's contribs page for clarity.

So if this becomes a larger issue, somebody please send me a ping so I can weigh in and see how the consensus is going (you can send it to either account; I check both). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not really the same at all. In this case, there is an old account abandoned for 3 years and an active new account, but the new account's pages redirect to the old one's. ansh666 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I missed how old the other was; apologies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Transl

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.

---

• Template:Transl(edit talk links history)

Can another admin review the two conversations starting at Template_talk:Transl#rewriting_this_template?. I reverted once to fix the breakage and got a rather snappish reply in response. More issues are cropping up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting, fellow Neil? fish&karate 14:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When I first reverted the recent change of the protected template, there were about a hundred articles in Category:Transl template errors. The reply from the author of the change indicated the revert was "shooting the messenger" as the errors were actually side effects (I undid my revert then). Another editor then popped up asking for an "urgent revert" again. However, I think the situation has died down now. The number of articles having errors started to rise again after I undid my revert but now it's fallen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Issue with the Page Finns

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

---

Hey, i wanted to Denounce the extreme immaturity of some Wiki editors, with this I mean that, some editors insist on reversing my edits that I did on the wiki page about the Finns, in which i add the Swedish language to the Languages spoken by the Ethnic group himself and i also write the Equivalent of Finns in Swedish (finnar), and i really don't think that's Right, since there's Only the Finnish language in the Language section, being that everybody knows Swedish is One of the Official languages and is spoken by 5% of the Finnish population in the Åland islands and Western Finland (mainly in Ostrobothnia), therefore my Edits on this Page would be very Useful, not to mention that would enrich the Content of the Page and give more Informations about the Finnish people, and i don't really think that my Edits should be Deleted or Reversed from the Page, bcz that's Useful and Informative Content — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WhiteGuy1850 for another discussion about this issue. This is a content dispute, and needs to be addressed on the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Brief reminder

Just a note that the Neelix cleanup is still ongoing, and in recent months seems to has stalled out. We're down to a 4 digit number of pages needing eyes, including a small handful of Ancient Greek redirects; the full list of remaining ones is at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6. Figured a note here might get a little attention, and since this is something that'll actually go away when it's done it has all the good feeling of accomplishing something without the accompanying Sisyphean nature of other backlogs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

November 2015 that all kicked off. I'm glad that dozens of volunteers haven't wasted their time with this since then instead of just nuking it all at the time. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I can’t believe it still isn’t done. I’ve deleted a few thousand of these pages myself. And the user who created the whole issue has quietly returned to occaisional editing without the slightest consequence for creating this disaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Every time I dip into this I'm freshly amazed at the sheer level of fuckwittery (Frà→My Last Duchess, anyone?), and the sheer amount of time it's wasted—it's just taken me 20 minutes to delete 100-ish obvious cases, and I can delete directly without the timesink of one editor tagging and another editor reviewing the tag. Someone remind me again why Neelix hasn't been shown the door? ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Door was a redirect to stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. The time to block Neelix was two years ago. He's done nothing disruptive since, so showing him the door now would be purely punitive. Unless there's genuinely something disruptive about his sporadic recent edits, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Reyk _YO! 11:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• To be strictly accurate, he's still being just as disruptive but he's taken it outside the remit of en-wiki admins; his latest wheezes are creating ultra-narrow categories on Commons (Category:Topless men wearing wristwatches and Category:Nude or partially nude women with cowboy hats, anyone?) "to ensure people don't accidentally see things they weren't looking for", and obsessively moving images between categories. (Because it's outside en-wiki jurisdiction, Commons still retains a Neelix-curated shrine to Tara Teng, as well.) He's also recently discovered the joys of Wikidata. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Two of the images in his cowboy hats category weren't even wearing cowboy hats. Weird. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Iridescent: you missed adding living people to potentially en.wiki BLP violating categories on Commons. THAT was a fun cleanup. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Shrine? You do realize that creating categories for notable people with multiple available images is... pretty much just the way commons works... right? GMG^talk 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• ​Oh, there are shedloads of examples, I just gave a couple—another of his favourite games is disrupting efforts to clean up Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention by deliberately adding a technically correct but barely-relevant category (recent example). The point is, his goofing around at Commons and Wikidata is all something over which en-wiki admins (correctly) have no jurisdiction. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• To be fair, the more editors like Neelix who get into Wikidata the less likely we are to use it in the long run. Hasten the day etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo, that is most definitely not how Commons works when it comes to photographs of identifiable living people, particularly in a case like this where the LP in question lives in Canada where distributing photographs of someone without their consent is illegal. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah... Given that half of those come with an OTRS permission, I think we'll be okay. GMG^talk 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• OTRS from the photographer. Not the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• But how the hell does that work then in Canada? The Miss World Canada comps presumably all took place in Canada, likewise the University pics. Some of them are clearly outside in what would be considered a public place, some are obviously publicity, some are at private venues. My reading of the Canadian provisions in that commons policy is that without the subject's explicit consent, none should be published? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm.. I assumed they were official press kit, as similar images often are. But you are correct. GMG^talk 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looking through the sources that the Commons guidance is based on, it looks like the issue is mostly confined to problematic commercial uses generally and especially with regard to public figures. Saying simply that it is illegal is a gross oversimplification. GMG^talk 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

-That is some weird, weird shit. Still, if he's not currently disrupting anything here, there's no need to block him here. Reyk _YO! 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Sorry to barge in like this, but wow oh wow, I just read the initial AN/I thread and looked at his categories on commons... This must be the funniest thing that happened on Wikipedia for a long time. However, in retrospective, banning him during the initial AN/I would do no good, let alone now. He should have been forced to undo the damage himself, though - I'm just not sure how it'd work. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I know I wasn't heavily active in the admin side of things when this all went down, but could someone give me a one-or-two-sentence answer as to why we don't just nuke them all and REFUND the legitimate ones? I know with the SvG case there were actual improvements made to some of the pages, but it seems like if it exists, has no incoming links, and is still a redirect, it should just be nuked. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• ​"Because a bunch of his friends whined about it" is the TL;DR answer. The discussion that led to the "don't delete them all on sight, but allow any admin to delete them without discussion" compromise is here. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a distinct culture around redirects that since they're "cheap" it's best to keep them just because they exist, and it often veers into fundamentalism; this mess is but one obvious symptom of this attitude. As anyone who's done this has discovered, sifting through this is quite far from cheap in volunteer effort. I don't know how to bring about change on that front, but it is something I've noticed at RfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: As the editor who's ploughed through the greatest number of these semi-recently, I'm keeping >90% of the redirects I look at. A mass "Keep and don't waste further time" would be preferable to nuking them if we want to resolve the issue with finality. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, since it was before "my time" I never really looked into the matter, so I didn't know how good/bad of a situation it was. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Tazerdadog. I first looked into this several months ago but was surprised with how many good redirect I found so I figured it would be done by now. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights Is there an X1 option for CSD? If so, I'm not seeing it. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. It's apparently not an option via Twinkle. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it’s a temporary criterion that was supposed to be deprecated by now. The really, really bad ones (and believe me, there were at least 5,000 of those) went away early on in this process, so it’s no surprise that here towards the end there are many that are more innocuous or even potentially helpful. Doesn’t excuse all the mountains gof garbage and the hundreds of hours taken to clean it all up. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And even now there'a a non-negligible proportion of total nonsense left (I saw Boomer Vial tag a couple, the help is appreciated). It's a good thing we didn't deprecate it when we first thought this was over with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've managed to get it down to about 2500 redirects, or a few hours worth of work remaining. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit. Mostly some easy ones though. fish&karate 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

AWB access

I really do promise that I will behave with AWB. I really do. My AWB access has been unexpectedly removed. I take this as my final chance. I will not make any insignificant or controversial edits with it. If I do make bad edits, I understand that not only my AWB access will be removed but I will be indefinitely blocked. I will also not use regex typo fixing ever again. I promise. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac, who removed the access. Nihlus 16:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pkbwcgs, I'll restore, but please be more careful. This includes both edits with AWB as well as WPCleaner - both of which have resulted in complaints. There's no rush, so make sure your edits are all accurate before you hit "save". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thank you. I will be more careful next time. I will avoid edits related to spelling as that is the main area I am receiving more complaints. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pkbwcgs, you're clearly not being asked to avoid any areas. You're being asked to actually pay attention to what you are changing with these programs instead of clicking save just because it found something that might be an error. There is a reason both programs give you a preview of what you are doing beforehand. Nihlus 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What they said. As per the many, many warnings I and others have given you, the false-positive rate for AWB's "suggested fixes" is well over 50%, so if you're not rejecting more than half the proposed fixes it suggests you're almost certainly using it inappropriately; plus, AWB is a tool intended for use on multiple projects, not just Wikipedia, and many of the fixes it suggests are inappropriate for English Wikipedia or are purely cosmetic changes which are banned on Wikipedia. To repeat yet again a piece of advice I've given you which you invariably ignore, I cannot recommend enough that if you insist on continuing to use AWB you disable the "apply general fixes" checkbox, and that you stop using WPCleaner altogether unless and until you actually understand what you're doing. (Because there's no WPCleaner equivalent of AWB's checkpage, the only action we can take if you keep making mistakes with WPCleaner is to block you from editing Wikipedia altogether, and given the number of warnings you've ignored thus far I will do it if I see any more obvious errors or blatantly inappropriate violations of WP:COSMETICBOT). ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

AWB is fucking dangerous; why allow it for a user who already/recently fucked it up many times? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith. Their edits were improper, but they've agreed to pay more attention in the future and there will be no qualms about permanently removing it next time. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, so let me edit the main page. I've never harmed it.

More seriously though - that's stretching AGF, but ok, does not prevent us watching next time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Community feedback: Proposal on case naming

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.

Current system

Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.

Proposed changes

The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.

Effective immediately, new arbitration case requests will no longer be named by the filing party. Case requests will receive a unique six-digit identifier, formatted as the current year followed by the number of the case request within that year. For instance, the fifth case request in 2018 will be numbered 201805.

If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.

In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.

Notes

The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.

Thank you, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.

AIV backlog

Currently a backlog at AIV EvergreenFir (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up - another backlog is building up at AIV. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dinhio13 again

Going back to this report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Dinhio13. 7-day page protection did nothing, user is back at it. -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: What are the sources for Khubutia's early career? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sex pest

Resolved

 – Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone please work out why helpdesk is current showing a huge image from File:Berlin Sex Shop 2.jpg. Probably some template vandalism or something. Thx. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a change to Template:HelpDesk icon. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for posting here - when it happened, it was super-urgent and this seemed the right place. 5 mins later, it seems I am crying wolf. Apologies. All is well, carry on. Nothing to see here. Thanks for explaining where it was, Anon. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Can one of ya protectify Template:HelpDesk icon? Or do I need to file that request elsewhere? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting it! That type of vandalism can be harder to solve, so reports like this are helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...I copy-pasted the page to sandbox, and I was trying to work it out, using Special:ExpandTemplates.. when the anon beat me to it! Sometimes hard to solve these ones. Cheers... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the template. The template only appeared on a handful of pages, but since those very pages are pretty visible (e.g. WP:Help desk), I figure there's more benefit than cost to protecting. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the best place to make protection requests is at WP:Requests for page protection. However, if an admin sees a situation which requires protection, or a report of such a situation, (s)he's allowed to handle it regardless of any formal report. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Query about canvassing

Example: a merge proposal on the TP of a controversial article seeking local consensus for the merge rather than calling an RfC for wider community input. The article went through an AfD several months ago but the controversy lingers. Our merge guidelines are ambiguous so it can be expected that the merge will result in deletion. #1 - What are the proper steps to take in order to get wider community input which is needed for such an article, and #2 would it be "appropriate canvassing" to ping the editors and closer who were involved in the prior AfD? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is appropriate to notify editors who were involved in the prior AFD and for getting the more community input, you can notify the WikiProjects related to the subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, D4iNa4, my question is a rather sensitive one in that such action may well be challenged, but thank you for your response. I thought the same, but I'm hoping an admin will also respond and confirm. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you tell us which discussion you're talking about, the best I can say is what D4iNa4 told you )(and yes, I am an admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto; what D4iNa4 is correct. If you're not willing to tell us what you're talking about so we can assess whether there are genuinely special circumstances that apply (rather than what people usually mean by "this RFC/AFD/etc is too sensitive to publicise", which tends to be "I'm worried if the word gets out then people who disagree with me might find out about it"), then the only advice we can give is the generic list at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. "Limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open"; don't bulk-spam the notification, don't word the notification in such a way as to favour one side or to appeal more to people supporting a particular view, ensure you provide equal notification to everyone regardless of which position you expect them to take, and always be willing and able to list exactly who you notified and how they were selected if you're challenged. –(current admin and former arbitrator, checkuser and oversighter) Iridescent 10:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• And avoid this at all costs.Winged Blades^Godric 10:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Doncram

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Doncram

Mainpage errors

The first ITN article on main page currently lead directly to redirect page Turkish military intervention in Afrin. It has been noted in WP:ERRORS since but no admin to act. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Just fixed it now. Cheers. fish&karate 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol

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.

---

Following the closure of an RFC wondering if we should delete all of the 444 pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be deleted, Beeblebrox proceeded to delete them all. The main concern that has followed (which is currently being discussed at their talk page) is whether the close of an RFC on the Village Pump is sufficient for the mass-deletion of that many pages, two of which are Featured Lists. There is also a concern that since Beeblebrox was the one that started the RFC, they should not be the one enforcing the results of the RFC.

However, I'm not particularly interested in tarring Beeblebrox for their actions, rather I'm interested in what to do about the situation as a whole. As I see it, there are two options:

1. Leave the content deleted - the RFC is a consensus, and as a consensus activity there is no issue with them being speedy deleted without discussion.
2. Restore the pages and either:
   1. Have a mass-AFD to allow non-admins and editors who were not aware of the RFC an opportunity to weigh in
   2. Perform some other form of not-speedy deletion (PROD?) that would let other editors contribute.

Other options will be entertained, but please try to keep the focus on the articles and what we should do about them. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• My preference would be to restore the pages and then make them redirects to the relevant airlines; which will allow for regular discussion of outcomes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From a procedural point of view, I don't see any speedy deletion criteria that applies; this appears controversial so WP:G6 doesn't apply, and the village pump isn't listed as a venue that allows for WP:G4 Wikipedia:Deletion discussions-based deletion. That said, a consensus can ignore that (per WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR), though as deletion is an administrative action perhaps there would need to be a consensus in favor of it here as well as the one at WP:VPP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Good answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Also support restoring and redirecting as a good compromise solution. Note: I was not aware that talk page notices had not been sent and was assuming they had been. Soft-deletion via redirect isn't appropriate given that those notices were not sent. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirects would likely be self-referential. The articles have redlinks because of this. The RfC said nothing of the articles themselves and deleting throught the redlink warning is a problem. Any article that was referenced should not have been deleted under the RfC. --05:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• My preference is that painting 400+ articles with the same brush is quite shortsighted. The lists were of various quality and, and due to the size of the airlines involved, of differing levels of importance. Restore them all, and lets have an orderly AFD process. Courcelles (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3) While somewhat cumbersome (a bot could easily handle it though), the discussion should have been advertised on each of the pages. I don't think backroom discussions on whether a page should exist are good ideas when all you do is advertise it to a WikiProject and not to the people who have been editing the articles. I also find Beeblebrox's act of deleting them a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Nihlus 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3) The biggest issue here is that an article reader/watcher would have had no notification of the RFC. AFD and PROD at least give notices on top of each article. A mass AFD would turn into a trainwreck very quickly, given the wide range of article quality and airline significance involved. I'd suggest a mass PROD first, followed by localized AFD's. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is more of a plane crash than a train wreck; it failed to take-off. But maybe it then crashed into a railway line too as I've now had to !vote on multiple pages with multiple edit conflicts. Ordinary editors and readers have no patience for such intricate processes and so conducting our proceedings in this way disenfranchises them. Our millions of readers need better representation and protection . Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Preferences aside, there was a community discussion that concluded that all of these pages should go. Speedy deletion is not relevant here as there was discussion that was quite long and more widely attended than most AFDs. Also, are we doing this here ot at WP:ANI? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "preference", but the right people weren't informed this was happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At WP:ANI please.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Here makes the most sense, as the broader question of "Can a VP discussion be used to speedy delete" needs to be addressed in addition to the incident of the deletions. Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that FL should not be deleted and that the others should be judged individually to determine the best alternative, be it merging, stand-alone, or deletion. Each article/list should be judged on individual merits. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We have a process and template for mass deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. I think the community expectation is that the process would be followed and deletion discussions occur in the appropriate place in the appropriate manner. WP:BUNDLE --DHeyward (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• If this discussion had been advertised to all the pages in the way it would have been if it had been done through AFD, then yes, OK this is sufficient and I wouldn't see any further process is necessary. The fact that a de facto AFD does not take place WP:AFD is not important - but it should meet the standards we would expect of an AFD and this process did not. The safeguards we have at AFD - such as the mandatory notification on the article - are there for a reason. And as such I find it difficult to see how we can consider these deletions appropriate without those safeguards in place.

On the wider point, since many of this articles have been there for many years, may I suggest we consider WP:EXTERNALROT as a good reason to restore and redirect, if we accept as consensus that the content should not be here. Kahastok talk 23:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add in addition to notification in the right places, there also needs to be the right notification. If you AFD something, it should be obvious to anyone with a bit of experience that deletion of the article is a possible outcome. If you are simply advertising an RFC on the VP, it may not be obvious, so you need to make it clear in the notification what is being considered. Nil Einne (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Question - Why are there threads both here and on AN/I about this? Shouldn't one be closed, or the two be brought together in one place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Because no one's done it yet? Primefac (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked on my talk page for an uninvolved admin to please close one or the other, but nobody’s done it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Saw this passing through and closed the ANI discussion. I agree that AN is a better place to discuss, since it's both a review of an administrative action as the result of a RfC close and a more general discussion about whether RfCs can end in deletion of articles. ansh666 04:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I just knew this would wind up a mess - my opinion, no a VPP discussion cannot be a mass deletion discussion. So, restore to take to AfD. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No problem with the person starting the discussion enacting it if it has been closed affirmatively by a neutral third party. But having a deletion discussion at the VP is quite irregular; it should have been conducted at AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC).

• Participated in the discussion, but agree that the closer's answer was not a free pass to delete the pages outright. The question was "should", meaning that PROD/AFD/Merge discussions should have been made, and or a discussion of how to proceed, but not immediate deletion. --Masem (t) 02:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think it's understandable to interpret the discussion as a vote to get rid of those pages, so I don't necessarily fault Beeblebrox. It's a little tiresome to have separate discussions about all 444 category members. Even grouping and discussing seems tedious. Grouped discussion could have taken place in the RfC, too. But if that's what everyone wants... Killiondude (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Here's an idea: Open an AfD mass nom and notify all the RfC participants with a short message explaining the situation. Alternatively, open an AfD mass nom, link to the RfC, and count the RfC comments as !votes. It's silly to consider the RfC a nullity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with mass deletion is that the articles are all different. They have different content. The RfC was focused as if this was an airline schedule but that was mileading. Eastern Air Lines#Destinations is now a redlink to Eastern Air Lines destinations. Contrary to the premise of the RfC, therre is no maintenance of the destinations required. EA is a defunct airline and its are an encyclopedic historical list that is not changing. There is no clear way to relate the non-changing list of EA to an evolving list of an existing airline. There is no website users can go to, despite this being one of the arguments. In no event should the outcome of a VPP discussion lead to the deletion of articles. The most a VPP discussion could/should do is create an AfD criteria that could be used as a rationale to delete now and in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Actually this RFC has poor level of participation to effectively make this extreme decision of nuking hundreds of pages including one of Wikipedia's best lists that have passed rigor of FL processes. Moreover, the RFC closer never said there's consensus to delete all these pages, he only closed it with rationale that Wikipedia should not have them which is clearly subject to various interpretations and this is what gives the RFC initator greenlight to interpret it they way he did, because already he don't want them and this is obviously not the ideal thing to do. At best that RFC is rough consensus of 16-17 people about the fate of 444 pages which should be decided by uninvolved admins on what to proceed with. The way the RFC was framed is also fuzzy and not ideal, because it never told the participants what they're explicitly voting on. To this effect, I recommend both Restoring the pages and opening new, well-advertized RFC (like Mass AfD without listing all the pages) to ask specifically Delete or Keep and after the normal period to be closed officially and enact what ever decision reached. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see how we jumped from these articles should not be included in Wikipedia to they are summarily deleted. They need to be looked at and determine the best course of action. The best course of action on some may be deletion, but others to to merge some content to another article and redirect, while others may be kept. There is no consensus in that RFC to delete all the articles. ~ GB fan 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In addition to the articles, there were circa 600 redirects to the articles. These were deleted by AnomieBOT III on January 28 and 29. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is serious. The main goal of Wikipedia is the creation of content (or at least this is something that voters look closer for RFAs) and one admin tried to get rid of more than 400 articles at once. Something here is not working.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• I doubt anyone would pass RfA if they advocated the use of admin tools for mass deletions in situations like this. I'm reluctant to bring it up, but we need to consider if it is appropriate for Beeblebrox to retain the admin tools. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Striking my comment. An arbcom case over just this incident would be an overreaction. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Billhpike, if you think that is needed, the correct thing to do would be to file a case request with the arbitration committee. I doubt it would be accepted, however. Beeblebrox has been acting in good faith, has allowed for community review of his actions, and does not have a history of poor judgement. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There is comparatively little on Wikipedia that can be done which cannot just as easily be undone. Let's not let the blood and baseness of our natures conduct us to preposterous conclusions just yet. GMG^talk 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, its rather unsurprising someone said it (especially with some admins on the talk page using the INVOLVED word) -- I don't think it will go anywhere, unless it's somehow argued that the whole can't be undone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Restore the pages and follow normal AfD procedures

The RFC at the village pump did not serve to establish consensus for mass deletion. The pages should be restored and normal AfD procedures followed. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's happened enough before that we have named it Wikipedia:Glossary#Trainwreck specifically for mass deletions gone awry. See WP:BUNDLE for proper deletion process. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support This was done in incredibly poor form, with poor behavior when addressed. Yes, we have all sorts of guidelines and consensuses regarding inclusion of various types of articles, but that does not mean articles under them may be deleted without particular discussion or notice on the page itself. In no way was a consensus (without participation of relevant editors) that the format doesn't belong here result in en masse deletion. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and also consider looking more closely at the actions of the admin, particularly in rejecting a very reasonable request to return some material after deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I concur with The Rambling Man's point above. The deleting admin seems to be in a hurry to get rid of the articles. Also, the very fact that none of the editors from the project commented and voiced their opinion itself makes the VP discussion invalid. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 07:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support the village pump discussion didn't give notice to anybody watching the articles that this was about to happen, or (it seems) to any interested Wikiprojects. You don't get to do that for a featured list. While the RfC may be persuasive in AfD discussions it doesn't justify nuking all the articles like this. I would also advise against a mass AfD nomination given the variety of articles this involves. Hut 8.5 07:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - with the exception of orphaned template redirects which are unlikely to be used ever, nothing should be deleted under any circumstances unless it meets one of the following criteria:
  1. It was discussed in an appropriate XFD discussion, with consensus to delete;
  2. It meats the criteria for PROD, including having been tagged for the required amount of time
  3. It meets some criterion which was approved as a CSD, in a discussion which either took place at WT:CSD or a notification of the discussion was placed there;
  4. Situations which must be handled urgently, and can't wait for a general discussion;
  5. Deletion under rules or instructions set out by the Foundation, where there can be no doubt that they apply to the deletion in question (the most obvious cases here would be Office actions);

As none of the above apply here, the deletion was wrong. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support The supposed consensus is now seen to be illusory and, per WP:CONLIMITED, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The fact that one of these lists was featured shows that individual consideration is needed. And all the authors of these pages should be notified per our usual AfD process. Beeblebrox is not the right person to be taking any admin actions needed for this because they are involved. Andrew D. (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, two are featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This sort of discussion needs to go through the usual channels so that people with experience in that kind of discussion find out about it. Doing it a different way was a mistake. There is no deadline, no hurry to get these deleted, so the cleanest way to fix the mistake is to restore all and start again. If B is complaining that undoing his actions is all too much work, he should have thought of that before getting involved in this mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per all the above and there's the need to look at the WP:INVOLVED actions of the admin, seeing as they started the RfC in the first place! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my thought above. There's need to follow the standard procedure. Noteworthy also is, most of these article are well developed over the years including featured ones which were rigorously adjudged to meet all Wikipedia policies, they shouldn't be summarily deleted as a result of obviously poorly-participated RFC which asked rather hazy questions and closed with ambiguous result. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support When I stated above that restore and redirect was a resonable solution I was not yet aware that notices to the talk pages of these articles had not been made. Given that those messages were not sent, AfD is needed before deletion or soft-deletion via redirect. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, disclosure - I closed the RFC based on the consensus within the discussion, I don't care whether the articles exist or not. However, I do not believe that any RFC should facilitate the circumvention of the established deletion process. fish&karate 09:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - they should be restored. Then discussions held on how to deal with them. A mass AFD on all of them will end in a train wreck so there will need to be multiple discussions. ~ GB fan 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support following standard procedure. I also suspect that many of these are going to end up as keep in AfDs. Excelse (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support And next time please inform the corresponding wikiproject in a proper manner. The deletion of such lists would also prompt the deletion of even more articles of different topics.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Just the fact that the articles themselves were not tagged with the possibility of deletion makes this utterly improper. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The example of Eastern Air listed above by DHeyward shows that the encyclopedia was actually made worse by this action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - PROD instead. GiantSnowman 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: How can you PROD deleted page if it is not restored? –Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ammarpad: the restoration is clearly implied. GiantSnowman 14:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose PROD is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A concern with the AFD (beyond some of the issues id'd above and in the PROD section below): we would need to make sure each AFD links back to the RFC, and that the closing admin have to weigh that considerably against other !votes (eg, imagine copy and pasting all !votes from the RFC into the AFD); otherwise, I can see most of these AFDs being closed as keep as they will likely have high participation from the various transportation projects. This could be a problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually get the section below, as prod is part of the deletion process, but your claim is just beside the point. If you are examining a list, you actually do have to deal with the particulars of that list and not broad claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The closure of the RFC concluded that WP should not (not "must not") have these lists. So a case-by-case evaluation is absolutely called for, no question. But if those processes are run without considering the weight of the RFC, most of the lists are likely to be kept - to be blunt but not as an insult, most of those pages are being kept by editors that are the airline equivalent of trainspotters, and we can already see here some of them not likely that their work is going to be removed. They will likely be the ones to challenge the AFD and/or any PROD with the loudest voices. We do need to heed those, but with the understanding that only the most exception cases should be kept, or where appropriate, content merged to other articles, so the broad RFC result still needs to be upheld. To me, this is why PROD or AFD seems like the wrong first step and instead a discussion on how to go about merging, redirecting or other types of actions that can be taken first before the mass "deletion" step is done. --Masem (t) 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Question What about lists embedded in airline articles? They were removed as well [15] [16].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per basic Wikipedia protocol. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support 400+ articles are not all created equal. Some are likely worthy of deletion, but some are not. It may take quite a bit of time to sort through them, but we can't just nuke hundreds of articles like this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - when there is any doubt about deletion, we should go through AfD. The actual number is neither here nor there because there are tools (here and elsewhere) for handling large numbers. Green Giant (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Review needed, and discussion in PROD section indicates that won't work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per most of what was said above. Also, we should probably limit the amount of articles submitted to AFD at the same time, to not overwhelm the process. Regards SoWhy 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support- but only with the understanding that a "no consensus" on any individual AfD discussion defaults to the outcome of the RfC (ie. delete) rather than keep. I also predict that, if they're nominated individually, there will be people saying that's too many AfDs and they should be bundled. And if there are bundled nominations there'll be people demanding they be unbundled and nominated separately. Such votes should be given no weight. Reyk _YO! 17:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Qualified support: it seems unlikely that the PROD proposal will gain wide support, so I'm okay with starting an AfD discussion on each list. However, the editors who close these discussions should be experienced in assessing consensus and should take into account the WP:VPP decision to delete the lists. Opposing !votes should address why this list in particular is an exception to that decision. AdA&D ★ 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support AfD is the proper venue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, making sure that there are links to both the VPP discussion and this one on AN on each AfD. ansh666 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Village Pump is not the venue for discussing the deletion of ONE article, no less hundreds. That Beebs started the RFC and starting doing the work doesn't bother me as we aren't a bureaucracy, but I would have hoped he knew that VP isn't a proper deletion venue to even hold the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There is some debate on how to proceed after the articles are restored, but there appears to be a strong consensus to restore the articles. The longer we wait, the more work it will be to fix the wikilinks to these articles. Therefore, we should restore the articles and continue the discussion below about the best long term solution. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I saw a coiple go across my watchlist. Generally airline destination lists are very useful. I've used these pages myself. Passanger airlines don't just randomly start and stop flying places. There is a big procedure, in some smaller centers it is an economicly big deal. Where an airline goes is practically the most useful info that exists about the airline. Why are we mass deleting useful info again? Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Restore and mass-PROD the pages

Close as proposer. Clearly this is not going to gain support, no need to clutter the discussion. AdA&D ★ 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support. 400 articles at once is a lot for AfD. May as well PROD the pages, citing the Village Pump discussion as rationale. If users disagree with the deletion, AfD discussions can be started on a case-by-case basis. AdA&D ☆ 14:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Allow me to clarify my position: consensus at WP:VPP is that, in general, these lists should be deleted. That is, lists in this category being kept ought to be the exception, not the rule. Consequently, the majority of these lists being deleted should be uncontroversial, as consensus to do so has already been established. By PRODing all of the lists in this category, we are: allowing most lists in this category to be deleted without further discussion per the broad consensus already established at WP:VPP letting users object and force an AfD if they think an exception should be made. AdA&D ★ 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support. There was a clear consensus against having these articles so I feel at the very least they should be prodded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support- Seems to be the best way forward. Of course it's pretty much certain that someone's then going to go and mass deprod them. Reyk YO! 14:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Well, that didn't take long. Let me state for the record that I consider dePRODding just for its own sake to be disruptive. Reyk YO! 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support at a manageable pace - possibly 20 per day. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support - completely agree, no need to AFD unless PROD challenged. GiantSnowman 14:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support per above. I'd also warn anyone who is opposed to deletion not to go through and mass de-prod: it would be just as bad as the mass deletions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I will mass deprod. The is a TRAINWRECK. We have WP:BUNDLE. This disaster also caused the the bot to delete 600 redlinks. Stop the insanity. --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Support, with caveats about manageable paces (ETA: and not re-prodding articles which have gone through the process before). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose per previous large-scale AfD noted below. The process saved by using PROD here is getting vanishingly small... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) No support I object this method and will remove each of the tags from every single article. And as far as I remember, a number of the articles involved here had an AfD before and ″PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.″--Jetstreamer Talk 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC) If you de-PROD’d every article, you’d likely end up at ANI facing a topic ban or block. Obviously normal deletion procedure should be followed, but mass de-PRODing without thought would be just as disruptive as the mass deletion in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Mass de-PRODing without thought is fairly explicitly allowed by the policy, Tony. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC) If someone did automatically de-PROD every article that is PRODed no matter what it was - that's definitely disruptive, essentially nullifying the PROD. But what as I said below, I don't think so much in this case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The policy allows it, but it also assumes that the person removing the PROD has a reason behind it for each specific article. If there is support here to use PROD, and someone goes through mindlessly removing them just because they can, I am pretty confident they will be blocked for disruptive editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Providing a reason is not mandatory at all.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Well, mass PRODing is also perhaps disruptive..since there are clearly many people who support keeping each and every article, hardly can be called an uncontroversial deletion; their dePRODing can't really be called disruptive IMO since they do want to keep the article, and it is in response to mass-PRODing; anyhow even if mass-dePRODing doesn't occur, there are enough people to do it by group I guess that I don't think it'll matter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Its uncontroversial as there was a clear consensus at an RfC in favour of deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The Deprodding is also uncontroversial because the articles were already deleted and challenged by bigger consensus than the RFC –Ammarpad (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Since one of the principal arguments, often rolled out during that RfC, was "too difficult to maintain", and since it's since been "discovered" that at least one list applies to a defunct airline, it's clear that the arguments weren't made taking the spectrum of articles into account. Hence why AFD is the only option here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose The PROD process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." As opposition is expected, the process is therefore not appropriate and would just be a waste of time. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose per Andrew D., this would be blatant abuse of the PROD process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose many of them are ineligible for PROD. See this AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations. Everyone that was listed there in 2015 is ineligible for PROD based on that keep close. ~ GB fan 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose - conceptually, if they were as non-controversial as a PROD is supposed to be, I don't think we'd be restoring them in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Yes we would be, these are a mass out of process speedy deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose as unworkable and against deletion policy. If mass deprodding is disruption then equally mass deletion (outside proper policy) is also disruption. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose per Andrew D. and per below. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose per Andrew Davidson. It's clear from this thread that deletion will face opposition so it's a waste of time to PROD them. Regards SoWhy 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose Not uncontroversial; should be done at AfD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose, many of the articles have already been through PROD/AfD already anyways. ansh666 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose PROD is for uncontroversial cases where no opposition should be expected, the discussions on this issue show that is not the case. Hut 8.5 18:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose per WP:BUNDLE. We have a process for bulk deletion. Follow it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Oppose another attempt to evade standard procedure. Immediate deprodding is the obvious next step (unless some kind of nonstandard prod with no waiting period or no deprods allowed is envisioned) so then what would be the point? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Why Mass PROD is against policy -and why the proposal is not enforceable (edit conflict × 3)It is understandable that these articles now have wider visibility than they were when the poorly-participated VP RfC took place which takes 26 days to garner as much people as who commented here in the last 24 hours. Since the start of the deletion there are–as far as I know– 6 different discussions at VP, at Beeblebrox' talkpage and 2 at ANI which were all closed and combined here. Now the point I want make is that even if this proposal "Mass PROD" garner support it is not enforcabele as per provisions of Proposed Deletion Policy which gives widest latitude for everyone who can connect to internet to simply object PROD and giving reason is not even required. It explicitly says "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Therefore the premise of this proposal is even more faulty than the premise of the initial deletion. We should find policy-based proposal before support pile on is exhausted. Many people and IP users scavenge Category:Proposed deletion daily and remove significant number of articles, more often than not, only articles which are thoroughly unsalvageable make it to the final day. So Mass PROD will surely produces more drama than the initial deletion at what ever batches it is made because there's no way well developed list will be left to reach PROD d-day not talk of Featured Lists and since it is controversial upfront it is against Proposed deletion policy hands down. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Response from Beeblebrox

• Ok, clearly the community does not support the idea that a consensus at VPP is sufficient to just delete the articles. I don’t agree, but there it is, so that’s what we’ll go with.

• I’m glad the PROD idea was floated here and voted on as it makes my actions look less crazy, that’s a completely whack idea with several obvious flaws.

• As it happens I am busy today, so I probably won’t make much progress on these restorations in the next 24 hours. It looks like I’ll have more time tomorrow. I’m willing to do the cleanup, just as I was willing to slog through all these deletions to begin with, but real life sometimes must take priority. If any other admin thinks a day is too long to leave this they are welcome to start without me. As a gesture of good faith I’ll do a quick run before I go, but it probably won’t be much as I have to get to work soon.

• As far as I’m concerned that concludes this matter, (except for doing the actual work of course) but if those lusting for blood would like to turn this into an arb case, I would point out that when serious objections surfaced I ceased the deletions and sought community input. That I apparently misjudged how the community viewed this is now evident and I have admitted as much and indicate my willingness to work on undoing all of it. If you think that shows a lack of suitable judgement to continue being admin, good luck with that case, I’ll see you there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Did a handful just now, but I’m getting some kind of dbase lag error about every third page, so it’s taking a lot of time that I don’t have to spare at the moment. Maybe some admin with AWB can do some magic? If not I’ll be at it again when I have time and hopefully traffic is a bit slower. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've got most of them with TWINKLE's batch restoration tool, which is usually great for things like this. I did get a huge number of error responses from the server and I've now run into issues with database lag. I'll keep trying on the last few. Hut 8.5 20:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's done now. All the articles seem to be restored, I finished off all the AnomieBOT III deletions, and I believe I've caught all the ones that were manually deleted by other editors. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No hard feelings from my part Beeblebrox, we all make mistakes. Putting your tools on scrutiny was not an idea that crossed my mind, I was actually concerned on how to recover all these articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the help, I can’t believe I didn’t even think to use Twinkle, I guess I’ve never done that specific operation with it before despite using it for nearly ten years. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for closure

• Primefac, the original poster of this thread appended his statement above with caveat to keep "focus on the articles and what we should do about them.". As such, I think:

• There's clear consensus for restoring these articles and it seems all were restored. Thanks to co-ordinated efforts of Xexbeth, GB fan, Hut 8.5, Beeblebrox himself and others I may not know.
• There's no consensus on any possible mass-action on them. I think this is enough and I am suggesting this thread to be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

@Tazerdadog: Sorry to comment after the close, but this part of the closing statement seems wrong to me:

These AfD's should contain a link to the closed RfC, and the AfD closer should take the RfC closure into account when closing the AfD's. In particular, a no consensus result should default to delete, not keep, based on the consensus at the broader RfC for these articles.

My reading of the consensus both here and at the closed AN/I thread is that the RfC was seen to be about deleting the category and not about deleting the articles in the category, and that is why they have now been un-deleted. Given that, the normal "no consensus defaults to keep" should be in effect, not a special reverse default.

I ask the closer to strike that part of the closing statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The RFC is fairly evidently about the content of the pages, not the category. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

All of the discussion I've re-read so far has pretty unambiguously identified the pages in the category, and not the category itself, as the locus of the dispute. Given that a perfectly valid and broad consensus was reached that Wikipedia shouldn't have these types of articles, reversing the default seems like a very appropriate response. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A lot of these articles have been kept at AfD before, some of them have been kept on three separate occasions. If a fourth AfD closes as no consensus then deleting would be extremely unwise. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, any "no consensus" in deletion defaults to keep. This is generally known and from the above consensus there is no agreement in this extreme switching. As Xexbeth said it plainly this will be extremely unwise move, probably even more than what ignited all this ab initio. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have struck that switch from my close. A reread of the discussion convinced me that I was in error on that point. The requirement for the closer to consider the original RFC remains, and should be sufficient.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And a belated thank you to @Beeblebrox: and the editors who helped to restore the articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me, or am I the only one who can see just 299 articles in the Category:Lists of airline destinations? Should it not be 444? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Server is slow on the uptake, the remaining articles exist but require a null edit to populate the categories they're in. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! They're slowly appearing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Article BLP on UserPage

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

---

I am concerned about the existence of User:Inexpiable/Jerome Ersland - this was an article originally deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Ersland and deleted quite quickly as the subject fails WP:Notability and also the article had issues with POV, BLP, and OR. Following the article's deletion, this post was made, then the article subsequently restored on a user page. The user making the request promised to work on the article and improve it. This was never done and the article has existed on this user page for nearly two years. My main concern here is that the restoration of this article is an attempt to keep Jerome Ersland's information on Wikipedia probably for the status of "having a Wikipedia article" but also there are some real world concerns here relating to Ersland being in prison and attempting to appeal his sentence. This concern is made doubly so by the article referencing the Jerome Ersland support page as one of its "sources" [17]. The way this article has been "nestled away" on a user page really concerns me as I think there is more going on here and that this breaks our rules about WP:BLP, if not several others. Can an administrator please review this situation. -O.R.^Comms 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the case anymore, delete the article it's not a notable enough case. I've deleted the stuff on the page you're referring to and have no interest in making a new page for it. Inexpiable (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved it back to article space and redeleted it per the WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Standard offer for User:Mgstaggers

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

---

I am willing to unblock User:Mgstaggers based on the wp:Standard offer and his unblock request [18]. I need community approval for unblocking per WP:SO. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure of policy here: this is a CheckUser block; you got approval from a checkuser ([19]) but not the blocking checkuser. Do you need Bbb23's consent? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." (WP:NEVERUNBLOCK) Still, hard to "blame" Vanja as Katie instructed him to come here. In any event, I know the user was blocked for spam, and I know he says he won't continue spamming if he's unblocked, but I don't know (haven't looked) whether a significant portion of his edits before being blocked were not spam. That would seem to me to be an important question.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, my bad. Katie^talk 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, with that procedural pedantry out of the way (you're welcome) I support the unblock request. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of socking after the original case, and the incidences of spam (I see three total spam edits between two accounts?) seem to be an odd misstep in a generally productive history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I see no history at all to go off of. We wouldn't likely grant this user pending changes reviewer or rollbacker if they asked for it because there is no reasonable editing history to track. They have a total of 171 178 total edits, were caught socking, and spamming links. There is nothing in their history which suggests to us that we should trust them to be a productive contributor. If anything, their history of contributions is what you would expect from a spammer who is attempting to build a long-term account that slips past filters and reviewers: short spurts of editing over several years, bouts of WikiLove messages, and then suddenly they start spamming when they have enough edits not to be a completely new redlink account. They should remain blocked and per the banning policy a declined unblock should be taken as a community site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

On the same token, one thing we know about SPA spammers is they do not stop when their first account is blocked. They make new accounts and come back over and over and over again. Mgstaggers has intermittent constructive history going back many years, even though it doesn't amount to much and you're probably right about granting them advanced permissions, it's also hardly enough that they would have become intimately familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to assume good faith that they made a fairly common mistake and were dealt a pretty severe punishment because of it (rightly so, socking is serious) but that they seem to have learned from that. At least, there's not evidence that they haven't, and I still like to think we're not in the business of kicking users out forever because they made one or two mistakes as n00bs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The standard offer is not typically intended for situations like this, however. It is intended for users who have a history on Wikimedia projects of constructive contributions and who made a mistake. That is simply not the case here. We also don't know that they aren't an SPA spammer: we know that they haven't socked in the last 90 days, which given their history, is entirely in line with them still intending to sock again. I would be more open to this if they actually had a record on any Wikimedia project, but they simply don't have that. Even with LTAs that are requesting the offer we typically have some history to go off of. We have nothing at all here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Pedantry (and nitpicking) is always a good thing. 176 live edits and 2 deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bbb, I Xtools showed 171 total for me. Updated above (though my point stands). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tony. !dave 06:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support, oddly enough, for pretty much the exact reasons Tony opposes. That is, because there's not much to go on, we can't really say anything about this editor. The reason the SO, to my understanding, came into existence is because the other option for long-term blocks and bans was for editors to show us how they have improved via contributions elsewhere on other projects. In most cases, that just didn't happen—there was rarely enough, and it was rarely good enough, and so indeffed editors stayed blocked. So we have the standard offer, in which we will typically overlook past misconduct. It doesn't mean that the person has to have been a net positive without the blockable offense. That said, I'm not particularly impressed with the unblock statement, and get the feeling that Mgstaggers still doesn't quite "get" Wikipedia (talking about the "Wikipedia database" and using the phrase "fervent wish" strike me as a bit... out of touch) but this could equally be due to inexperience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv, correct, we do typically like to see positive participation before the block on this project and/or positive participation on other projects after the block. The latter also hasn't happened in this case. Just pointing that out since you brought it up in your support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • My point is that the SO was devised to save people from the catch-22 scenario of having to show positive contributions post-block but don't really have an acceptable place to accrue them. Commons, for instance, is a very different environment, and small enough that you can work a long time without amassing the interactions a classical unblock discussion would demand. Contribs to non-English wikis are tough to evaluate, and not everybody can do that. The SO lets us skip all that. What matters, at least in my book, is that the grounds for blocking weren't particularly crazy (i.e., LTA cases probably aren't suitable for the SO) and that the request itself makes some steps towards taking ownership of past misdeeds. I'll admit the latter is where I pause in this case, but I feel the misconduct is petty enough that it's at the bottom end of a "SO required" unblock request, and so I feel comfortable enough giving the benefit of the doubt on that.
      I have thought hard about this case, and what makes me willing to completely ignore the lack of pre-block contribs is the fact that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't require a track record for people to enter the community for the first time, and because the SO is sort of "starting over", I see no reason to apply a different standard to pre-block contrib quality. If there were evidence that Mgstaggers were so incapable of editing that a return to good conduct would still be severely disruptive, I could be swayed, but I don't see it in this case. And, realistically, given editors with virtually no pre-block track record probably could just make a new account and not get noticed, I think it says something good that this editor is going the honest route. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I disagree, obviously, as I typically want proof from a socking spammer as to why I should trust them, and I don't see that here, but I understand your POV. I suppose my view is that while we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, once you have shown that you simply don't care about our rules and want to use us to further commercial enterprises, you need a very strong case to be let back in. I don't see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I declined this user's unblock request on 2017-06-22, about a week after the original block. However, now that six months have passed, my position is that this user has shown no further block evasion and it's worth extending the standard offer. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2nd chance. If someone can make an edit like this, they are sure capable of making more productive edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv. Reblocking is easy if needed. Miniapolis 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Yamla, Mendaliv etc. In the event of problematic editing a reblock would indeed be simple, and, I suspect, swift. -- Begoon 02:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support As others have noted, were this a truly malicious user the odds are high that they would have simply tried to evade their block. And if it turns out we are wrong here, fixing the mistake is likely to involve only a few clicks. The Standard Offer is something that in the world business might be termed a speculative investment. In this case I find the potential risk/reward ratio to be fairly attractive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - while I appreciate Tony's concern, I wonder how this editor could *prove* he won't spam/sock again. Per Yamla and Ad Orientem and others, I strongly suspect this editor's work will face high scrutiny. Worth the risk, and easy to rectify if it doesn't work out. If unblocked, I would suggest to Mgstaggers that if they have any concerns that an edit of theirs may slightly violate NPOV or SPAM, that they seek advice from an experienced editor, because the leash will be short for some time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - if we believe in a second chance, we must give it a real chance of succeeding. This user has lived up to our standard offer - which this user appears to do completely. I wouldn't oppose an explicit limit to a single account for the user, or an explicit restriction related to external links, but beyond that the only way to check if any user is truely ready to be unblocked is to see that they wait for a reasonable period of time, say the correct things, and then we unblock them and they edit correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Two CUs (it would seem) have looked at it, and (most) everyone deserves a second change. I would add they should be limited to one account and understand they have being given a length of WP:ROPE, so they would do good to not hang themselves with it as they will be under higher scrutiny once unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per TonyBallioni and WP:ROPE. Yes, he opposed. But I support for the reason he opposed: Without a history to work from we're left with AGF, and blocks are cheap anyways. It won't take but a few days to figure out if this user is serious or not. --Jayron32 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please restore link

to thread above for an I-Ban. We hope (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I reposted here as the link isn't working since the mass revdel. We hope (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

22:28, 24 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2,410)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→‎I-Ban request: new section) We hope (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Its struck on my contribuions page. We hope (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I had to oversight a whole bunch of revisions, for an unrelated reason. While you couldn't link to a diff of your post (and it was technically not possible for me to restore it), you could still link to the section, which was never deleted. Or, you could do what you did below, that works too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The odd thing is that the post itself remained online here but the link to it was struck and wouldn't work. I reposted the original request below. We hope (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not odd, that's how revdel and suppression work; I can explain more on your talk if you want, but I always imagine most people's eyes glazing over and them giving me the "I could not possibly care less" vibe when I start explaining the minutiae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppose that I've never been in the right place at the right time for it to happen-like viewing a total eclipse. ;) We hope (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sosnowiec article fiction

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.

---

Referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_User:83.29.46.96_(Result:_Semi) and based on Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis I demand taking down Sosnowiec article blockade and/or reverting fiction forced by User:Poeticbent here: [20].--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Not enough Citations

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

---

Hello, I am not an admin, but (on the English wikipedia) I found the page for a city in the Netherlands called Terneuzen, it bearly has any citations. can you maybe put a notice there, or find some citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigginator1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Pigginator1: Sorry, misunderstood. I refer you to WP:BEBOLD, WP:SOFIXIT even  :) but I'll have a look. Incidentally, this is not the place to request content alterations: Talk:Terneuzen is the place for this particular article. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

IRC

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

---

Hi,

I've just been banned from the #wikipedia-en-help chat thing in IRC. I did absolutely nothing wrong, I helped users - giving good advice, in accord with all Wikipedia rules.

Is there anything I can do to appeal the ban?

I was banned by "Waggie" apparently.

I've tried speaking to that user, but have had no response.

I would like to continue talking there - in particular, a user was asking about their draft about a motorcycle, and I was helping them make it more suitable for inclusion.

Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mind logging in to your actual Wikipedia account? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeske, I'll comment in IRC.

For info, here is more IRC discussion;

(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Given IRC logs should not be posted here, I'll say this: you were being patently unhelpful and rude to a helpee which resulted in that helpee then getting frustrated and rude themselves. You've refused to work with other helpers and in fact, have been banned previously for this exact same behavior. This isn't an AN problem, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here. But good luck with whatever your crusade is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

I tried to appeal, and got further 'banned'. Apparently, we cannot even talk about these things - which seems the antithesis of Wikipedia.

(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As you were in the room and can read, the top of each WMF channel explicitly states "No public logging" yet you've posted the logs here, publicly. I'd imagine that's the reason for your ban. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

For those interested in background info: Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Archive 1. Killiondude (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The IP was an evading banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay (or whoever), the IP was recently blocked for ban evasion but then unblocked on another admin's assurances that they were not the banned editor. Are they a different banned editor? Is there any chance someone can elaborate on this at all, or is it private info? Please email me if necessary. (courtesy ping Yamla and Huon) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Consider it a +12 year veteran Wikipedian's intuition. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP belongs to another editor who (until these events) was neither blocked nor banned. Personally I would consider the use of an IP in this way an attempt to evade scrutiny, particularly if it's used to edit-war about oversightable content. I'm a little squeamish about publicly connecting IP and username, though it seems pretty much an open secret at this point. If you consider it important enough, I can either provide the information in private, or maybe Courcelles, who knows the details, can weigh in on whether the person's actions on-wiki are sufficient to make me publishing the connection "not outing". Huon (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Judging whether something is an "open secret" or not is fraught with peril in regards to how open they really are, and, anyways, the global privacy policy pretty much dictates keeping mouths shut unless you're damned sure you can talk. In this case, I'd rather not say anything to non-CUs than end up explaining myself to the Ombudsmen... Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ombuddies, please, in this modern world of Chairs and gender equality. MPS1992 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ombudsperson actually has a dictionary entry.[21] Ombuddies are friends who go to meditation class with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Abusive behavior and rule violations by user Muboshgu

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

---

Hello,

I live in the Charlottesville area and know several of the people related to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. My friends and I have tried to go into several associated pages, including the ones for Wes Bellamy and Jason Kessler, to add context, citations and edits. However, whenever we add anything user Muboshgu comes in within an hour of the edit and undoes it. It's very frustrating because this personal clearly has agenda it's trying to enforce on these pages.

In the Muboshgu's user talk page you can see him/her saying things to other users he disagrees with like, "It wasn't a threat. It was a promise."

In the talk page on Jason Kessler, which Muboshgu seems to have created, he's described as using, "an angry and aggressive tone" with those who disagree. This is another page which Muboshgu serial unedits any changes he doesn't like. There are extremely defamatory statements on that page which shouldn't be allowed on the bio of a living person. For instance, Kessler has never claimed to be a "white nationalist" but the article describes him as such. It also lays blame for the post-rally car incident at his feet when this is something that has never been claimed in any criminal proceeding. In fact there are lawsuits involving whether the City of Charlottesville's stand down order was responsible for the chaos.

I'm asking for user Muboshgu to be sanctioned for abusive behavior and vandalism and be banned from editing pages related to Unite the Right and Charlottesville.

Regards,

Dominance Hierarchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominance Hierarchy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not forum shop. You have already raised this at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Help_with_Disruptive_User. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the EA thread. There were no replies there, and this seems like the better page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See the Big Red Notice near the top of this page. You are required to notify the other user of this discussion. I have done it for you this time, please do not overlook this again. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reply The only agendas I'm following are WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Forum shopping with items taken out of context is not the best way to get the resolution you're working towards. You should've sent me a message on my talk page, where I could have elaborated beyond the character limit of an edit summary. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) All I see so far from looking at Muboshgu's edits to those pages are reverts of some POV edits of yours. You should discuss on the articles' talk pages if there is anything in them worth rewording and saving. If there are actual examples of abusive behavior, you need to provide diffs (read the link if you don't know what "diffs" are). He's an admin here, so calling it "vandalism" makes you look silly. I'm also concerned about your user name (although it provides useful insight) and your reference to "My friends and I" trying to edit something, but at this stage I'm not going to look into this further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dominance Hierarchy, editing on Wikipedia is more complex than most people think. You might be well served to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note that DH Dominance Hierarchy has now posted to BLPN, claiming to be Jason Kessler. Perhaps this thread should be closed too, and the one at BLPN left open to actually address any article problems? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  When two editors with the initials "DH" have posted in a thread, it is helpful (and less surprising to at least one of them), to use their actual usernames instead of their undifferentiated initials. Thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  ooops. sorry. fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please approve the Freshdesk page

Hi admin,

I changed the freshdesk page with lots of citation. Please review and approve it.

Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathivathan (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) The Freshdesk page was last deleted and salted in December 2016. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Hmm..David, per Draft:Freshdesk, why a request for un-salting ought to be made at AN? Salting is almost always done to get the content vetted through AFC and AFAIK, only an AFC reviewer/some long-standing-user can get it mainspaced.Also, IMO, DRV is a better venue!Winged Blades^Godric 11:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• @David.moreno72: just in case you don't know of this discussion about your recommendation. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• yeah, this isn’t where requests for unprotection go. Normally you start with the protecting admin, (in this case @Joyous!: then go to the relvant section at WP:RFPP if they ae unavailable or you don’t like their reply. Beeblebrox (talk)
• Thanks everyone for the advice. Sorry for the confusion and your wasted time. I rarely have had to deal with salted pages that require administrator access. The entry at WP:SALT says 'Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator)', and I thought WP:AN was the best noticeboard to contact an administrator to the issue. Perhaps the WP:SALT page should be clarified. The following is my recommended change.

Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact the protecting administrator, file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process.

I will let the editor know of the correct course of action. Thank you David.moreno72 00:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

process if a final/level 4 warning has been used as a first warning

Just a question - what's the accepted process in the following circumstances: I noticed some petty vandalism on the Bugatti Veyron article here and reverted it. I checked the editors contributions and saw this was the second time they'd done this, so thought to leave a message on their talk page - only to find that Roxy the dog had already done so, but gone straight to the "only warning" template.

Firstly - as per WP:BITE that seems a little extreme for what (at the time) was petty stuff and the only edit from a newcomer, but it also left me or anybody else little room to add any additional commentary about their second edit.

I left another template anyway, but it seems a bit weird to have a message that says "This is your only warning" - which is promptly followed by another warning. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's vandalism, and it's petty and pointless vandalism. There's really no point to welcoming an editor who engages in that sort of behavior, or trying to encourage good behavior. It's best to let them know that if they don't stop on their own, we can force them to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• That's really the problem of the person leaving the over-the-top "only warning". It is quite acceptable to follow it with a level 1 or level 2 warning, or even better, a non-numeric handwritten note. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• An "only warning" should only be used for extremely bad vandalism - not for anything on the level of normal vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The warning wasn't "over the top". Plonker was clearly not here to build an encyclopeadia. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Those look like "can I really edit Wikipedia?"-style vandalism, in my opinion not worthy of "only warning" level templates. There's a possibility (though small) that this editor can turn into a productive one. I use "only warning" templates also, but the vandalism must strike me as intentionally damaging the topic, or attempting to punk Wikipedia. Even then I've undoubtedly been too hasty on occasion. Anyway, if you see this you can always add a personal note underneath, with a gentler message encouraging constructive participation. (but never excusing vandalism, of course) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) The vandalism - I agree it was vandalism - was only petty, not obscene, racist, offensive in any particular fashion - and given that it was a first edit, not even a pattern. I mean - changing 407 km/h (253 mph) to read "20Kph" - yeah, that should knock Grawp off the top spot, eh? While the end result may have been for a level 4 warning and ultimately a block somewhere down the line, doesn't jumping straight to a final warning deny AGF, or indeed give the editor any real incentive to continue when faced with such an attitude? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• This was definitely not "only warning" level vandalism, it was run-of-the-mill number-change vandalism. This gets a revert and a lv1 from me, generally. I use lv2 or lv3 as a first warning for more serious cases, and generally will only drop an "only warning" if the edit includes dick pics, explicit racism, or requires revdelete. On the other hand I have blocked users who leave excessive warning templates, per WP:BITE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that turned needlessly sinister. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No kidding Floq. Youze guys had better look at my edit history for today then. It's a typical day. I still see no reason to change my dealings with plonkers like this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Because other's are telling you it's overly harsh, generally out of step with community norms, and would you please dial it back a notch? That... that's the reason. GMG^talk 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • As the OP here, can I ask Floquenbeam why this is "needlessly sinister"? Especially when I look at Roxy's edit history - as he requests we do so - and see that L4 warnings are pretty much all he uses, even for such heinous edits such as this or this. I started this thread as just a question, but after looking at the edit history, I really think Roxy is being a bit excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the veiled threat of blocking Roxy the dog. Do you think that's a reasonable response? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not well versed in the etiquette expected of administrators, so couldn't comment with authority on whether a block is warranted. However, if Roxy thinks a block is warranted for a single silly edit, then I guess Ivanvector's implication for blocking a user who peppers dozens of L4 warnings for first and trivial offences, is ok - especially when backed up by policy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as having seriously messed up priorities.

I'm always puzzled by this idea that some kid is going to vandalize, and then might become productive, but only if treated with kid gloves, and who won't become productive if clearly told that what they're doing is vandalism and will lead to a block. Most of the time, the gently escalating warning system is giving the vandal the attention they crave, and actually reinforcing the desire to vandalize. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a reformed vandal, I'm saying that (a) the odds are very low, (b) if they're going to reform, they can reform after a level 4 warning just as easily as after a level 1 warning. While I don't care if others want to be more gentle, and I don't care if others want to recommend a softer approach to Roxy, given the unlikely payoff, it seems really weird to threaten a long-term productive editor with a block; that's much, much more likely to damage the encyclopedia than too quickly warning vandals about being blocked if they don't knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Chaheel, did you look at the edit histories of the pages concerned, and the warnings issued already to the editors concerned in the two examples you gave above? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because much like your own editing style I made assumptions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my previous edsum, you should. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?

• An individual creates a new account and vandalizes an article, using a deliberately misleading edit summary ("changed the date").
• The vandalism is reverted a few minutes later, and the new account receives a warning.
• The individual returns three hours later and vandalizes the same article as his second edit using this account, again using a false and misleading edit summary: ("nothing more just updated speeds").
• Now we're having an extended discussion on AN about this.

Seriously? This is obviously someone who has edited Wikipedia before, and created an account solely for petty vandalism. There is no reason whatsoever to 'escalate' through three or four levels of warnings, when it's pretty obviously a child or childish adult screwing around and wasting our time. To an experienced admin, that is pretty apparent from the first edit, and painfully obvious by the second. This isn't a situation where we need to talk about which warning template is appropriate; this is a situation where an admin should just revert and block.

I have done so now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Following that, I don't see any need to respond here any further, unless a direct question needs answering. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• The short answer to the original question is that there is no defined process, different users take a variety of approaches to handling vandalism. If you want to make a big deal out of how one particular user is doing it, WP:ANI is thataway. If yo were trying to have a policy discussion WP:VPP is over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It behooves everyone to remember the purpose of Wikipedia. Bear with me; this IS relevent.

The only purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If an obscure article is 'wrong' for 10 minutes, it is not disruptive.

If we deal with users like this in a professional, understanding way then - very occasionally - they become productive editors.

I am sure that most people reading this will be mostly dealing with vandals, and thus jaded; but I beg you to step back.

999/1000 of people who make edits like this will be useless to the objective of Wikipedia. But that one might be gold. Just think, if 1/1000 makes 10,000 good edits, it's a net positive.

There is no 'level 1-3' warning system here; that's an entirely fictitious system, which may be convenient but has absolutely no meaning.

TL;DR: Be nice. 99% of the time you'd be right to assume they're assholes, but that 1% is pure gold. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Elegant words from someone who just told another editor to "get the fuck out", at the Help Desk of all places. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Upon reading the comment above, I'm tempted to opine that losing one nominally valuable editor who thinks it's funny to write "MY BROTHER IS A DICKHEAD" or change the top speed of a car to 20mph, (contrast with actually funny vandalism like this) is a sufficiently low cost to pay to make 999 vandals think twice about doing it again.

For the record: my IP address received a "warning" that consisted of being told to get a life, coupled with speculation about my mental faculties and social acumen once, before I registered an account. I didn't even perform the vandalism it was in response to; an IP whose last quartet had one additional digit to mine did (kids, never drink and copy and paste). Despite being given that incredibly bad impression, I still registered an account and have been editing ever since. Mostly because I'm the kind of person who takes enjoyment in contributing to an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me...I'm in stitches...that we're even having this discussion. It would be interesting to partake in the research to see the valuable time vandals consume vs the productivity of the project without them. Think of the anonymous phone calls over the years to retailers asking, "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?" If the clerk says "Yes, we do" the caller says "Better let him out!" and hangs up. Time sink - no chance those anonymous callers will ever become fans of the store or Prince Albert. Just saying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What is being sorely missed here is the wider point of warnings and other administrative intimidation being used on users who will have no idea what any of it means. It is fine for users to be warned, but being warned with the stiffest warning first, as opposed to a simple welcome to Wikipedia and a note, is not in anyway an assumption of good faith. New users should be welcomed. They should not be hounded off the project for what is an in this case a tiny edit. The whole system of warnings needs looking at. Heavy handedness, and bad faith assumptions are rife by the looks of it from some users. I am not an administrator, I am simply someone who has had too many sanctimonious warnings and other threatening gibberish placed on my talk page, all with little to no explanation and no prior discussion being attempted. It seems that the lazy option is taken of warn and run. Then block and be damned. The way new users and for that matter any user should be approached is with discussion and openness. Along with a mind to inform and educate. This whole shtick of warn and scare off is never going to get new users into the project. Anther user described the edit in question as an "I can really edit this?" style edit. Users doing that should not be condemned they should be mentored. This thread shows a far deeper issue of the problem underlying the need to have bought this thread up in the first place. Sport and politics (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood - I'm actually an avid supporter of editor retention, so I'm inclined to give productive editors the same consideration I give vandals. I'm not convinced that vandals should be given more consideration simply because we "assume" they aren't familiar with PAGs and that's why they're being disruptive. If they don't understand the difference after one stern warning, why should we treat them any differently from the way we treat veteran editors who knowingly abuse 1RR DS? Regardless, it still boils down to the discretion of our trusted administrators. Are there any stats showing the results of vandalism/persistent vandalism after being warned? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Community sanction block review and question about process

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 couple days ago, admin Coffee blocked user Seraphim System (talk · contribs) as a remedy under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL general sanctions. I'm not arguing with the block and I've already declined an unblock request on the user's talk page, but I have a question about proper procedure here.

I noticed today while reviewing the general sanctions page that there has been no notification to Seraphim System logged on the page. Coffee and several other users have argued on Seraphim System's talk page that she was adequately warned in the form of an editnotice on the article, banner on the article's talk page, and messages left on her user talk, and I declined her unblock request on that basis, but it seems nobody has ever used the proper sanction notice template nor logged a notification in the sanctions log. Therefore, the recently updated discretionary sanctions awareness criteria were not met. I'm very much not a fan of overturning good-faith blocks purely on technicalities, but is this block invalid? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: This was a community sanction. Not a discretionary sanction. They fall under entirely different rules. WP:AC/DS does not apply here. You should read what does apply here (and the authority for the block): WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR: Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.. You also should not have opened this thread without discussing this with me first. As you obviously did not know what you were talking about before coming here. I don't appreciate this at all, especially when you declined an unblock request without even knowing why the block was allowed/needed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Seriously familiarize yourself with WP:GS and the difference between that and WP:AC/DS. You've made me look like an idiot even though I did exactly what the community demands. I'm livid right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

[22] GMG^talk 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the ISIL & Syrian War sanctions are community authorized ones, the awareness requirements of the Arbitration Committee authorized ones do not apply. I believe that Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL is the procedure for the sanctions discussed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The provisions at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware don't apply as this is a community sanction and not arbitration-related discretionary sanctions. The text of the remedy in question (1RR) explicitly states that there is no requirement for an editor to be notified before action is taken. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That pages states In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I edit-conflicted with everyone above other than Coffee's first post. Wikipedia:General sanctions says under the heading "Process", subheading "Community sanctions": "[a]ny editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification," and "[f]ull procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described [wikilink to WP:AC/DS]". However I also see that the 1RR remedy on the community sanctions page says that it "does not require notice", and I hadn't seen that before so thank you for pointing it out. I guess my question then is not for you but for the community: is a discretionary sanction that applies whether or not a user is aware of it reasonable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• The community came to that consensus about 1RR a long time ago, so I believe the answer to your question is yes. That's why as an administrator I had any authority to place the block: community consensus existed for it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ivanvector, the issue is that the user was aware in the normal sense of the term (and not the pseudo-legal way it is used in the AC/DS, etc.) because they had been warned about it specifically for the article in question. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and not arguing that point, that diff of notification was central to my declining the unblock request. It was observed in discussion of the unblock request that our general sanctions are a bewildering labyrinth of confusing, arbitrary, and sometimes contradictory rules and procedures (my words) and this discussion isn't really helping with that. Now I find out there are "gotchas" like this where a user editing in good faith is simply expected to be aware of the restrictions in place when they conflict with standard best practice (3RR is policy) at peril of being blocked without warning. This is not good. There's nothing about Coffee's block that I can argue with and I'm really not meaning to, but this situation is not good. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a fair point, especially given the recent ARCA on this. I think the block should stand though, because in this case the user was undoubtably aware, even though not required to be. I also think one of the issues is that everyone knows about the templates for AC/DS but not GS, which in some ways would make 1RR unenforceable if there was such a strict requirement. Perhaps a simpler version of the awareness criteria could be adopted for 1RR. Something like For 1RR, users must be notified that pages are under that restriction on their talk page. Notifying the user with the awareness template is preferred, but is not required. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the GS wording seems much more confusing than DS; seems better to either make it follow with DS procedure or IAR it and somehow make it a DS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about Coffee. It is about the policies and procedures

I've seen Coffee's name come up regularly in the last few days regarding questionable administrative actions. Coffee - would you consider a less aggressive approach, for lack of a better description. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Okay, but this is not that, and Coffee perhaps has some justification to be somewhat aggressively bothered by being mentioned here. I don't think there's anyone here disagreeing with Coffee's block, I'm just asking for clarification on procedure because it's clear as mud to me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Above, he tells you (since struck) that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Also see this diff on AE, and the exchange with User:NeilN on his talk page here. This is not proper administrative conduct. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC) @Mr Ernie: You are now in violation of WP:HOUND. If you continue I'll forced to request an administrator block you. @TonyBallioni: @GoldenRing: @Drmies: — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC) (ec) I would even suggest a (longish) wikibreak, since currently things are moving to the desysop Arbcom case, and this is not what anybody wants here. (For clarity, since my words get misrepresented on a regular basis recently: I do not have any personal issues with Coffee, I am not planning to file such a case or participate in it unless I am dragged into, but there have been recently a number of questionable administrative actions which made quite some resonance in the community, and my personal impression is that if this continues someone opens a desysop case).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC) And given that in parallel we have this exchange, I would suggest to start this wikibreak ASAP.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Well, they were somewhat correct in their assessment of my understanding of the guidelines, and having someone criticize your actions based on faulty knowledge is not a particularly pleasant experience. As for Coffee's exchanges elsewhere, if you want to start a discussion about their allegedly unbecoming conduct then go for it, but please don't hijack this thread. The place to do so is WP:ARC. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) @Ymblanter: You too are now in violation of WP:HOUND and WP:NPA for casting aspersions. There is no pending ArbCom case. See @BU Rob13: this is precisely what I was worried about by Alex overstepping his bounds. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC) As you wish. I hoped what I said could be helpful for you, apparently, it was not.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC) I know this is mustard after the meal, and I'm typing into an off-topic void, but I find "hey take a Wikibreak" to be a bit patronizing. Sorry Ymblanter--and my apologies for wanting to get my two cents in. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hatting the above, as it was going off-topic in a rather quick fashion. Carry on. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone, you've given me some points to think about. Apologies to Coffee for initially framing my query in a way that probably contributed negatively to an already stressful situation exacerbated by my own ignorance, but thanks for your insight nonetheless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: And my apologies for being so quick tempered about being brought here for no good reason. I'm sure now that you can see why I feel very attacked everytime a thread like this opens though... several people out there want my bit removed (just because they've been sanctioned by, or know someone who has been sanctioned by me). No one ever gives two shits about my emotions here, and practically no one realizes I'm capable of change. @Volunteer Marek: is the only person I can truly point to who gave me the opportunity to improve, and we've had a decent working relationship ever since. Why can't everyone stop treating me like this is 2009? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel as though my inimitable wisdom is sorely needed here. And so, with all the gravitas at my command, I say: happy Friday everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, Coffee might be just fine, but Tea still has come ugly mantanence tags on it that need fixing. GMG^talk 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Request review of closure at Disk storage

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

---

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 23:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a request to review the close at Disk Storage to determine whether the closer incorrectly declared "rough consensus" in violation of both guidelines and policy. I discussed this with the closer here. This dispute is regarding changing style in an existing article.

Links to previous pertinent discussions

1. Requests for arbitration/Sortan, Final Decision, 5.1.2 Preferred styles
2. Should MOS cover "data is" vs. "data are"?

The following links are provided to demonstrate that style discussions are frequent within Wiki space, sometimes protracted and with outcomes both consistent and inconsistent with the above principle. They are offered not for precidence but to establish the necessity for a careful examnination of this RfC closure.

Several of the 1037 discussions of Data is vs Data are in article talk pages that demonstrate this is a pervasive style issue

• Talk:Data_(computing)#Data_are?
• Talk:Data_auditing
• Talk:Write_amplification#Data_is_vs._data_are
• Talk:Hard_disk_drive/Archive_6#Data_as_singlar_or_plural
• Talk:RAID/Archive_6#"Data_is"_vs._"data_are"
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_57#Data:_plural_or_mass_noun?

Other such style issues in article talk pages

• Talk:AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Adaptor_or_adapter?
• Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(1990_film)#"Medium"_Versus_"Media"
• Talk:Qantas_Flight_32#Disk_vs_Disc

Requested actions

This closure should be changed based upon deviations from any one of the following policies and guideline.

1. Confirm that the MOS:STYLERET guideline's requirement for consensus on a "substantial reason" applies to individual articles
2. Based upon failure to achieve consensus policy on any subtantial reason for change in style, revise the closure at Disk Storage from "rough consensus" to "no consensus" and therby allow reversion of the article to its original style.
3. In the alternative, declare the causal RfC invalid in light of existing Arbitration Committee policy decision in Soltan.

Request review of RfC closure at Disk storage

This dispute is regarding the use of "data is" versus "data are" in a Wikipedia article. This is a matter of style as established by multiple reliable sources and by the undisupted facts that both styles are used in thousands of Wikipedia articles, without context and rarely together. Absent context the tense of the noun data is ambiguous and it is a matter style whether it is paired with a singular or plural verb.

STYLERET's substantial reason must apply to articles

MOS:STYLERET states an Arbitration Committee principle that existing acceptable styles be retained:

"unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
(Emphasis added)

The closer and I actually agree that the arbitration cases as well as the STYLERET guidelines reflect the community's general distaste for individuals broadly edit warring/mass-converting things in what's otherwise perceived by many to be color of the bikeshed disagreements. However, that is exactly what he has allowed by his finding of "rough consensus" in this case.

The closer's admitted interpretation of MOS:STYLERET as allowing "a local consensus of people saying "I want it (this) way" on a flexible MOS issue" ... " is the "good" or "substantial" reason" eviserates the guideline by ascribing no meaning to the requirement for consensus on any substantial reason. He seems to think it applies mainly broad edit waring and mass conversions but does not apply to an indvidual article. Under this interpretation all it takes in one article to change a style is that the IDONTLIKEIT's outnumber the ILIKEIT's. This issue arrises with not with just ambiguous mass nouns (e.g. data, media) but also in spelling (e.g., multiplexor, adaptor) and I am sure other style issues. My examination of article talk pages suggests the data is/are issues arrise almost daily throught wiki space; I think I first encountered it in 2009.

It is partially my fault that we wasted several months and over 70 KiB on this since in my intial response to the initial proponent (the "Advocate") I pointed to the MOS with out specifically identifying STYLERET. Had the Advocate structured the Rfc in terms of is there a substantial reason for the change the discussion would been different with the possibility of a different outcome.

Accordingly I request a clear statement that contrary to the closers's interpretation, consensus must be reached on a substantial reason for any style change in an article.

No concensus on a substantial reason

In all there were 120 edits by 17 editors during the discussion amounting to almost 68 kBytes of discussion; however once MOS:STYLERET was invoked only 6 editors participated and the vote became 3-2-1 with 91% of the discussion from two editors (statistics below). This is really the dispute between two editors over style which absent a substantial reason for a change to the article is precluded by STYLERET.

The closer has misapplied MOS:STYLERET in declaring rough consensus on the basis of a 9-3-4 vote which was mostly taken prior to invoking STYLERET. Instead as required by the rough consensus guideline he should have looked at the strength of the underlying arguments and any policy for a consensus on the MOS:STYLERET requirement for a substantial reason for making a style change. The discussion began on 15 Oct 2017 but unfortunately the STYLERET guideline was not invoked until Nov 18, 2017 late in the discussion rendering most if not all of the prior discussion less than substantial. For example, this entry on 10/29 is basically ILIKE "data is":

Data is - I don't think we could reasonably say "data are" here. It just sounds odd, because it isn't something that is really countable. For example, you wouldn't know what I am saying if I said 100 kilos of data are. That's because "data" isn't a valid unit. Thus, it should be treated as a mass noun. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Most would consider 100 kilos of data to be 100 KiB or kB.

This was RileyBugz's only edit and there was no discussion to qualify this statement as a "substantial reason"

Once STYLERET was introduced the discussion amounted to only 11 edits totaling less than 10 kB by only 6 editors of which 91% was by the two opposing editors who started this discusion. Three new editors voted 2-1-0 after STYLERET was invoked but they did not further participate in the discussion; one admitting ILIKEIT,

"Data is It boils down to ILIKEIT per what I'm used to, but decades of examining computer manuals and books means "data are" looks pretentious"

The thousands of such pretentious articles in Wikipedia hardly makes this a substantial reason.

None of the three new votes participated in the discussion.

The Advocate of this change then provided four reasons he believed to be substantial and I rebutted them. There was no further discussion. The statistics and reading of the edits show that after STLYERET was invoked the discussion failed to meet the requirements of the consensus policy. This very limited group of editors at this place and time cannot override the consensus of the 19 editors who contributed to the article nor the thousands of editors who use and have used "data are" in thousands of articles.

Accordingly I request the close summary be changed to no consensus.

No concensus at all

"Concensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) ..." See: Concensus by soliciting outside opinions.

It should be noted that I am the only editor involved in the discussion who edited the article prior to the start of this discussion. The proponent of this style change has never edited the article, he alone provided 52% of the discussion edits which when combined with my 30% results in our dialog amounting to 82% of the dicussion.

Of the 17 editors participating 8 made only one edit and another 3 made only 2 edits; essentially voting without participating in discussion at all.

The lack of a poll after discussion further shows that there was no determination of the quality of the arguments.

These statistics alone justify a closure wit no consensus due to insufficient discussion and mostly uninvolved editors.

Already decided by the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee has already ruled that editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. The statistics below as further discussed in section 3.2 demonstrate that the Advocate prefers "data is" while I prefer in this case "data are" - exactly the situation covered by this ruling.

Accordingly I request the closure status be changed to "Rfc rejected as not in accordance with policy"

Additional action

When I attempted to bring this issue to MOS it was rejected therein with the conclusion it was already coverred by STYLERET. I believe this to be true but it seems that the limited information therein can lead to misunderstandings. A quick search of article talk pages shows over three thousand discussions of style issues (see statistics below). To help reduce the amount of unnecessary future discussion I intend to propose the MOS be modificatied to expand STYLERET so as make clearer the types of sytles covered and the degree of consensus necessary to agree upon a substantial reason.

For example, it may be desireable to require a poll after discussion to determine the degree of consensus on each of the proposed substantial reasons.

A statement in this adminstrative review suggesting improvements would be appreciated.

Summary

The "rough consensus" closure of the RfC to style change of instances of "data are" into "data is" in the Disk Storage article was in viotation of a number of policy statements and Wikipedia guidelines. The proper closure is "no consensus" in which the article should be reverted. MOS:STYLERET should be improved to better define its subject material and the degree of discussion necesssary to achieve consensus on any substantial reason to justify a change in style.

Respectively submitted for administrative review: Tom94022 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

STATISTICS Edits on style change at Disk storage:Talk Oct 15 - Nov 17 Nov 18 to 3 Dec Editors Vote Content added (Bytes) Edits Content added (Bytes) Edits ‎ A D Monroe III For 34869 48 4972 8 ‎ Tom94022 Against 19629 31 3580 3 ‎ Guy Macon Other 3371 12 113 8 ‎ Deacon Vorbis For 1394 6 ‎ Pincrete For 1372 5 ‎ SMcCandlish Other 2716 4 ‎ Dicklyon Other 737 2 ‎ Gestrid For 798 2 ‎ Timtempleton For 419 2 ‎ Blooteuth For 387 1 ‎ RileyBugz For 556 1 ‎ Markbassett Other 209 1 ‎ Oknazevad 359 1 ‎ Attic Salt Against 392 1 ‎ Chatul Against 253 1 ‎ Jcc For 120 1 ‎ Johnuniq For 354 1 Grand Total 67208 117 9392 22 Monroe + Tom94022 54498 79 8552 11 81% 68% 91% 50% Vote summary For 9 7 3 Against 3 2 2 Other 4 4 1 Other style change discussions Search terms Number of discussions "media is" medium 773 “data is” “data are” 1037 Adapter adaptor 142 Multiplexor multiplexer 707 “Serial comma” 405 Total 3,064

I've collapsed the statistics, because otherwise it's not obvious where the request-for-review ends. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Just to say that (based on his contribution history -- haven't actually gone deeper) the OP has been a steady contributor in a significant area, so let's handled this in a way that won't discourage him from continuing that work. EEng 21:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've looked at the close, and I'm inclined to agree with the closer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close - To overturn a formal consensus from an RfC is an exceptional request. Upon reviewing the discussion, the close appears to be the most accurate and reasonable reading of consensus. STYLERET is just the common sense, general rule not to change one correct style to another without reason, because it will result in unnecessary disputes between editors. Same concept as WP:ENGVAR. If there's a been formal consensus to style something a specific way, then that does constitute the "substantial reason". Obviously if the community needs to establish an exception to STYLERET via a formal consensus in which community input is openly solicited, we are allowed to do so. Two editors agreeing on a hidden talk page is one thing, but this was a formal RfC that was appropriately closed by an uninvolved administrator. Something that formal and procedurally correct should only be tossed if it directly and irreconcilably contradicts an overarching policy. I don't see that being the case. Not remotely. Swarm ♠ 21:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I guess I should have been explicit in reminding everyone that ANI doesn't entertain content disputes. Please, let's not start debating the merits here. If anyone wants to go over to the talk page linked at the top of this thread and comment there, fine. Otherwise this entire thread, except maybe the opening paragraph with link, should be collapsed. EEng 21:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a very weak challenge by someone who lost a debate, but technically speaking these requests are allowed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - The consensus wasn't great for one or the other however the RFC had been up for 30 days which I believe is the limit for RFCs, Anyway I fail to see the point of closing as "No Consensus" as the 2nd RFC could've been worse than the first, the closing admin did fine IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close Can't see how it could have been closed any other way. Number 57 00:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close I don't agree with the OP that STYLERET makes discussions like this one impossible, the wording of that guideline does seem to be aimed at preventing individual editors from changing articles between acceptable options. It's a big jump from that to saying that a proper RfC can't decide to do so. The close itself looks reasonable. Hut 8.5 17:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Decline review because the amount of discussion already expended to decide the purely stylistic question of "data is" vs. "data are" in one article is ridiculous. Sandstein 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

FYI - Possible troll influx

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

---

There seems to be an off-site coordinated effort to disrupt BLP pages. Two editors have arrived at Deepak Chopra already. Details can be found in the edit summaries there. Just a heads up. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. PC1 is fine for normal vandalism, but stuff like this still sits in the history. Easier to stop them editing altogether. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, upon further review, it seems like just one troll, not meatpuppetry. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:PAKHIGHWAY

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.

---

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

has asked that their appeal of an AE block be copied here. Not sure how to go about doing that. (Never saw it done before), so I'll these here for now. I'll notice the blocking admin on his talk. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Apparently, they have a different understanding of their ban than than the blocking admin and are quite upset about the block. They feel they have not violated their topic ban. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Marshallsumter unban 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.

---

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

Marshallsumter has posted an appeal to his community ban.

Reasons for unblock are

1. the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do any of the "intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission" per User:lifebaka again, and I will make productive contributions instead,
2. Wikiversity provides a more than ample environment to write lectures and laboratories using original research and/or synthesis. I have no need nor desire to contribute to Wikipedia in this regard.
3. Per User:lifebaka: "you will need to either stop or finish your research before you can be unblocked". I have finished my v:Dominant group original research with respect to such articles I created on Wikipedia. See v:Dominant group/Proof of concept.
4. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for: I will not commit any "copyright violations" per local en:Wikipedia policy again, and I will make productive contributions instead.
5. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks: "Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the [issues] cannot happen again." Each of the fields that I have contributed to in the past have project pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology, Wikipedia:WikiProject History, and many others. Perhaps the easiest and best way for firm steps I will take so the issues cannot happen again is to suggest any changes, improvements or new articles first on these project talk pages to get consensus, review and/or guidance.
6. I would like to import many of my currently deleted articles to Wikiversity. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) I can request a short term undelete by a sysop as I do now on commons of the sysop who deleted a file to import the article, or (2) I can request a short term undeletion of an article by email so that I can import it with its edit history to Wikiversity.

Copied without comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking WP:AN/I ban discussion for reference. -- Begoon 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done, actually...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

duh - sorry - so you did, my bad -- Begoon 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support- Six years is well and truly long enough for WP:OFFER to apply, and the unban request shows a good understanding of why they were banned and also how to avoid doing those things in future. I'm OK with giving a 2nd chance here. Reyk _YO! 17:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Makes a lot of sense, especially in terms of having found an outlet elsewhere for the editing that was causing a problem. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support because six years is indeed more than enough time. Marshallsumter has demonstrated a strong commitment to Wikiversity, which shows that this isn’t a disruptive user. Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - compelling case made. Seems a good chance future edits will be productive, worth the risk. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is how you do unblock requests, folks. I have a reservation about point #6 though: if the deleted pages contain copyright violations they cannot be restored for the purpose suggested, regardless of how "loose" Wikiversity's copyright policies might be (I suspect they're not as loose as the ban discussion suggested). If the restoring admin would like to email the user a copy sanitized of potential copyvios, that's probably fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at his work on wikiversity, and the one I checked is mostly copying long quotes - two paras etc - from copyrighted stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support -Six years is really long time and with this reasonable unblock request they should be given a second chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indeed. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per arguments above. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'm nervous about this because I remember the original events and it was a big mess that took lots of cleaning up and wasted a lot of volunteer time. I acknowledge the work at wikiversity but my concern there is that environment appears to accept a lot of stuff in the way of OR and copyright matters that are absolute no-nos here, so, whilst it's encouraging, the contributions there don't necessarily show that all the issues are completely resolved. I also agree with Ivanvector that there should be no restoration of copyvio material, however briefly, even if just to allow transfer. On that score it's worth noting the additional burden on admins responding to such requests to assess copyright issues each time. ...However... It is a long time ago, and the unblock request does seem to tick all the right boxes (so much so it could be exhibit A in "How to write an unblock request"), plus I feel there will be many eyes on a return, so on balance I support giving another chance. -- Begoon 09:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User talk:HankMoodyTZ Standard Offer Unblock 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.

---

There is an unblock request at User talk:HankMoodyTZ indicating they have abided by the standard offer. I have no comment one way or the other, just bringing it here for discussion. If a checkuser could see what the socking status is, that may help with people reaching a consensus one way or the other. --Jayron32 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment) There are edits from IP ranges that HankMoody has used in the past to some of their favourite articles as recently as today, so the claim to have abided by the standard offer looks rather disingenuous to me. I should add that they have prior history with sort of thing. They were actively socking during their last UTRS appeal (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HankMoodyTZ/Archive#25 March 2017). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is too much unknown, no path forward given, and Sir Sputnik makes some good points about previous (and likely current) activity. Not worth the risk at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Dennis and Sputnik. The appeal does not identify the issues which resulted in an indefinite block, so it follows the appeal does not indicate how these issues will be rectified. Activity at time of previous appeal is highly questionable, which leaves me uncomfortable at unblocking. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose entirely on the basis of the unblock consisting of "I think I've waited long enough". Evidence of current socking also is not promising. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Checkuser note: HankMoodyTZ is  Confirmed to be persistently and consistently evading their block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ponyo. GAB^gab 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Admin invoking SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfD

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.

---

Necrothesp (talk · contribs) continues effectively to invoke WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfDs, eg: here, despite participating in the RfC that deprecated using it and being well aware of that outcome. I raised the issue with them many months ago (somewhere, can't find it right now) and they argued that it was still consensus, regardless of what the RfC said. It is becoming irritating; worse, their status as an admin could tend to cause a chilling effect on such discussions and/or mislead the less well-informed. Can we please have some sort of message sent to Necrothesp that they should not in future refer to "prior consensus" (broadly construed) in any AfD relating to a school. If nothing else, it leads to relitigation because of their insistence that the RfC has no merit: merely avoiding the letters SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not alter the intent

For the record, other experienced contributors did pretty much the same thing in the particular instance I have diff'd above, eg: Doncram and Andrew Davidson. They should know better but they do not have the elevated status of admin which, however much we try to pretend otherwise, does carry weight. Also for clarity, and since I have been accused of personal attacks, the aforementioned AfD has also been the subject of discussion today at Drmies' talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In the diff mentioned, it was labelled as a "longstanding precedent" which it was. So I don't think it is anything very serious in this case. Particularly as others already voted keep. If an admin does not agree with a consensus, they can still argue against it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, it is a longstanding and superseded precedent, which Necrothesp has never accepted. Eg: here, last year, they were invoking IAR and pedantically claiming that, really, Wikipedia has no rules at all. They're right, on those specious grounds, but just look at what resulted in terms of verbiage. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I also think that an admin is free to challenge consensus in discussion but not to misrepresent it as being wrong in fact, which is what appears to happen. In any event, it isn't necessary: just find the sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) People routinely do as they please all over Wikipedia. At AfD, they don't follow WP:BEFORE and then they talk so much nonsense that we have a page to list all the possibilities: Arguments to avoid. Per WP:CREEP, it's a waste of time adding to the number of prescriptive rules because we have a well-established meta-rule which tells us that it's ok to ignore them all. And we even have another meta-rule telling people not to make prescriptive rules. This idea that a flash-mob at the village pump gets to tell us all what to do isn't going to fly. See the separate furore about airlines for another example. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yep, well I figured you would like the idea of the wild west when it suits you. It doesn't solve the problem that routinely using it is a poor stance for an admin. We may as well not bother with consensus, RfCs and everything else. A ridiculous notion, surely? - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Let me try to phrase that in a better way. IAR only works if, when applied, people think it has been justifiably applied. If they do not then an IAR action would be reverted. So even IAR ultimately depends on consensus. In the case of finagling its use in AfDs, it really has no valid purpose. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I wondered why Sitush dragged me into this and so went looking to see what the fuss was about. I find that the latest hot spot is K College. This is a substantial institution of tertiary education. According to the BBC, it had 5 campuses, over a thousand staff and about 15,000 students. Its difficulties seem to have been covered extensively in detail by the educational establishment, press and UK media. Necrothesp correctly points out that we usually keep articles about such major institutions and all Sitush seems to do is heckle him without casting a !vote himself. It seems that Sitush is following Necrothesp around only to cause trouble. That's contrary to WP:HARASS – one of our civility policies. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Read my opening post again. I notified you because I mentioned you in that, along with Doncram, with regard to the contested Evergreen School AfD that I had diffed. But, as I have said more immediately above, I figure you would like the wild west when it suits you. You can do better than this, Andrew, and, for the record, I didn't !vote in either the Evergreen or K College examples - I'm just fed up of the finagling, and you can take that as applying to yourself also. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Aye, I agree they need to stop doing that. An admin blatantly ignoring an RfC does not look good. Also, some people (not many) were perfectly able to make their points for keeping the article without resorting to drivel like "it's a school so we keep it" and perhaps that AfD will stand as a marker as to why you're actually not helping your own cause by doing it. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've seen Necrothesp doing this as well. He did it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge International School of Tunis. He started by stating "Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus.", and when I queried this he said "Consensus that generally all secondary schools that are proven to exist are notable. Something that has been established at AfD for many years." All without ever once citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I eventually had to find it myself to figure out what the hell he was talking about, and even then he proceeded to argue with me that "SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises an existing consensus. And the RfC, despite the desperate, tedious and refuted claims of the deletionist brigade, did not change that." All this to me points to deliberate obfuscation and intentionally ignoring the result of the RfC. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Question: Does it matter that it is an admin or not here? As long as they are not using their tools to enforce this (which in this case, would be closing AFDs with this stance), it is not quite an admin problem, though certainly something to be warned about. --Masem (t) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If he's effectively saying that he can ignore any RfC he doesn't agree with, then I would say that's not particularly compatible with any advanced permissions. Look at the quote in the comment above yours - that's definitely problematic. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I do express concern, but it's more to the fact that any editor that comes forth to say they will refuse to follow an RFC is potentially disruptive. It is until the admin tools are used that it becomes a very difficult issue. --Masem (t) 00:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Necrothesp I agree with you that secondary schools being listed best serves Wikipedia, and that the one RFC isn't the best indicator of consensus, however, it is the only one we have. So we don't use SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a justification anymore. Just don't. I don't want to see this become larger than it already is. Until another well attended RFC takes place that changes the current consensus, no matter how flawed we might see the existing consensus, it has to stand. I just stay away from most school AFDs now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I agree that it's problematic for anyone, admin or not, to actively participate in AfDs in a way that knowingly contradicts pretty clearly established consensus there. A few of the participants of that RfC who did not like the outcome have labeled it "controversial" and disagree that the plainly worded closing statement says what it does, or argue that the community got it wrong, etc. See e.g. That said, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. If Necrothesp were closing these discussions with a supervote based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that would be one thing, but I don't know that his/her being an admin is relevant in this case. The only feasible action, I think, would be a topic ban from school-related AfDs if he/she expresses an intent to continue to argue contrary to what's been established, but I don't have a sense that it's actually to that point yet, and that sort of topic ban is pretty uncommon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be strongly against any kind of topic ban or other sanction as there has been no showing of any real disruption. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've advised just staying away because they can be frustrating, but there is NO policy violation in being in the minority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for a topic ban. Just speculating about what the possible outcomes are. If there's evidence Necrothesp routinely makes WP:IDHT !votes at many school-related AfDs, then there's an argument for disruption, but a handful is just, well, not great. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Here's another. I don't frequent school AfDs that much but off the top of my head, I've seen many examples. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not seeking a topic ban. As for the admin issue, the problem is that (a) it is unseemly for an admin to obfuscate about consensus, deliberately seeking wording that avoids a direct reference to the RfC outcome; (b) like it or not, admins do have a perceived elevated status, particularly with newbies, even when not acting in an administrative capacity. For an admin to know what consensus says but seemingly deliberately misrepresent it is appalling. And, as I said above, it is causing a lot of relitigation. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Dennis Brown, I'd say that it is at least mildly disruptive to !vote 'Keep' and claim that there is a "longstanding consensus" while intentionally neglecting to mention that said consensus was overturned by RfC. It is basically a boldfaced lie by omission (i.e. "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Calling it a lie is fairly uncivil. If someone not only disagrees with an RFC but believes that the true consensus is other than the outcome, that is not a lie. They may be mistaken, or they may actually be correct, as not every RFC is a perfect reflection of consensus. You don't know what is in his head. By policy, we still have to live with the outcome of that RFC (and should), but that doesn't mean someone is forced to believe it truly reflects consensus. Any closing admin worth his salt knows how to parse that vote. Calling it "lying by omission" (below) is also misstating the facts. Unless you have better evidence he is lying, I would suggest finding a better phrase. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Economical with the truth? There are times when this place is barmy! - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Dennis Brown, The shoe fits. I am not sure how much clearer the evidence can be. He intentionally states that a longstanding consensus exists while also intentionally not mentioning the RfC that overturned that same consensus. I even qualified my descriptor with a clear definition above (i.e. "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• I hate to do this, but this isn't just a few isolated examples. I just checked Necrothesp's AfD stats and there are dozens of examples on the first page alone, all with the same lie by omission and repeated claims that the RfC means nothing. He has also been using the "per longstanding precedent and consensus" as a rationale to dePROD articles as well (and those are just the ones where he used that specific wording the in edit summary). I don't wan't to start a witch hunt here, but repeatedly lying by omission like this is disruptive. He has hijacked multiple AfD's where nobody came by to correct him and they just followed the bandwagon of the admin: for example, see this one. Also in this one his repeated lies by omission result in AngusWOOF withdrawing his nomination in ignorance. Necrothesp isn't the only one: here is an AfD where a whole cohort of people just decided to collectively ignore the RfC and directly cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep rationale. Looking through Necrothesp's AfD's reveals many such AfDs where SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still commonly used as a 'keep' !vote. I would guess that some of these people are following Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I withdrew the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Álvaro Guião State School was because I found the equivalent article in Portuguese Wikipedia that showed it could be notable. It was nothing to do with Necrothesp's arguments that secondary schools are automatically notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

His comments on the AfD page still stand for themselves. He clearly was arguing for SCHOOLOUTCOMES just for the sake of it despite the absolutely deplorable state of the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the comments above. Experienced editors (and this should be understood to include admins) should not be taking it on themselves to infer that an RfC that had very heavy participation is in some way illegitimate or not representative of community consensus. IAR is a legitimate recourse for some situations where there are specific circumstances that suggest a one off exception to a guideline or policy is justified. It is not a license to ignore established community consensus because you don't agree with it. We probably all have a guideline or two that we really don't care for including me. If you disagree with a guideline/policy so much that you just can't in conscience abide by it, then don't get involved with those issues. (FTR I think MOS:GENDERID is 100% bat shit crazy and I absolutely refuse to get involved in anything where I may be required to call someone who is a biological male, a female and vice versa.) I also agree that this is not a situation warranting any kind of TBan. I would rather think of it as a friendly tap on the shoulder from the community followed by a polite "please don't do this anymore." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm not surprised that in 2018 America someone is bragging about their bigotry in public, although I guess you get points for doing it so gratuitously. Please don't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And I'm guess I AM surprised that an admin can declare unilateral victory regarding a divisive issue in gender politics as justification for calling another editor a bigot. So, please don't do THAT anymore. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Friendly reminder that this particular exchange is subject to arbitration enforcement, so let's knock it off. Swarm ♠ 08:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of anger and denial from this editor; I remember that the first time I saw it I was surprised to discover this was an administrator. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: well, only in name, I think—less than 1500 admin actions in >twelve years. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think overall making bad arguments at AfD is a waste of time but not particularly destructive overall since closers are tasked with weighing arguments, and bad arguments (like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) bear very little weight. Ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar. It's clearly not worthy of a desysop, there doesn't seem to be much taste for a topic ban, Necrothesp has surely seen the advice proferred here, whether they follow up or not if up to them; making bad arguments at AfD reflects more poorly on them than it does on AfD. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The very first diff I gave links to an AfD that was originally closed with poor rationale and then re-opened. The original rationale actually noted that no participant had invoked SCHOOLOUTCOMES but of course Necrothesp had. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I left him a note asking him to stop.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• I echo the above sentiments and would in fact go a bit farther. An admin who willfully ignores or misrepresents consensus is being disruptive. Yes, this would be a problem coming from any user, but it matters a little more if it's an admin, because admins are held to a higher standard, and are generally allowed to get away with wrongdoing more easily than a random editor, who could easily be slapped with an XfD TBan if they didn't cut it out. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and it's the duty of admins to uphold and abide by consensus. That's basically just page one on how to be a member of the community, much less how to be an admin. I hope this user will actually listen to the chorus of disapproving voices and treat it as an admonishment, rather than meaningless chatter, because I'm seeing some sort of topic ban as the next logical step. Swarm ♠ 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• As an editor who often finds myself in opposition to Necrothesp in AfDs, I find some of his arguments rather frustrating (and have argued before that if he wants to challenge the RfC close, he should do it properly), but that's life and it's Necrothesp's right to frustrate me! What concerns me more is when admins favour keeping when WP:VERIFY is not even satisfied, as with the recent case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination). That demonstrates a lack of judgement, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• My observations, based on some of the comments above and the AfDs in which I've been involved:
  • There's no point in having AfDs about schools, because if any editor says they should be deleted then they should be deleted; any other editor who disagrees should be censured.
  • Admins should not be allowed to express opinions on AfDs (or on anything else, probably) unless they are completely in line with all other editors; if they dare to do otherwise then their right to be admins should be questioned (as Sitush has done at least four times in the last two days) and their integrity called into question.
  • The RfC on secondary schools has mysteriously expanded while none of us was looking to cover tertiary institutions as well; any argument against this is "dubious" and should be shouted down.
  • The right to deprod any prodded article for any reason should be suspended; this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this and wonder where the justification for it comes from.
  • It's acceptable for editors to follow other editors around, making unpleasant comments about their opinions; but if they're admins and object then they should be reported.
  • It's acceptable for admins who close school AfDs to ignore all arguments except those that parrot the RfC; any objection to this should be met with the usual gumf about AfD not being a vote (which makes me again wonder why we bother having them at all).
  • There are now strict rules on Wikipedia that we should follow without exception or difference of opinion; any editor who does express a different opinion should be censured.
  • Consensus built up over many years can be superseded in a few days.

Sorry if I'm misrepresenting any of these arguments, but that's what they appear to be saying. Fine, I'm not arguing. There's clearly no point having debate any more at AfD. It's finally become a monolithic bureaucracy and no longer somewhere where the opinions of experienced editors matter. I have been here a long time and been an admin for a long time; never before has my integrity as an admin been called into question because I expressed an opinion (as an ordinary editor, incidentally, not in any way invoking or mentioning my admin status). Frankly, I find that offensive. I have been involved in AfDs on schools for many years, but I shall stay away from them in future. It's just not worth the bizarre (and unique) unpleasantness that they seem to generate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really get why people are so up in arms; certainly shouldn't word it as long-standing consensus but only as "longstanding precedent" - but it isn't criminal to have an opinion, whether it be "drivel"; certainly not worthy of a t-ban, because having a minority (be it considered stupid or not) opinion is not "disruptive"; if this is all it takes for one's status as admin to be questioned, I'm glad we don't have a community de-sysop process. Concur with Dennis Brown that Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've advised just staying away because they can be frustrating, but there is NO policy violation in being in the minority. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No-one is saying that having a minority opinion is invalid, but as a number of people have said above, deliberately misrepresenting deletion policy is certainly not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Which I have never done! Please don't make claims that are blatantly untrue. There's no policy involved here and neither have I claimed there is one. I have expressed a personal opinion, nothing more. It's ironic, really. Before this much-vaunted RfC, the editors who are now questioning my integrity expressed personal opinions on school AfDs all the time that articles should be deleted. I don't recall their integrity being questioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oh please, when you cite a non-existent consensus you are not stating your opinion, you are stating that the consensus of other people's opinions match yours. Which isn't true as has been pointed out by the results of the RFC you are well aware of and have repeatedly denied as being valid. Your weaseling around trying to avoid stating schooloutcomes directly has been called out for exactly what it is. If you don't want your integrity questioned, don't act dishonestly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Words just fail me! What a truly unpleasant place Wikipedia is becoming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• If only your words could fail you at more appropriate times. Like when commenting at AFD's implying non-existent consensus exists to support your !vote. Which as has been pointed out by a wide variety of editors above, is far less than expected of an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. SCHOOLOUTCOMES was for a long time misused as a kind of policy, overriding WP:V, WP:GNG and a few other policies while it is only a summary. The only thing that the RfC changed, was that Necrothesp changed the wording of "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" in "per longstanding consensus". And completely ignoring the fact that the so called consensus was not longer there. That he now claims What a truly unpleasant place Wikipedia is becoming. is a sign that he just has missed the bus of life that is now running left and right past him. As Bob Dylan sang already in 1964: The Times They Are a-Changin' and Wikipedia (and consensus) is changing with that time. The Banner talk 10:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misrepresenting guidelines, precedents and consensus is a definite problem in AfDs (a handful of editors are prone to doing this on football-related AfDs because they disagree with the notability guidelines). Having seen this drag on for years in certain cases (wasting a serious amount of other editors' time having to debunk their claims again and again), I do think there does need to be some kind of action available against editors who do it on a regular basis. I'd recommend this discussion ends with a request to Necrothesp to stop doing this, and then potentially come back to a topic ban if they fail to take the hint. Number 57 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School, Necrothesp isn't even the worst offender. The argument by Andrew D.: "Keep It is our policy to keep articles about secondary schools, as specified by Jimmy Wales." is something an editor so omnipresent in AfDs should never use. Claiming that a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales from 2003 somehow is a 2018 policy is bizarre, maintaining that it is so after being corrected by multiple editors is just disruptive. While his presence is valuable when he can find good sources and thus keep an article at AfD, his presence is equally often just a complete waste of time when he can't find the necessary sources and then starts dropping imaginary policies (like here) or misapplied blanket interpretations of things like WP:BEFORE. If we start distributing topic bans for people routinely being disruptive at AfD, I guess Andrew D. would be a likely candidate. Fram (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Could an Admin make a move over a Redirect?

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

---

Could an admin move ReleaseTheMemo over the redirect at Nunes Memo per discussion here? The current page should become a redirect.Casprings (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You probably mean Nunes memo, not the non-existent Nunes Memo. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: Given that the page recently survived AfD, it will be better for you to use proper Requested Move template for it to be listed in the appropriate lists and wait the normal 7 days, it is very likely someone may object this moving. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done this is a brand new article documenting a subject that is itself evolving accordingly with the requested name change, so as such this request seems uncontroversial. However a formal RM should take place should any naming dispute arise. Swarm ♠ 08:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Once again

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

---

AIV is terribly backlogged. Could we get some administrative assistance, please? Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 12:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Admins came in guns blazing. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 12:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Investigation of User:ACTRIAL?

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.

---

Here The above user threatened/joked abotu selling EC500 accounts. Personally I think it to be a poor business model (hiding your services on the dark web where people are more interested in harming you than buying a Wikipedia account), but can the account please be whacked with the CheckUser to see if any other may have been set up? Thanks, L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 16:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: This has already been looked into and is resolved at the moment. Alex Shih (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Removal of filemover rights

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

---

Could an admin please remove my filemover right? Never used it. Don't intend to use anytime soon. Thanks. !dave 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Revdel request at Text editor

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

---

Resolved

 –  Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:14, Feb 1 2018 - disruptive edit summary. Looks like an advert, albeit an empty one. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Blocking articles related to AFC U-23 Championship

Dear Staff,

I am a sysop of Vietnamese Wikipedia. There is a football match happening on Jan 27 2018, between Vietnam and Uzbekistan in AFC U23 Tournament. Therefore, a huge number of fans from Vietnam may come to English Wikipedia and vandalize many articles. I need you block (or semi-block) these articles:

• Ma Ning (referee) (the referee of the match)
• Ma Ning
• Vietnam national under-23 football team
• Park Hang-seo (the coach of Vietnam team)
• Nguyễn Công Phượng
• Lương Xuân Trường
• 2018 AFC U-23 Championship
• Hà Đức Chinh
• Nguyễn Quang Hải (footballer, born 1997)
• Bùi Tiến Dũng (footballer, born 1997)

Besides, I hope you follow up relevant articles. Thanks! Alphama (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alphama: (Non-administrator comment) Pages are not preemptively protected. Sorry. !dave 07:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it will be like this [23] again. Alphama (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Alphama, if we start to encounter vandalism then we will act upon it. But not before it happens. I have watchlisted those articles. Cheers, fish&karate 12:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I-Ban request

Can someone here convince User:Volvlogia to try being civil? This stems from the thread he opened at ANI yesterday. When no one removed this polemic from his user page I did saying he could take me to ANI about it. When he continued altering my comments here, I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments. He then posted to my talk page to let me know "You are a hypocrite".

Apparently for removing the previous polemic, he posted more directed at me: "Censorship, served hot and fresh by we hope!" The thread about 3RR was then posted to ANI with the following note: "WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange." Today he removed my post from another editor's talk page and pinged me (not knowing he's muted) with the comment "{WP:POLEMIC. I think {{ping:we hope}} can agree there's precedent)".

The matter went from ANI to ArbCom yesterday. I've never been in contact with this editor before he started the ANI thread. Since then it's been almost continual harassment and personal attacks apparently because I don't see things his way. I would like a one-way I-Ban to stop the harassment directed at me by the editor. We hope (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to me like an attempt to distract from the larger issue a hand: the ArbCom debate. I'll cooperate with discussion here, but I don't think my behavior is at all comparable to Cassianto's, in scale or scope. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No-it's an attempt to stop your unwarranted PAs and harassment which is fully documented in the links above. We hope (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment Stop bringing others into this who have nothing to do with this issue-it's YOU and your attacks/polemics and harassment we're here to discuss. We hope (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no desire to speak to you. I had no initial intention of speaking to you. The issue I raised which started this is with Cassianto, I have no desire to speak with you outside of the context of this discussion. I hope that this is the last time we exchange messages, I have no intention of interacting with you. I have never targeted you, only responded. Please do not respond to me, we can both let it go and allow the ArbCom debate to continue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So why all of the above if you want nothing to do with me? I certainly feel the same about you but I've not done any of the things you have. I want a formal I-Ban, not just this "agreement". We hope (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"...I've not done any of the things you have." You accuse me of improperly posting a polemic on my talk page. In frustration, I accused you of censorship. Here are two instances of you speaking negatively of me in similar ways. You posted a polemic on Cassianto's talk page describing me as a "Tinfoil Hat" wearer. Later, you posted on Serial Number 54921's talk page a post against me, which I took issue with, as you took issue with my accusing you of censorship. In addition, "I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments.", here you are altering a comment to add {{RPA}}, which spurred my editing of your comment with {{RPA}}. This can hopefully be my final response to this inquiry, unless an admin requests otherwise.--Volvlogia (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again-posting polemics like that is against the rules; you saw fit to post two of them. The post on Cassianto's page has no names connected with it. What you have been doing refers to people BY NAME. Warning you about 3RR and about refactoring comments of others which are also in the rules caused you to post this on my talk page to inform me I was a hypocrite. There are also no names connected with the post you removed on someone else's talk page. It's against the rules to remove someone else's posts from anywhere but your OWN talk page. You also tried pinging me but you're muted. Not adding "nowiki /nowiki" to the ping template results in a red link-and it was the ping template {{ping:we hope}}. When the second polemic was brought up at ANI an admin removed it from your user page. When you removed my post from another editor's talk page, you were warned by an admin to stop. It's of no concern to me whether you continue responding here or not-what is of concern is that your incivility/polemics and harassment directed at me do--with a formal I-Ban. We hope (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you alter coments on their user page, you give them 3RR warnings on their talk page, you object to the removal of your blatant personal attack against them here, and Volvlogia is the one needing an I-Ban? I guess it's best to simply let the ArbCom request deal with this, but otherwise I see you as a much more likely target for a one-way interaction ban than Volvlogia. Fram (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed polemic against another editor from their user page. Don't worry-I'll be out of here when ArbCom is done; only here for that. We hope (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

But you are requesting an interaction ban when there has hardly been any interaction, and most or all of it has been initiated by you, like here. When they leave the mandatory ArbCom notice at another user's talk page[24], you are there 3 minutes later to canvass for an interaction ban[25]. Basically, you are following Volvlogia around, stirring up trouble against them, and trying to make them look bad. Drawing attention to such behaviour during an ArbCom case where you are a party seems very unwise to me. Fram (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, don't worry about it as I'll be gone when ArbCom is over. We hope (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

...which is something you have claimed on your userpage since 2016, and repeated on your talk page mid 2017. And which of course doesn't give you a free pass to ask for an interaction ban against someone who has hardly interacted with you and where you are the party who follows the other around. Fram (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a limit to the times when you can the benefit of the doubt and try again. That account is overdrawn now. Posting to my talk page to call my attention to a PA is hardly following someone around. Being pinged by that person is also hardly following someone around. We hope (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• "There's a limit to the times when you can the benefit of the doubt and try again. That account is overdrawn now." Indeed. Evidence of you following them around is given above. Evidence of you trying to rally others to cause trouble for them is given above. This I-ban request is a farce. Boomerang block applied (for 1 day only, since you had a clean block log). Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Belated comment: Actually WP:POLEMIC is not at all triggered by a diff-pile intended for noticeboard use: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." (emphasis in original). That was unmistakably the case here, given the ANI then the RfArb. While the editor clearly needs to obtain some additional clue (especially in the WP:KETTLE direction), and the snarky comment atop this diff-pile was uncalled-for, the obvious solution at that page would have been removing the snarky comment per WP:NPA and leaving it alone otherwise; there's clear precedent. It's not one editor's job to decide whether another editor's diffs are meaningful or being interpreted correctly; that's the collective job of the noticeboard to which they're taken. The community is actually quite tolerant of such diff-piles, and quite liberal in interpretation of "timely manner". See, e.g.: [26] where a diff-pile just like this was retained because it was likely to be used at a noticeboard (later deleted in a second MfD after it was stale); [27] another diff-pile kept despite the fact it was a years-running page that often wasn't actually being used for noticeboard purposes (it was later speedied by its author); [28] where a freaky conspiracy-theory rant is kept despite attacking entire classes of WP editors and no possibility of serving any noticeboard or encyclopedic/collaboration purpose, while also being a page of a defunct user (compromised account) anyway; and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Prior to Fram's block, I was in discussion with User:We hope about the suitability of their user page. Do others users agree that in its current state it contravenes the spirit of Remedy 5 of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, which has "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes..."? As regards the block, I can't disagree with it but I might have given a warning/chance to retract first. --John (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  The content of User:We hope's user page is fine. There is nothing indecorous or uncivil about it. You could maybe, if you're really really reaching, say "This user is against editors who cry wolf" is not that helpful, but honestly, I think we should all be against editors who cry wolf. That's certainly not indecorous or uncivil. fish&karate 12:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  I was more concerned with the picture of the turd comparing it to an infobox. Normally speaking I am not prudish about this sort of thing but I think this may contravene the quoted section of the remedy. --John (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  It's a polished golden turd, so I guess it's making an inference about valuing aesthetics over content. Crude, yes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to make a fuss about it, and not particularly necessary. fish&karate

  Well, thanks for your opinion. If you think it adds to our encyclopedic purpose to display a picture of a turd and compare it with an infobox, which most of our articles have, when we have an existing Arbcom remedy that states "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes..." and another related case ongoing, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Maybe AE is a better place for this discussion anyway. --John (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Contribution surveyor

There used to be a tool called Contribution surveyor that counted up the sizes of an editor's additions and deletions, separated out by article. It appears to be busted, at least as of last night, and its author has been gone for years. Is there any kind of replacement for it? I haven't used it in a while so haven't been following developments. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It was formally taken over by the WMF. The source code is publicly available, but I don't know how much work is necessary to get it to run (1) on the current toolserver or (2) some other hosting platform. If it's really important, I have some code lying around that is an imperfect substitute. MER-C 22:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try to run the Github code, or if your code is available someplace public I might give it a try. Somehow I had thought Contribution Surveyor used database access. If it's just an API client then I can run it or something like it. The thing I wanted to check isn't super-important so I won't ask you to run it for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the source, it does appear to use database access. SQL^{Query me!} 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Come to think about it, this looks like something I can replace (with a 40,000 edit hard cap). Don't expect to see anything in the near future, I have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. MER-C 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at converting it over to tools:, but it would be 2 weeks minimum before I could start any work right now. SQL^{Query me!} 21:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I could conceivably also contribute code at some point, and I have some code currently that could be modified for this purpose. But I couldn't be involved in operating it. Someone else would have to deal with toolserver or whatever they call it now. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is at ANI (took me ages to find it); wouldn't WP:VPT be a better place for it? It is pretty much a disaster not having this tool available for copyright clean-up – I'm trying to evaluate a potential CCI, and can't get the list of contribs that would allow me to start doing that. Can we assume that no-one has edited the code for the tool? And if so, that someone has made a change somewhere else that broke the tool? If so, perhaps we could ask the WMF to identify that change and undo it (or fix the tool, which would do just as well). Which WMF editor is most likely to be prepared to do something about this? Jalexander-WMF, is this something that you could help with or offer advice on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record I'm happy to look into what I/we can do here. We're in all-staff meetings this week which makes it tough for me to look today but I'll try to review either this weekend or early in the week. If it gets archived here feel free to move to my talk page or ping me elsewhere. Jalexander--WMF 19:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I may have something by Sunday as well. MER-C 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So, I have a minimum viable product at [29]. TODO: date range selection. I don't think ignoring reverts reliably would be viable without database access. MER-C 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much, MER-C! Tested (on a very brief edit history) with success. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I still want the WMF get the old contribution surveyor up again -- there's only so much I can do without direct database access. This wasn't a waste of my time because we (obviously!) need a backup on a non-WMF server. MER-C 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up your version! I can tell you that the old contribution surveyor didn't always ignore reverts, fwiw. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

96.54.225.11

The IP address 96.54.225.11 has been vandalizing many pages severely, and has attacked many users many times inappropriately. I noticed that this user had several warnings and his/her talk page, and had been blocked on January 19 for 72 hours. However, apparently neither of these helped.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 02:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, an administrator blocked that IP address.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 03:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Amorymeltzer, between the times of your 2 posts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for REVDEL: BLP attack preserved in deletion summary

The salted article at List of idiots shows a deletion log with one of the deletions including the page content. The 4 December 2006 deletion by Malo lists three living people with the attack-y title. I believe it warrants a revision deletion of the log entry. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Close WP:Afd that was a speedy closed 3 days ago

Could someone close the discussuon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nunes memo. This was a speedy close under a different name 3 days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ReleaseTheMemo

There is no need for this discussion as consensus is clear.Casprings (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but  Done anyhow Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protection for repeated BLP vio

Recent edits at Bitcoin Cash highlight the need for page protection. IP's add content violating WP:BLP (calling someone a scammer or criminal). Also needed at Roger Ver (other editors asking for page protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Ver#Vandalism ). prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

IP has been blocked. If you want page protection, WP:RFPP is the proper venue. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#BC_and_RV prokaryotes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

Anybody there to clean it up? Thanks in advance! BytEfLUSh _Talk 03:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done @BytEfLUSh: multiple admins have cleared this. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Please help keep an eye on Sara Netanyahu

Due to recent news in Israel, there has been a lot of attention to the wife of the Israeli prime minister, Sara Netanyahu. The article on Hebrew Wikipedia has been protected at a level above semi-protection. While we don't pre-emptively protect pages here, even of their foreign-language versions have been protected, we definitely should keep an eye on her article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Watchlisted. GAB^gab 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Formal site ban proposal: User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

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.

---

As it has been pointed out to me on my talk page that A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver has not been formally site banned, and that he was only indefinitely blocked after community discussion and with his own consent, I'm bringing this topic back to AN to propose a formal site ban. CheckUser evidence today at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver all but confirmed that he has been abusing multiple accounts, and his community indef was converted into a CheckUser block. While socking, they had a heavy focus on AfDs, one of the areas they had previously been trolling and that lead to their indef and where they were under a de facto topic ban from nominations before the AN discussion. In that SPI one of his accounts posted oversightable material (that they are IRC logs is still shown there) as a defense. The user has continued to be disruptive off-wiki since his block, and I think it is likely that there will be more socks and that they will continue to WikiLawyer.

While at this point it is a CU block and the difference between that and a site ban are largely semantic, in this case I think there are reasons to believe that it would be helpful in dealing with any future socks and on the off chance he applies for a standard offer, would require the affirmative assent of the community at AN before any block could be lifted. If this user engages in cross-wiki disruption, which I also believe is a possiblity, showing that this has been brought to the en.wiki community for discussion would also be helpful when dealing with it on meta. As such, I'm proposing that: User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Nihlus 21:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  And Yakovna is not even a valid patronimic, it should be Yakovlevna--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, did you mean to leave this here? I can't see it fits :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Oh, you're talking about User:Ilyina Olya Yakovna? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Given checkuser evidence and existing blocks, mostly a formality, but yes. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, agreed is mostly a formality - TNT^❤ 22:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support given the ridiculous level of disruption among many other things. I'd even go as far as to support an even wider ban if possible. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• support per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. At least one of his socks was active on simplewiki as well. SQL^{Query me!} 23:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping User:Eptalon, who was the latest unblocking admin on simple. GMG^talk 23:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Should probably have been done here but the extent of the sophisticated trolling was not fully realised by the community at that time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support GMG^talk 23:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support because of continued abuse. ansh666 23:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support The socking in the last few days earns my support for this ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, which is enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. He clearly is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, regardless of which account he uses. Bradv 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Also, he has 101 user subpages (Special:PrefixIndex/User:A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver/): should anything be done about those? --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Cotton gin

Hi. This page seems to attract a lot of vandalism; I just noticed 13 different vandalism edits this month. [30] Is there a threshold for protecting a page? Just leaving this here in case anyone thinks it would save resources to do so. Bots caught 4 of the edits and the other 9 had to be reverted by wikipedia editors.70.67.222.124 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you feel a page needs protection, you can always post a request in the future at WP:RFPP, where requests for page protection generally go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a year, based on the previous protections of the page. It seems to be a common target for vandals (mainly during the school year, when this becomes a topic in classes). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority of them are from California and Texas, which are the driving force for school textbooks in the United States. Between that and Black History Month starting in a couple of days, I'm kinda suspecting that we really only need to protect it during the months of January and February (though every year). Like, I'm almost wondering if it'd be worthwhile to make a bot that does nothing except lock the article around the second Monday of January (what with winter holiday and all), unlocking it on the second Monday of March. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Would pending changes then be a better solution for the page you think? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In an AfD, I'd probably put "*Very weak not opposed - but whatever, it doesn't really matter to me". Not actual support, but on that side of the "meh" spectrum. It'd be additional work to change it and I only see an insignificant difference in work between answering edit requests or approving/reverting pending changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Hampton (Author)

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.

---

Ad Orientem the admin suggested I post this here. I am trying to submit Ryan Hampton (Author) to wiki pages for creation. It's coming up as a global ban on the name. I will disclose upfront that I work with Ryan's publishing house Macmillan. I do not want to create the article myself, rather submit it for an editor to check out for submission. Ryan is the U.S.'s leading activist on the opioid crisis. His work has been published nationwide and he has a major book published by St. Martin's Press titled AMERICAN FIX (see here: https://us.macmillan.com/author/ryanhampton/). He has been recognized by notable news orgs such as NYT, WSJ, Slate, etc. for his work. It's kind of crazy that Wiki has a ban on his name. The submission page said to contact an admin for help to get this article created or the ban lifted. Can someone please help with this? Thanks so much. - Garrett D4g2018 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should try Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession under the author section, with this much coverage HuffPost, Forbes, LA Times, seems like Ryan Hampton (author) should pass WP:GNG. I followed links to the blacklist pages, searched the archives, no mention of Ryan Hampton, with or without (author), popped up. But, mebbe these deleted pages has something to do with it. Heiro 04:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Garrett. I've closed the other thread at ANI. If there is a problem this is a good place to sort it out for now. If there is not someone with more competence than I have will no doubt quickly let you know. In the meantime please don't open any new discussions elsewhere. It's best to keep everyone on the same page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

When I go to create the page "Ryan Hampton" or "Ryan Hampton (author)" this is the message I get: "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." I cannot submit this article. The deleted pages are not the same Ryan Hampton. This Ryan Hampton is a published author with one of the world's largest big-5 publishing companies. It says only an admin can submit the article or lift the ban. Help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4g2018 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a lock on Ryan Hampton (Author) and it is on some sort of black list. I found this out when I went to the create new page. However we already have an article on Ryan Hampton. I am going to back away from this and let someone hopefully more knowledgeable on black lists step in. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping Oshwah & TonyBallioni. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw you added a request to the page I linked above (Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession ), I tidied it up a bit (the markup at the end of a ref should be </ref>, notice the /?) Anyway, maybe an admin will come along and fix the blacklist issue. As for the requested article, we are all volunteers here, so you may have to wait until someone is interested in writing an article on your subject. You may want to look at WP:COI in the meantime. Heiro 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This specific blacklist entry was the result of a specific sockpuppeteer creating articles about someone named "Ryan Hampton". This entry only prevents creation, not editing; once an admin at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession creates the page, there should be no editing restrictions from this entry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So let me understand what's happening here -- a new account shows up, finds ANI on their first edit and ArbCom on their sixth and has a (probably financial) COI with the article subject which has been repeatedly created by socks of undisclosed paid advertisers. And yes, it's the same article subject. This seems awfully familiar. {{checkuser needed}} MER-C 11:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, the title blacklist for this particular article title has regex even I can understand. I have gone ahead and created "Draft: Ryan Hampton (author)". Fine with me whatever happens to it. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

MER-C, The D4g2018 account geolocates to the same exact place as listed in the CU logs for GHD4Cali. The IP listed in the last entry of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New baba/Archive does not geolocate to the same place so do not infer anything from that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; blocked and spam deleted. Unsurprisingly, that account's first edit was to whinge to ANI about getting the page unsalted. MER-C 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

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

emergency desysop of Denelson83

Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 02:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting bulk revision undeletion for Richardson family murders

• Richardson family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a long and admittedly tortured history, I would like to requests that all the revisions of the aforementioned page that have been scrubbed due solely to the inclusion of the name "Jasmine" in the article, now be restored. While these administrative actions were likely done with the best intentions, I think in hindsight it has been established via the talk page that such actions were an improper exercise of the REVDEL functionality, and in any case with the name now finally restored to the article, I can see no reason to keep those revisions hidden. Note that any revisions which were deleted for reasons other than the inclusion of the aforementioned name, such as defamation or the insertion of additional personal information, I do not (I think wisely) include in this request.

Note that I have not notified the administrators who performed these actions on their talk pages of this discussion. The reason for this is because I believe this is purely a subspecies of content matters (I do not take issue with any of the administrators or the actions they performed), the list of admins who have performed these revision deletions is lengthy and stretches back over seven years, and I believe that our recent discussions on the talk page in any event provide sufficient notice of the direction the community has moved in. If you think I made this judgment in error, you may ask me to make those notifications anyway, or else create them yourself, for which I would be most appreciative of.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

--Ipatrol (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The most recent of that pages RevDel's were by admin @Gadfium: - will talk message them for comment here. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall how this page got on my watchlist; it isn't a matter that particularly interests me, although I have been involved in New Zealand-related articles where court orders suppress names. I have been aware that Ipatrol has been making sensible arguments on the talk page, and have not taken any action on the article since that started. I have no objection to the restoration of the edits in question.-gadfium 05:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring from archive--Ipatrol (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrative error correction

Please can the page Stuttgart Open – Singles be deleted after being moved to 2004 Stuttgart Open – Singles. This is due to a move error on my behalf. Sport and politics (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 15:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Crypto miners

A number of sites are now infested with crypto-mining sideloads, either through compromised web framework plugins, or adverts, or through deliberate action. Bigger sites like YouTube seem to be dealing with this (see [31]), but smaller sites often are not. Normally we blacklist sites with malware, and this is certainly an option for blogs and other sites of no evident authority, but I wonder if we should have some sort of systematic approach to this, and if so what it could be? For example, if a site is identified as having crypto sideloads, we could log it, wait a week to see if it's fixed, and blacklist it if not. I don't know. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be worth exploring the use of archives for sites known to be affected (provided the malware itself isn't displayed by the archive service). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a WT:EL question, not a WP:AN question. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it potentially affects links in references, and not merely external links at the bottom of the article. I swear I saw a research article mirror awhile back doing this, for example. And, really, this isn't ANI; it's appropriate to discuss general administrative concerns here, and this affects how admins respond to people linking to odd websites: Are they merely legitimate users of that particular reference material, or are they someone with a monetary interest in spamming links to those sites? It tees up the question that spamming is not merely an issue of preventing spam, but also a violation of the TOU regarding paid editing (since the people linking out to these sites are surely not doing so out of the kindness of their own hearts). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pro:Atria

I have a dispute with @Stas`: about three articles where he added the Draft:Pro:Atria as a link. I have removed those links, citing the argument "removed program without article, deemed not notable" from List of FTP server software (here), Comparison of FTP client software (here and here) and Comparison of SSH servers (here and here)

Since than Stas' is banging at the door to ask for clarity and consistency. I have replied that it would be easier to just write an article. (The draft used was by that that already two times declined) By now, he has reached my annoyance level but I am aware of the fact that I can have acted overly harsh.

So I request more people to weigh in. The Banner talk 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Stas` (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not link from Articles to Drafts. Full stop, end of story. Stas`, please wait until the draft is approved before adding links to the related articles. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, I understand that and I appologised for the initial edits using a draft. The following edits I sent, contained red links. So my question, in fact, was if it is OK to update the relevant pages (where red links are allowed obviously)? As far as I understand, this is allowed in the WP:CSC, and I believe ultimately, that's where the dispute started. Thanks in advance. Stas` (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, if you are going to redlink an article you need to provide a reference and/or indication that the page could be created in the future. However, I have noticed the general consensus on software/technology lists is that only those with articles are included, simply because these programs are a dime-a-dozen and there's rarely an indication that a program is notable until someone writes an article about it. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The changes I've sent were updates to the alternative that exists already in the list. The same goes with the article draft, the intent was to provide up-to-date information and transparency behind a company providing software (in that list) for governmental agencies among others. Stas` (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone just revew the Draft and move it into mainspace if acceptable? It was not resubmitted but a note was posted asking for review. That would solve the back and forth. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The back and forth was about the inclusion in the list, not necessarily the draft being declined. Thank you for submitting it; we shall see how it fares. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still updating the references when I find those relevant to the article. But any feedback is welcome. Stas` (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft was reviewed by myself and still fails the basic inclusion in addition to being fundamentally promotional. The draft is a combination of a Client and Server side, so we have 2 aspects to consider: What makes this software client special? and What makes this software server special? both of which are fundamentally unanswered and unsuitable. Draft has been put up for MFD. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pro:Atria shpuld resolve the issue so this thread can be closed. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please unclose close at ANI

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

---

I'm asking that this close be undone, so that discussion can continue; i view it as premature. I asked Guy to unclose here, but he believes it is best to leave it closed. He is aware that I have requested this. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I also believe it best to leave it closed. There does not appear to be developing consensus that POTW acted in bad faith or was behaving disruptively per se, and I'm not sure that venue is appropriate to hold the related policy discussion. If you're interested in formalizing best practices regarding the placement and/or removal of COI tags in general (which is where it seems like the discussion was headed, and what I honestly think is a better use of our time in this direction) then other venues (such as WP:VPP or the talk page at WP:COI) would make better places to have that discussion. --Jayron32 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Le sigh. The thread raised multiple intertwined issues with unclear consensus as to what the actual view of the community might be on the core question of whether Andy is in the right or not. Jytdog is a COI fundamentalist (nothing wrong with that, so am I), Andy is a prolific editor, a tireless advocate for Wikipedia and also, occasionally, a monumental pain in the arse, but the route to resolving this is to get clear consensus via RfC or whatever as to what should be done, and then admins can assess whether it is being done. I seriously doubt if that thread was ever going to yield anything other than bitching by the usual suspects. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am fine with getting the policy issues resolved. As I noted at Guy's talk page, it is clear to me how we got here. What needs to stop, is Andy's campaigning that interferes with COI management. That is very bad for him and for the GLAM program generally. The longer that goes on, the more diffs and badness are going to build up. I filed the ANI to get that to stop. Guy mentioned on his talk page that he is talking to Andy. If that is happening and is fruitful, that is enough for me and I will withdraw this request to unclose. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You think it needs to stop, but we're not going to stop it unless there is evidence that what you think is actually the community's consensus view. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

To take this practically, we're putting the cart before the horse to say that Andy is acting disruptively before we've got firm guidance on how he's supposed to behave here. Let's have the discussion over COI-related best practices, and THEN if he acts against that, we have something. Right now we have no clear firm best practices as to what we should do (when should we tag, when should tags be removed, etc.) If we don't have that clear best practice, then it's just two groups of people bickering over who is right with neither having community consensus behind them. Just because one side or the other is more ascerbic doesn't make their position less or more right. As JzG notes, the personality issues here are not going to get us anywhere useful.--Jayron32 14:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I accept that guidance about how COI tags should be handled is unclear. The aggressive stripping of them, while this is being debated, is not acceptable and POINTY as hell. Two admins said that at ANI, and another admin pointed out the very bad judgement of stripping the tag on one of them, saying clearly that they were not commenting either way on the issue more generally. That is three admins. There was movement toward consensus on the main issue.

That was the purpose of the ANI thread, and I believe it was heading in that direction until it was prematurely closed.

If the close reflected that, it would be acceptable to me.

I am happy to open a new thread more clearly focused on that if that would give you all more comfort that the discussion will be focused.

But again, Guy, if you are talking with Andy offline and it is clear that he will restrain himself, that is enough for me. Please do let me know. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. Please consider that your position is legitimately, and not necessarily agreed upon by those commenting on this issue-that a clean-up tag that allows an editor to make unfounded accusations of COI could be a negative for Wikipedia. Please consider that the editors commenting are commenting because of concerns that editors may do harm rather than protect the encyclopedia and please consider that editors commenting on this have the integrity to comment for the reasons they give rather than jumping into such a discussion because, as you suggest, they are friends. I pulled out of the RfC because I didn't agree with attempts to control the discussions and outcomes, including ad hominem attacks - the wording of the RfC is one aspect of that. I won't bog down Guy's page or this notice board with discussion but wanted to note that what amounts to accusations of a lack of seriousness on this issue is wrong sighted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

The template says "appears to have". The wording of the RfC is perfectly neutral.The proposed language was added to the instructions in this diff (not be me) following this talk page discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We cannot deal with COI issues by commandeering a clean up tag; neutrality is not the issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

It is unclear how using a COI tag when there are likely COI issues is "commandeering" it. Bizarre. In any case this is entirely offtopic for this thread. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that this is not a COI tag; that you are trying to make it a COI tag, that you have started a RfC to try and get consensus to make a tag that deals with potential non -nutrality into a COI tag, and that likely COI damages editors who act in good faith and then are accused of likely COI, an accusation with out proof. I am out of patience with this because it hurts people, Jytdog, that's what the outcome will be. I assume good faith and believe you have the best at heart, but here is a place for COI issues and its not in accusatory drive by tags.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

Anything that is as tl;dr as this needs a close as "no consensus." Guy did the right thing. Let this one die a natural death. Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Are IPs allowed to vote in AfDs?

Especially if they have less than 500 contribs, and the AfD has had issues with potential vote canvassing and vote stacking [32]? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

AFD's are not "votes" - IP editor comments are welcome. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Khirurg (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and admins are allowed to include their opinions or not depending on context. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, how come there are no IP admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• No they're not, IPs have to sign up in order for their opinion to mean anything. If only........ –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• IPs with useful things to say are more than welcome at AFDs. Experienced admins know to base closure of discussions on the content of contributions and not on who makes them; if an IP user has evidence to present one way or the other, that evidence is what makes their comments meaningful, not who they are. --Jayron32 04:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• The if they have less than 500 contribs part, however, is relevant to topic areas with sanctions. The I/P area, for instance, prohibits editors with less than 500 edits and six months (I think) of experience.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  Less than 500 edits is meaningless for IP editors. They could have over 500, but only one on their current IP; it could be their first edit ever, but the IP's thousandth. ansh666 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  I’m familiar with several regular IP users with thousands of edits as a person who run into this problem of perception whenever their IP changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  They're allowed to get accounts if the 500 edit restrictions are onerous to them. They of course don't have to get accounts if they don't want, but then they can't do everything at Wikipedia they want to do. That's just how it works. --Jayron32 04:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Until and unless some admin decides that the AfD needs to be protected, any non-blocked IP or account is permitted to express their opinion, and ask their questions; the closing admin will decide, for each comment, how much weight it should be given. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC closure needed

It's listed at the top of this page as well, but it's somewhat time-sensitive and potentially has an impact on nearly every article (it's included in WP:CENT), so... Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word has been open for nearly two months, discussion seems to be finished, but closure is not straightforward (I think). It would be nice if one or more uninvolved admins could take a look and judge consensus and indicate what needs to be done now (if anything). Fram (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a page you can go to, to request Rfc closure. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and then you get listed at the top of this page, with dozens and dozens of others. These also require closing, but the importance overall of a dispute about one article (which is the majority of the above, like "Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Should The Man in the High Castle (TV series) be described as science fiction?") is (in my biased opinion) somewhat less than this specific RfC (and some others). Importance + time sensitive nature = posting here instead of only in the list at the top. If you mean another page still, then a pointer in the right direction would help :-) Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it now. I've been closing some of the oldest RFCs, and am working my way through the backlog. I am finding that if people want their RFCs closed quickly, they need to make them less complicated. This one asks two separate questions, one with six possible options (including, unhelpfully, 'other');, and one with five possible options (again, including 'other'). The more possibly options there are, the more difficult it becomes to easily determine the best close to make. Fish+Karate 12:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There,  Done. Fish+Karate 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving "Baltic Finns" to "Finnic peoples"

Hi, I'm asking for assistance in renaming the article Baltic Finns to Finnic peoples, as "Finnic peoples" is the most widely used term in both research literature and other encyclopaedias. I could not move it myself, as the page already has a redirect from "Finnic peoples". There is also an associated talk page discussion about this. Thank you. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

After looking at the talkpage discussion, I think I'd better leave the assessment of your request to a linguist, SørenKierkegaard. For the next time, please note that there is a special noticeboard dedicated to such requests: Wikipedia:Requested moves. (But it was lovely to meet you — I'm a great admirer of your 19th-century work.) Bishonen | talk 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Haha thanks :) I guess I'll keep waiting for another administrator then... how do you ping a linguist admin? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You could probably do a PetScan to find admins who are in the appropriate language category. But, as stated, RM is really the best way to go on this one. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the move - see my summary at Talk:Baltic Finns#Renaming the article to "Finnic people". — Sebastian 16:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

proxies

Hey, is there anyway of detection an open proxy other than CU? I am incredulous at receiving user space vandalism out of Laos from an IP I never saw before. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You can file a report on WP:OP and have them take a look. There are standard ways to detect open proxies that do not rely on CU or any other admin tools. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

SQL, has been working on some tools to help with this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A WHOIS lookup on the IP in question says it's associated with a SIP trunking company known as Star Telecom. There are multiple Viettel contact addresses, of which UNITEL (ref. in whois) are the Laos operator. Looks like some weird VoIP into Laos. Sounds like proxy, but maybe not open. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked into this at OPP - I can't find any evidence of this IP currently being a proxy. The netblock this one is from is 183.182.96.0/20, so I would keep an eye on those contribs and see if the vandal pops back up on another IP. SQL^{Query me!} 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser isn't really useful in detecting proxies. The tool itself is pretty limited, and I think most people would be quite underwhelmed if they got access to it. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies is useful, and there are a few websites that purport to detect proxies/VPNs, such as ipqualityscore.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge

• Now that I now know of the new way to auto-histmerge pages (Special:Log/merge, Special:MergeHistory, Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Using the MergeHistory special page), I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge, with view of helping there, and I found that the lists of history-merges to be done there, do not seem to have been updated for some years. Where is an up-to-date list of history-merges to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: You could try the contents of Category:Candidates for history merging, which is a list of all the articles tagged with {{Histmerge}}. Fish+Karate 14:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Fish and karate: But that does not lead me to any information about the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge project. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • According to the page in question, the list was maintained by User:AarghBot which in turn was maintained by User:Mikaey. Unfortunately, User:Mikaey hasn't edited in a year and rarely edits anymore according to his contributions. You might leave an inquiry on their talk page asking them to run a new sequence and, if no response, try recruiting a new bot owner at WP:BOTREQ. Hth, Rgrds. --64.85.216.148 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:MergeHistory (the new semi-automatic history-merger)

• I have used Special:MergeHistory twice. These points arise:-
  • If I am history-merging page X into page Y:-
  • Please also let the user specify the oldest edit in Y to keep. I have already run into a case when Y's history started with a redirect to X, and I went back to the old method. There I have to undelete Y separately afterwards, and in the process I can tell it not to undelete that redirect.
  • Please let the user also specify the oldest edit in X to move. That is useful when X is a sandbox-type file that contains the edit histories of 2 or more successive drafts.
    • (This leads into a query about when ever will we have ability to directly delete or move some edits of a file?, instead of the long-way-round of deleting all the file's edits and then undeleting some of its edits.)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

    From looking at the description, and the interface itself, I'd say that the tool is really meant for dead-simple copy/paste moves with no convoluted histories. As soon as you have to deal with "this edit but not this one" it's probably better to just do it manually. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RIP Admin Bhadani

We have received word that long time administrator Bhadani has passed on. For anyone that was well acquainted with him, an update to Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians would be welcome. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Violations of Five Pillars

• In the past I never had to seek "consensus" but now people of questionable authority are using that guideline as an obstruction technique. I have given up editing several articles because I put in hours of hard work adding knowledge only to have it simply reverted without any explanation, without suggestions, without improvements, without corrections. Those people are following me when I try a minor edit of a few changed words even that is reverted without questions or anything except to be rude and obstructionist. Who are these people? Where have they all come from? There is nothing in the Five Pillars about "consensus". The basic directions are jump in, be bold, assume good faith, build upon previous edits. I can no longer believe anyone who says "consensus" because they simply assume an authoritarian attitude that tells me they are vandals, trolls, or rogue editors. To the management of Wikipedia I plead mercy and ask that you find some way of controlling or removing the obstructionists. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHT863: You have 75 article edits which indicates inexperience with how articles, especially ones that cover controversial topics, are built. Consensus is indeed how content is determined and is explicitly mentioned in WP:5P4. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info but I quit. Its all yours my friend. -- DHT863 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a lengthy discussion of these issues on my talk page with DHT863. Any other administrator is welcome to add their thoughts, either here or there. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@DHT863:: You are correct that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD, but at the same time it wants us to be willing to follow WP:DR when there are disagreements over content. So, if you're bold and make an edit, which is then subsequently undone/modified by another editor, then the next thing for you to do is follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article talk. This means trying to establish a consensus for the changes you want to make; it does not mean posting a message on the talk page and then immediately re-adding the disputed content. WP:SILENCE is often assumed when an edit is made that is not immediately reverted; however, as soon as someone does revert/change (except in the case of WP:VANDAL) the content, then discussion is needed per WP:CONTENTAGE to establish a consensus for inclusion. It's possible that a consensus to not include the content already exists, but a consensus can change which means discussion is still needed. As for your commetn aout other people, the Wikipedia community is made up of people from all over the world, and bascially anyone who want to edit is a WP:WIKIPEDIAN. Certain Wikipedians have been given special "tools" to perform certain tasks because they are considered experienced enough and competent enough by the community to do such things. Adminsitrators are one such type of user, but there are other types as well. Regardless of user type, all Wikipedians are expected to comply with relevant policies and guidelines when they edit, and this sometimes means undoing edits of those who do not. Moreover, checking the contribution histories of editors is not uncommon and it's even considered appropriate to check for other inappropriate edits per WP:HA#NOT. Just a suggestion: If you're being bold and finding a lot of your edits being reverted by others, then maybe it's time to slow down a bit an be a little more WP:CAUTIOUS. Also, you need to be aware how a minor edit is defined by Wikipedia (see WP:MINOR) because that is the definition that matters. Just adding a single sentence to an article might seem minor to you, but might not seem minor to others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to shut something down and send us all to our rooms

Can someone uninvolved please just end this. We can't help ourselves, and it's devolved to pettiness. I would have closed it myself, but I predict with near certainty that someone would reopen it and complain because I'm involved. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh. Will this do? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  It will. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say, I laughed at several points in time while skimming through it. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Man with long history of publicity stunts stages publicity stunt. Hold the front page! Guy (Help!) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass G8 deletion of pages created by an IP

I've just deleted around 175 or pages created by 88.105.70.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over the span of an hour or two. They were without fault talk or category talk pages of nonexistent articles and categories, and were mostly of the flora/fauna/biota/flags/symbols of Kashmir/Sindh/Punjab/etc. Some of the titles seems to suggest an agenda? I've saved a list here. The extant posts of the IP are quite related; despite yesterday being the first edits, I've blocked the IP to prevent further such actions. Anyway, given our history of mass-created/deleted pages (I recall an incident with bot-created algae stubs...), I would welcome a secondary review of this action by anybody smarter than I am on the politics of the region and categories in general. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or some other restricted POV-pusher? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If it is, and I'm not sure we are going to be able to tell, that'd definitely be time for an indefinite block on PAKHIGHWAY. It's hard to see this action as anything other than disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It would require a checkuser, obviously. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

CU doesn't connect IPs to accounts, so that'd be useless. ansh666 20:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666:--That's partially wrong.Whilst CUs don't publicly connect IPs with UACs, they can easily do a plain CU block on the abusive account.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. What I meant was that only a CU could do this. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Comment

There is a content dispute at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. One user is hoping that independent administrators will step in to arbitrate. I know that admins do not settle content disputes, but I think the discussion would benefit if an uninvolved admin weighed in. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Trademark Infringing Cal Poly Disambiguation 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.

---

Here, we have a 100% incorrect disambiguation page that is causing ambiguity. Cal Poly is literally the name of the college Cal Poly (see here). Cal Poly has never referred to Cal Poly Pomona since Cal Poly Pomona's inception in 1966. The Pomona campus was only called Cal Poly when that real estate was part of Cal Poly between 1949-1966. The term Cal Poly without a modifier is owned by Cal Poly (see here and here). As such, Cal Poly Pomona explicitly says to never refer to it as just Cal Poly (see here).

This is an unambiguous trademark infringement. This is not something Wikipedia can have decided by a bunch of random dizzy Wikipedia users. Now that Wikipedia's administration has been notified any safe harbor Wikipedia may have had is gone and Wikipedia is forced to make a determination and there's only one determination that can be made or else this site (which has been, and is, profusely used for hidden advertising) will be secondarily liable for trademark infringement. Please delete the Cal Poly disambiguation page before it gets Wikipedia in trouble.--TDJankins (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TDJankins: I suggest you knock off the pseudo-legalese before you edge into blocking territory. Our disambiguation pages are there to assist readers with navigating to similarly named articles/topics. Some pages, like Coke, contain trademarked terms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion is unnecesary, as it is helpful to disambiguate common usages that readers will look up, even if they are officially incorrect. It may indeed be desirable to add a bit more information about current name usage to this disambiguation page, even though this is not the typical practice on such pages. However, both "Cal Poly" universities have the very same owner (the California State University, i.e. the State of California), so it does not seem possible that there could be any trademark litigation between them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia might be able to avoid secondary liability if the page name were changed to "Things with Cal Poly in the Name" or something like that.--TDJankins (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TDJankins: See my post above. Please drop this. Now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

While our litigious friend may be heading to a block, I do feel that California Polytechnic State University is the primary topic for Cal Poly. I'll do the RM paperwork. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

On what basis do you feel that California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo is the primary topic and not California State Polytechnic University, Pomona? Right now they are both listed in alphabetical order, and I see no justification for changing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"random dizzy Wikipedia user" here chiming in. "Cal Poly" at least in the San Gabriel Valley (Pop. 1.5 million) and the Pomona Valley (Pop. 0.21 million), both which are within the boundaries of Cal Poly's Local Admission Area, usually refers to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Wikipedia is not here to prescribe, but to describe.--Chlorineer (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Since apparently people are discussing this here rather than just at Talk:Cal Poly, I repeat myself: "Cal Poly" as a stand-alone term appears to always refer to the SLO school. The web domain, Twitter handle, sports teams for "Cal Poly" all belong to the SLO school. The LA Times refers to the SLO school as Cal Poly, while referring to the Pomona school as Cal Poly Pomona. In fact, all of the references I find to the Pomona school use "Cal Poly Pomona". For the stand-alone term, I think it's clear that it primarily refers to the San Luis Obispo school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this here? This is not an administrator issue, unless the OP wishes to WP:BOOMERANG-block themselves for NLT violations... This is a normal editing issue subject to normal consensus-building discussions. What administrator tool needs to be used here? What needs protecting or blocking or deleting? --Jayron32 17:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

UpsandDowns1234 block review

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

---

Can a neutral third party admin review the Standard Offer request from UpsandDowns1234 (talk · contribs) per User talk:UpsandDowns1234#Unblock request 1, and determine whether specific unblock conditions would be appropriate or whether a clean-slate unblock would be more appropriate? I'm very much WP:INVOLVED so won't take any action either way myself; I proposed the conditions I felt would be appropriate, but U1234 has rejected these and made a counter-proposal that he be unblocked but banned from editing his own talkpage. Obviously this would be highly unusual, to the extent that I feel any attempt to impose such a condition would require community consensus and couldn't be imposed by any admin unilaterally. Also paging Primefac and NeilN as the admins who imposed the original blocks. ‑ Iridescent 09:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, this is what the SO is for, and I'm usually (per WP:ROPE) the first to let someone back in. And on the assumption there's been no socking, the criteria for consideration have been met, and the original disruption was (IIRC) childish rather than malicious. On the other hand: I'm not sure U&D has learned anything enough during their time off. On the one hand, they seem to be under the impression that the SO is negotiable (by them), that their return is inevitable just because six months have passed, when actually their remark ("Note to uninvolved admins: If you shorten or remove my block, then mark the unblock request as successful, otherwise, mark the unblock request as unsuccessful)" suggests they are still focussed on adminstrative minutiae, when that was something that contributed to their original block.
  In any case, advising a reviewing admin what to do with an unblock template is frankly bizarre—while also suggesting they don't understand what went wrong. As to their request to have talk page access revoked: emphatically disagree (per "it's unthinkable, surely, that in a collaborative environment—where communication is not just necessary but paramount—that you are unable to respond to other editors-!"). The suggestion alone may indicate that they don't realise the importance of communication; but of course it may not. And to be fair, U&D has presented a pretty comprehensive admission of previous disruption. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline SN54129 above spelled it out perfectly. While, yes the standard offer is there for a user, they do not understand the reasoning for the block to begin with it seems. The fact that they do not know why they are blocked tell me they will return to the same behavior that led to the block in the first place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock only if Iridescent's unblock conditions are unconditionally agreed to. Furthermore, indicate they are on a short leash and any kind of disruptive behavior not covered by the conditions will result in an indefinite block. I suspect this reblock is inevitable but perhaps we'll all be surprised. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I saw this in RFU earlier. I got the distinct impression that we were being trolled and that even if we weren’t being trolled, an unblock would only lead to disruption. Also, a note to the closer that should this appeal be declined, it counts as a WP:CBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: I would support an unblock if they unambiguously agree to accept Iri's conditions. I don't want this as an "We unblock you and here are the conditions" thing without them agreeing to it, as I think that would fail miserably. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock best wa follow the current account and mentor them over dealing with alternative accounts. The editor clearly wants to edit and will do so blocked or nor.... best we watch over.Change vOTE after comment ....simply not mature enough. [User:Moxy|Moxy]] (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock with Iridescent's unblock conditions. The talk page revocation is a non-starter. All editors that are currently editing must be able to discuss things on their talk page. ~ GB fan 15:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocking admin comment based on the conversation on my meta talk right after pulling TPA, I see exactly the same behaviour as before, which was quite well summed up by SN above. The Standard Offer is not an "automatic" return, and I'm not sure they've learned their lesson. However, provided they keep within the restrictions provided they'll either become a productive editor or end up site banned. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was my impression as well: they are going to continue the games that led to the original block. The SO requires that the user understand what led to the problems, and promise to avoid them. I'm not seeing that here. He fails one of the conditions for the SO, even with Iri's conditions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • ​My proposed conditions were drawn up to intentionally create red lines. They mean that if he has anything useful to contribute he can contribute it, but the first whiff of trolling and he's gone for good this time. My gut feeling is that this is an editor who's very young and who's experimenting with the boundaries of the envelope rather than acting out of malice; if that's the case, then intentionally pushing him into a sandpit would give UAD a place either to demonstrate that he can work cooperatively, or demonstrate conclusively that he can't. It's not as if his contributions won't be heavily scrutinised. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • ​Yes, very good point. I think your unblock conditions are good, but I was less than impressed with the response to them. I've been dealing with an LTA who takes the "well-meaning idiot vs. malicious actor" thing to a new level as of late, and that likely influenced my views here. I've updates my comment above: I'm fine with unblocking if he agrees to your conditions, but I think it is important that he be the one to agree: I don't think it will work unless there is buy-in from the unblocked party, and the easiest way to gauge this is "are you cool with this before I unblock you?" TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock if he accepts my conditions (or similar), oppose a full no-restrictions WP:ROPE unblock (although if he demonstrates an ability to comply with the conditions, they can obviously be lifted later. The ability to comply with other people's decisions even when one doesn't agree with them as a key—arguably the key—Wikipedia skill, and some people just don't have it. I'm reluctant to go all out with a community ban, even if this appeal is declined; assuming that UAD is a child (a fairly safe assumption) he's likely to become far less annoying as he matures and it would make sense to leave the door open. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock in +/- 2 years. Not mature enough right now. I recall the rather large amount of time that was sunk into trying to help them be productive, to no avail. It is nearly impossible that they've matured significantly since then. Their recent talk page comments confirm this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock per pretty much exactly what Neil said. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline initially. I would prefer that the block be retained in place for six months, and only then released on the conditions originally proposed by Iridescent. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per the number. I'm not convinced that they understand why they were blocked in the first place, despite their assertions otherwise. ansh666 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I might sound mean, but I think we are either being trolled, or this individual simply does not understand what Wikipedia is here for, and the protocols that are followed. I cannot see a net positive in unblocking, especially as it seems like the blocking admins are being lectured to. Aiken D 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: In the Unblock request, he refused to agree with Iridescent's quite reasonable unblock conditions. That does not give me a lot of confidence that he won't go right back to being disruptive if unblocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Iridescent, where did he suggest being banned from editing his own talkpage? I've read through the request without seeing that, and neither a search for talk nor a search for discussion found anything that looked relevant. Looks to me like he's proposing "Reduce my indefinite block to six months [so it would end in August] with no talk page access." Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I read that as TPA revoked for the remainder of their self-proposed 6-more-months block only as well, but it doesn't really affect my own opinion either way. ansh666 05:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Decline The responses on their talk page don't fill me with confidence that we won't be back in a very short period of time. Maybe along the lines of Floq's thinking (although not sure how U&D could be unblocked in -2 years) that given another year or two they might be mature enough. Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Further unsourced additions to WP:BLPs by User:InternationalSupporter3

Five hours after expiry of their one-week block for unsourced additions and changes to Sheffield Eagles players, User:InternationalSupporter3 went straight back to exactly the same behaviour: [33], [34], etc. This post at their user talk page, and this follow-up post, indicate that this user believes that their first-hand knowledge of the team is sufficient verification. Editor is now on their hundredth edit post-block, all on the same subject, nearly all to BLPs, and all without a single reference. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know where the figure of 243 comes from that was added in the infobox for Stéphane Ruffier? There's no link in said infobox to a player profile, and none of the three external links verify this either. Unless they can provide a WP:RS, looks like they're going back to a block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely until they can promise to start providing reliable sources. I looked at six articles; one source agreed with their edit, on the other five there were actually no sources whatsoever, or the source did not agree with their changes. Regardless of whether their edits are "right" or not, they can't stand without sources. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Requesting indef block from Wikipedia. Some admin block me from this site. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Notice of possible vandalism

Dear admins, can somebody – ideally with the relevant historical background – please have a look at the edits made by this IP. The person behind this IP has recently been editing in more or less the same subject area (cf. especially the article World War II in Yugoslavia, where my edits improving and completing citations and references where removed due to a revert to the version before the – probably biased and revisionist – IP edits. As there are still some referential mistakes to be fixed, I wold like to get to work soon, though to do so, I need to be certain first that no more reverts or rollbacks take place. Hence, I would also recommend to semi-protect the said article. Hoping for your understanding reply, and prompt initiative, I remain with my best regards.--Boczi (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Those edits are not vandalism, because they are clearly in good faith. What I mean by that is that it is clear the user of that IP address is making edits that they believe to be improvements to the articles in question. Vandalism means that the person is actively trying to make Wikipedia worse. They are not doing that. Having said that, it doesn't mean their edits are beneficial or should stay (and saying THAT doesn't mean I think they should go, I have no opinion there). That just means that if you disagree with those edits, you should seek dispute resolution if you cannot reach an agreement on where to go. But vandalism really just means "trying to damage Wikipedia", doing stuff like replacing words with swear words, or writing "Johnny was here!" in the article text or stuff like that. --Jayron32 15:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jayron32, thank you very much for your quick response! Regardless of whether vandalism is the right term in this case or not, would there be an efficient way to (administratively?) restore my edits? I would like to avoid having to carry out a manual recovery if possible. Apart from that, please understand that I just wanted to point to and inform about this issue here in case there were a VAND problem or rather a "good faith but no use" problem given here that should be brought to attention in order to prevent further damage. Please understand that I do not have the ressources to start another whole DR process here. Best--Boczi (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to technically do that, you could use the WP:UNDO function, it takes about 3 clicks to do that. However, you'll want to avoid getting into a edit war with the user. If someone sees a bunch of back-and-forth undoing of edits, both parties to the dispute can be blocked for edit warring. --Jayron32 15:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks once more. I know I could use the undo button but then I would have to undo OyMosby's revert, which in turn would restore the IP edits in question…--Boczi (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Maybe OyMosby wants to give a comment here.--Boczi (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have been seeing the same anonymous user with ever changing IPs all based in Serbia making revisionist edits on articles such as this one. The person has a clear agenda and is usually given a slap on the wrist. I tried reverting their edits but this may have impacted yours as well. Sorry about that. As for what to do about the IP user abusing this platform, it is hard to figure out. Sometimes their edit goes unoticed for a while, which is sad as readers will be misinformed. Peacemaker67 has tried to deal with this disturbance before, given he himself is busey with other matters probably already, but I think there is only so much that can be done with anonymous users who just change IPs. Which is what I beleive to be the matter. One person, mutiple IPs. OyMosby (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. In this case, as I already implied above, one might consider [semi-]protecting the affected articles to prevent further damage.--Boczi (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're trying to cut down on someone using multiple IP addresses, we have options of a rangeblock (if the IPs all originate in a conveniently small range that doesn't also generate good traffic for Wikipedia) or we could simply protect the pages against IP editing. Both of these are rather blunt tools to use, but they are possible depending on a few things. If someone could compile a list of IP addresses which you suspect to be this one problematic user, we could look that over. --Jayron32 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Yugoslavia during World War II for three months since that seems like an obvious step. One or more IP blocks might also be justified but that would require organized evidence, and it would help to get an opinion from one or more of the admins who have been active on Yugoslavian matters such as User:Peacemaker67. (I agree with Jayron32 that the IP edits are not obvious vandalism though they could be POV-pushing). EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I'll keep an eye on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier

Might need some attention here. It seems the involved editors and fans are voting to keep the the page undeleted. I think it require expert opinion from administrators or experienced editors. --Let There Be Sunshine 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged the current votes that look meat like. I imagine there will be more though. Amortias (T)(C) 20:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The closing admin will take note of the SPA's/fanvotes and close it accordingly. Blackmane (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts."

Should this warning ever be given, without specifying who the sockmaster is?

What's the point? The socks already know who they are. There's no gain from keeping this secret.

Why is the rest of the editing community excluded here? Socks are a persistent problem, and it's through having lots of editors watching out that we catch them, and catch them early. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the standard message when you use Twinkle to indef block an obvious sock. It serves two purposes: to alert the community should they want to talk to the person who made an edit, and to alert the user when it's a false positive. Do you have examples where it's a problem? Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if you mean, "Would you like to replace the general point you've obviously made deliberately as such, with a specific case so that it can turn into another one-issue pissing match", then no. Do you not think I'd have done that, if I wasn't deliberately avoiding doing so? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm blocking for this (and it's not an IP) I usually put the sockmaster's name in the block log, unless it's blatantly obvious. Either that or use the blockedsock template on the sock's userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope any admin could justify any such block to any relevant person if asked. But there's a few reasons a generic message like this is used: 1) in the vast majority of cases the reasons are blindingly obvious from the edits. 2) It's not always clear who the actual sockmaster is even though the socking is obvious. 3) Revealing accounts and linking IP addresses in some cases such as CU blocks might be potentially privacy-violating for the user involved, so shouldn't necessarily always be made very public. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

...and 4) When the sock is an LTA, sockmaster or meatpuppet group looking to gain recognition and we are wanting to DENY them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In many cases they are obvious at the time. But there's also a historical aspect to it. Sometimes sock hunting means going back over an old trail a year or so later, long after memory has become unreliable. Also in many cases it's not obvious. Nor will some admins even respond to such enquiries, at least not from the plebs. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have examples or is there a particular case in mind where we might be able to assist you?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also an important WP:DENY factor. Some people have a hobby of disruptively socking and are encouraged when they get particular attention. A generic message is much better than splashing the name of an LTA around the project. If evidence of blocks being inappropriately applied is found, the admin has their tools removed after an Arbcom case. That is very rare, although obviously there will be occasional false positives. What is the actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think Andy has a point, here, though it might be better to discuss it at a page more tightly focused on that message and the twinkle implementation of it. I've seen this before with editors who were being problematic before their block, and not knowing anything about who was behind the socking left me with the nagging doubt that I might not immediately recognize the next sock. And: No, I can't give specific examples, either. It's been at least a few weeks since I saw something like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

I realize this is off-topic but I wonder if an admin could look into this. I recently noticed something that I find surprising. This User was blocked as being a sock puppet. This looks like a productive editor to me. This User initiated many articles on individual works of art, including the now popular Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary, the artist's birthday having just passed. Could the blocking of that User have been a mistake? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a mistake. This was a sock of User:Slowking4 who was a productive editor but was indefblocked for (a) persistent copyright problems and (b) persistent abuse of anyone who cautioned them about their copyright problems. You can't see their deleted contributions, but it consists of hundreds upon hundreds of deleted images that were uploaded as fair use - but weren't. His user page still has a "Say Yes to Fair Use" banner - scroll to the bottom. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, thank you. I just thought I would point out that the charges are disputed. I am unfamiliar with the case. I think I just know good work when I see it. Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that most of his work here was good, unfortunately however when you're unable to adhere to a core policy the inevitable result is being blocked. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite and Bus stop, I'm the one who levied Slowking's indefinite block, but I don't remember the incident, so please take this as a general statement. When your problem is serial copyright infringement (whether abuse of fair use, or outright false claims of authorship), we have to clamp down hard (and be unforgiving on sockpuppetry), even harder than with community-damaging activities such as persistent abuse of people who caution you about your problems. Usenet didn't get in trouble with outsiders for its flame wars, and we won't get in trouble with outsiders if we permit personal attacks, but copyright ignoring will definitely be a problem. I'm inclined to be lenient toward a productive account that turns out to be a sockpuppet, and if you get blocked for vandalism and register a sockpuppet that creates a good article, I won't G5 delete it (if the article's good, why trash it), but if you get blocked for copyright-related reasons, hardblocking and deletion (unless the status can be verified, like this one as a translation of a WP article) are the only safe course for the project. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend—veteran editors in the visual arts have opposed what amounts to unfair treatment of the visual arts (my words, not theirs) concerning notability requirements for such entities as works of art and art galleries and, getting to the point in this discussion, the justification for inclusion of images of works of art. A problem is that "Fair use" should be loosened for works of art. They are essentially visual. Art education calls for seeing works of art. Any commentary is almost of secondary importance. Blocking an editor that abuses the current guidelines on inclusion of images should be tempered by an understanding of their underlying motives. In short, perhaps they should be given a second chance, if they explain that they understand the serious risk to the project that may be posed by the unthinking inclusion of too many such images. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to wait for a proper response, since I don't remember anything of this block's circumstances, but I'm looking into it now. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've spotchecked a bunch of images, and all of them were photographs; maybe you'd find a little art in there if you checked everything, but if there's any there, it's not much. File:Delia Akeley.jpg was particularly egregious: it was deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because the nominator found a free image (okay, we all can overlook a free image), but then it was again deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 8#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because Slowking uploaded another nonfree image (rationale: no demonstration that a free photo exists; rather your flights of fancy doubt that one doesn't. prove a free photo exists by uploading one. as we can see in this photo, family photos can exist that remain in copyright; prove that the existing photos in books are free and not under copyright.) instead of uploading the free image. When you're having a large number of images deleted for improper fair-use claims, the only appropriate responses are "I'll be much more careful" (and complying) or "I'll stop uploading nonfree images". But when you make this kind of argument, and you keep going and uploading more such images despite warnings and a block, there's no reason to believe that you'll stop unless you are stopped. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt your justification for blocking. I'm trying to explain factors that have not been addressed yet, factors particular to the place of visual images in visual arts, and and that particular editor's attempt to build good quality articles in that area. It takes a degree of good sense to initiate on the English Wikipedia an article on Paula Modersohn-Becker especially the painting called Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary. (To be clear, the article "Paula Modersohn-Becker" was not initiated by the editor we are discussing.) When I saw that article I looked to see who initiated it. When I saw that the editor was a blocked editor I was quite surprised, and even further surprised when I looked at their editing contributions. The sensibility there impressed me. I personally have a liking for articles on individual works of art. Check out Portrait of the Artist's Father. I'm sure many don't share my interest. But that is a worthy article that we probably wouldn't have if not for that editor's contributions. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I thought you were politely uestioning whether this user's block were perhps becuse the fir use policy ws being pplied too strictly to rtworks, such s pintings. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand guilty of being too polite. I will try harder not to let politeness get in the way of arguing a larger point. I apologize and I promise never to do it again. Please accept my contrition as sincerely bleating out of the heart. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise :-) Sorry for the partial legibility of the previous note; my new computer's "a" and "q" keys are malfunctioning (intermittently...ugg) so I have to copy/paste the letter "a" if I want to type it, and I forgot. I'll be glad when the warranty shipping box arrives in the mail. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the malfunction wouldn't occur in a word processor such as TextEdit and then that text could be pasted here. (Just an unhinged thought.) Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it's a hardware issue. It's even acting up at startup; I went to our IT helpdesk (they service computers owned by employees), and they tried to get into the BIOS setup before loading Windows, but it wouldn't work because the ESC key is having the same problem. [Glad that my previous computer is still working for many purposes; I'm using it now.] Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, editors are entitled to disagree with our policies including our copyright policies. They're entitled to advocate for change in a resonable and non disruptive manner. What they cannot do is ignore our policies and continue with disruptive behaviour whether it's because of disagreement with our policies or whatever. And as said, our copyright policies are extremely core policies. Note that although our NFCC is more stringent than that allowed by US fair use law, for various reasons we don't make much of a distinction between likely copyvios, are maybe not copyvios but are violations of NFCC. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are responding to or if you are just weighing into the discussion. And I am keenly aware that I am off-topic. You are certainly on-topic when you mention WP:NFCC. The problem is that there is a need for images in art-education. This is a funny point and it is a point of contention. The counterargument, which is occasionally raised, is that excessive use of images merely "decorate" an article on a work of art or an art movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is actually the image that is most educational. The verbal content is merely supportive of the image. The cart is before the horse. Policy is telling us that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But it is often the other way around when concerning the visual arts. A lecturer in an art history class will display an image of a work of art and will provide spoken commentary on the artwork. A book will only omit images if it is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the images being referenced. It is OK to minimize the use of images in our articles. But they have to be available somewhere thus the use of internal linkage is essential. In short, the need for images in visual art is different than the need elsewhere. I don't know anything about the whole sock puppetry thing so I am only referencing the account of User:Sudowoodoo. This editor was doing great work. Many of the articles they created are translations from other language Wikipedias. Check out articles such as The Sunflower (Țuculescu) or The Apotheosis of Athanasios Diakos or Willows at Chiajna or The Queuing Continues or Apollo (System Copernicus). These are generally good quality articles on works of art. In every case there is a preexisting separate article on the artist, therefore linkage from the article on the artist to the article on the artwork helps to round out our coverage of a notable area of art history, and the linkage between articles minimizes the use of the image as it need not be shown in the article on the artist. (Unfortunately in some cases the image is duplicated in both articles.) Why not reach out to Sudowoodoo, acknowledge their contribution, and invite them to continue their good work? Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I am one of the admins that most vehemently opposes their sockpuppetry, which goes way back, way before their block for being persistent abuse and copyright violations (the first sock-case was intentionally logging out to prove a point). They continue to insist in that, there are still images being deleted that were not falling under fair-use, they still verbally abuse editors who oppose their ways. I have, regularly and also fairly recently, reached out and suggested that they get their main account unblocked. They do not want to believe that that is a way forward, and continue to create sockpuppets. As these sockpuppets are being used to gather trophies (the forelast 2 sockpuppets were created to participate in a en.wikipedia article creation/improvement contest, one earlier in a global article creation/improvement contest), I go the harsh way and wipe everything from the face of Wikipedia, however good or appropriate the contributions themselves are (and I do not feel like looking whether some of the material is copyright violation or not, I just wipe).

I do note, that such images can be supplied by anyone, there is no absolute need to have a certain editor doing that.

So to answer your last question, Why not reach out to Sudowoodoo ..?, I would suggest to try again to Why not reach out to Slowking4? .. I have no objections to the main account getting a standard offer - and put an end to the unconstructive sockpuppetry (and no, these accounts are not a 'clean start' account as User:Slowking4 is alleging here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra. I posted this here. My hope is that it is a step in the right direction. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The reply is here, similar to earlier replies to the same suggestion. Not that I have faith in an unblock, I will still support it. I guess it is now a de facto community ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark, his death

It has just been officially reported that Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark have died. See [35] The article probably needs some protection, Huldra (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The article needs a recent death tag. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there's a hoaxer on a dynamic IP active there. The latest IP address got blocked pretty quickly. If he shows up again, I can semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

it says my title is blacklisted

Hi, I was trying to create a page on a bangla novel, name HIDOL CHORA. But it doesnot let me publish, saying the title is black listed. This is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia. I am lost and don't know what to do. Please suggest. Thanking you Ferdous Sultana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdous00 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This page isn't explicitly blacklisted. Try using normal title case. MER-C 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you are getting the message urging you to create the article via WP:AfC as new users lack the capacity to create articles directly. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ferdous00: if it is not that, can you detail the steps you are following that result in the error message? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Start by clicking here Draft:Hidol Chora. New users should really start by improving existing pages. Article creation is an advanced activity that is much easier after some experiance with wikipedia editing. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Vorpzn and big undiscussed merges / renames

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

Recent editor (<300 edits) and already they're piling into seriously big merges and renames without any sort of prior discussion. See vorpzn (talk · contribs) for the best list, but today we have Solid rocket booster -> Solid-propellant rocket, Liquid rocket booster -> Liquid-propellant rocket , Booster (rocketry) -> Multistage rocket.

This has been raised before in September User_talk:Vorpzn#Do not redirect long-established articles without discussion and consensus, I raised it with them again a week ago and had a pretty dismissive reply User_talk:Andy Dingley#Natural gas and History of gaseous fuel. Raised again today at User_talk:Vorpzn#Undiscussed merges (again)

Sometimes our hunt for consensus means we're paralysed by inaction when it comes to taking big bold steps, but this is not the way.

Oh, and I've just noticed a WP:AIV posting Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And now User_talk:Andy Dingley#WARNING Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Reverts_all_my_edits Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already declined the AIV report and the Arbitration request is being discussed. There does seem to be a case of If I don't acknowledge you it never happened going on though. Amortias (T)(C) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They're still going about raising incorrect warning templates and undoing other editors work as vandalism. I'd block myself for disruptive editing but they may have a case for me being involved with having declined their WIV report and removing their Arbitration request. Amortias (T)(C) 13:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, 31 hours, for DE. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't even be a particularly useful block. They'd get blocked for a day, others would be warned for being mean to new editors, and a couple of days later they'd be back at doing these terrible merges.

This isn't about userpage tagging or bogus AIVs, it's about merges and renames without any prior discussion. There should be a topic ban on that. That's heavyweight for such a new editor, but the disruption since and the refusal to discuss it here means I'm not in a mood to faff about with feeble warnings. Please look at the full contribs history here and say what you reckon to the merges. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] and the expected block. Oh great. Now they have an excuse for not responding here, so the whole posting was wasted. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They continued their editing nonsense for two hours after you had notified them of this discussion. Clearly they were not overly concerned with holding productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at their talk page, I'm getting the suspicion that Vorpzn is not here to build an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Now busily blanking their talk: page, so maybe time to lose talk: page access. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to turning this into an indef for WP:NOTHERE? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems drastic, but they are doing everything they can for it, as either NOTHERE or CIR.

I'd remind them that they still have talk page access, wherein they can still make a case for all of the merges they've been advocating, or even a reasonable pitch for an unblock request. I wouldn't oppose an immediate unblock, if it looked as if they really meant it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They got TPA revoked. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

re: [36] I'd support an indef. Too much of a timesink. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed, and i've directed them to go to WP:UTRS if they wish to be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Endorse indef, based entirely on sockpuppetry and logging on to simplewiki to post harassment. I hadn't even looked at this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible compromised 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.

---

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

The above account dates back 14 years, and has been essentially dormant for most of that time showed up out of the blue to instantly revert back to a bit of polemic which had been added to an article only minutes before. Seems very suspicious. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm...well, I'm all about AGF, so... Drmies (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Can't really say it off of one edit, but I've page protected for 24 hours, that should be enough to stop disruption. If they continue elsewhere, we can block. (And of course, they are autoconfirmed I realized after protecting, but there was enough IP stuff that I thought it might be helpful.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at their old user page and the polemic edit in question, and considering my past experience with some fundamentalist evangelical protestants, it's not out of the question that it's the original user who mistakenly believes that his Catholic brothers and sisters are somehow not Christians. ...Which is worse than a compromised account, IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Holy shit that was their edit? I happened upon that article right after you reverted them and saw this one, and for some reason I guess I confused the two when I saw this post. Yeah, that is a messed-up edit, screw AGF. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Like, I wouldn't say it's blockworthy yet, because the user's lack of experience (regardless of how long ago they registered) effectively leaves them a new user. If they come here swinging, or think that their "truth" is more important our neutrality policies, then yeah, that's gonna be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, I apologize for the noise. Yeah, I’m a newbie, and my account info is really out of date. I was trying to revert the previous edit before mine (by 64.203.215.118), and screwed up. Sorry! I didn’t realize that my revert was committed without even hitting Publish Changes. Dave Rahardja 04:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahardja (talk • contribs)

  That seems reasonable. I'm satisfied. Anyone care to close this down? --Jayron32 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz

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.

---

ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) on 2017-04-12, later revoking talk page access on 2017-07-25. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz/Archive. I count 52 accounts and a few IP addresses. The user is well aware their behaviour is inappropriate and has been repeatedly told about WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, and WP:SO, requiring them to cease editing. There are a number of UTRS appeals, too; see User talk:ZestyLemonz but note there have been UTRS appeals under sockpuppet accounts, I just can't immediately locate them because there are so many accounts. Just recently, see discussions at User talk:90.204.47.61. The user is generally abusive, no matter which account or IP address they are editing from. For example, at the aforementioned User talk:90.204.47.61, you can see they immediately received warnings about vandalising articles, adding unconfirmed information to articles, and engaging in edit wars. That was before anyone realised this was ZestyLemonz. In addition to those inappropriate edits, we've caught this user introducing incorrect (not just speculative information, but incorrect information) into articles before. It's not immediately clear if this was deliberate or a WP:CIR issue. Aldergate20 (talk · contribs) is the most recent sockpuppet account I am aware of. This account was editing yesterday. Given the number of sockpuppet accounts and the history of abuse, no admin would be willing to unblock the user at this time. I consider a ban to be a formality, but it might help ZestyLemonz understand the seriousness of the abusive behaviour.

I therefore move for a formal community ban against ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs), applied to the entire en.wikipedia, of indefinite duration and in any case no shorter than six months from the last edit they make with any account or via any IP address.

• Support as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Largely a formality at this point.--Church ^Talk 21:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As a formality to clear any red tape and officiate this user as 'block on sight' when we see any of his accounts here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as above. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Not a fan of these in most cases, since this kind of request typically asks that we ban someone who will never be unblocked, but if you're actively making requests under UTRS, I suppose there's a chance that someone would unblock without understanding the situation properly. A formal community ban, with the big warning template on the master's userpage, will make it impossible for anyone to unblock as long as they're paying attention, and if someone forgets to investigate properly and unblocks, the block can always be reinstated. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support for clarity and finality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Weak support: I am growing to be less a fan of taking this formal step given the facts of sockpuppetry. I don't see the purpose, I don't think there's a realistic fear of an admin suddenly unblocking, and the application of G5 and similar policies to edits made during block evasion mean there is little difference between someone blocked for socking and someone banned for socking. I think it would be more constructive to create a LTA case page in situations like these, though those too don't really do much other than attach a further badge of shame to people who should be denied recognition. I do not, however, oppose this move because it's clear this particular editor is eligible for a formal siteban, and this is not the place to alter the banning policy. I believe we may be on the way towards banning policy reform, though, and this formal process should be tossed out as being effectively meaningless. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, since it appears from the discussion that a community ban may make certain situations simpler to deal with. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
• Support but lets not do this for every prolific sock-puppet please. de facto bans are fine. I can see this getting tedious really fast. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Insertcleverphrasehere, it already is tedious, since it happens too much. My only reason for participating is the user's active use of UTRS, which isn't typically an issue when someone's been "nominated" for a full community ban: your typical sockmaster brought here for a community ban is socking away without even pretending to use the unban process, while ZestyLemonz is simultaneously socking and pretending to use the unban process. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's useful for cases where xwiki abuse is involved, and for cases where the sockmaster claims supporters on-wiki or is attempting to proxy edit and/or WikiLawyer. I brought one last week for all of these reasons, but I generally agree we should avoid it. I just think that in this case and the case I brought, there were/are valid reasons to do the formal process. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Let's just dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s to let them know this is also a community endorsed action and that they're subject to a "revert on sight" order. I wouldn't be against, more or less, automatic community bans on editors who get blocked for socking. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ehhh... I totally understand what you mean in principle, but that's not something we could realistically apply and with the confidence that it will have a 100% accuracy (in that it bans only the users we feel completely deserve it, and does not ban usernames that we don't). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I made a slightly different suggestion in Newyorkbrad's discussion below. Blackmane (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This sock has been an issue for quite some time!, Support cban. –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Dare I say it's beginning to WP:SNOW? RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the archive for the Sockpuppet investigations is approaching 20000 bytes and lots of socks are easy to identify (one by myself). Iggy (Swan) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Broader suggestion

Please see my comment in the similar "MyRoyalYoung" thread below. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator Post-closure comment) @Yamla: @Cyberpower678: are you sure that ZestyLemonz is the original master account? That account’s first block was as a sockpuppet by Bbb23, so what account was that account a sock of? And what was whatever account ZL is a sock of originally blocked for? 75.144.172.217 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if that's the original account, I got involved quite a bit later. It looks like the original block on ZL was because ZL set up other accounts while not blocked, but in violation of WP:SOCK. That's only based on the SPI, though. --Yamla (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. I'm just a 3rd party enforcer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

InterCity(IC)

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

---

I was advised to come here by Drmies.[37]

InterCity(IC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently disruptive. He clearly is not here to make the articles follow the sources, but rather is here for the sole purpose of attributing as many things as possible to Hungarian inventors no matter what the sources say. Examples:

• The transformer was a Hungarian invention[38].
• Nuclear weapons are a Hungarian invention, not an American invention[39]
• The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer in 1903 even though it had already been invented in 1887[40]

Plus, he edit wars, deletes other user's comments[41] and ignores/deletes any warning on his talk page, calling them spam or vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a community ban. Also, could someone look at his global contribs?[42] I suspect the same bad sourcing I am seeing here, but I can't be sure because of the language. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• A community ban on what? Why this editor in particular?

It is not InterCity who is particularly the problem here, but this whole tree of nationalist invention categories. They have been a problem for years, they are a magnet for POV socks (Europefan is just one of an infamous bunch), there is no interest in developing any clear guidelines as to how inclusion should be defined (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology/Archive_2#National_invention_categories). InterCity's behaviour hasn't done themselves any favours here, but in what ways are they wrong? What are they doing that's against the guidelines defining when something is credited to a particular country? (none, because there aren't any.) I don't see any of their editing here that's in any way worse than what other editors (including a couple of les unblockables) do all the time.

Why is a transformer not a Hungarian invention? Why are nuclear weapons not a Hungarian invention? Or do you mean a British invention, because the Hungarian in question was lying in a British bathtub at the time? What is a "turbo generator" anyway?

All of these are vague questions, with unclear answers. None of InterCity's claims here have been definitively wrong, such that we should be talking about topic bans. They haven't even been against guidelines for flagwaving POV edits in nationalistic categorisation, because we don't have any. We can't take punitive action without at least first defining that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The transformer was invented by Michael Faraday, and his invention was published in 1834. See Experimental Researches on Electricity, 7th Series. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 124: 77–122. doi:10.1098/rstl.1834.0008. The first transformer to see wide use was invented by Nicholas Callan in 1836. It wasn't until 15 years later that the Hungarians at the Ganz factory started working on transformers. There is nothing unclear about this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that the first practical use of AC transformers as part of power distribution was Hungarian, great. So why doesn't that give them an invention credit for the transformers article? (it's a pretty blunt scope). Also Callan didn't work with what we'd describe as a "transformer" today, but rather an induction coil - a self-oscillating transformer, supplied by DC. That's much further from Faraday than Ganz' work was. So why include Callan (for whom there's also a separate article), but exclude Hungary?

I'm not claiming that Hungary should (or should not) be included here - but the issue is complex, unanswerable for as long as we refuse to express any real conditions for listing here, and certainly not material for topic bans. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as does Drmies. AN is not here to rule on content disputes, but rather to deal with user behavior, and InterCity(IC)'s behavior has been disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Then present a case as to why their editing is incorrigibly disruptive.

What you actually did was to go to WP:AN and post a list of content "errors", as if they were unarguable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit history speaks for itself. If you think that claiming that something can be invented in 1903 even though it had already been invented in 1887 is "arguable" I have nothing more to discuss with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this editor is problematic. Note that he even blanked this discussion about himself on Drmies talk page, replacing the thread with a comment in which he claims to be leaving the English Wikipedia. That being said, he made a similar comment 11 days ago and then continued editing disruptively. This user, by his own admission, lacks the language skills to be editing here. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know that their English is that bad; I think the comment (about leaving en-wiki) is best explained by them feeling trapped, which is understandable. I do think that their edits were disruptive and I think it would be a good idea for them not to make such category edits and the related claims, and of course to refrain from the personal attacks. But I always hope that they come to understand the problem and find a way to contribute. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you @Andy Dingley for the consensus, that someone categorizes something and forbids it, I do not think it's my shame. I will not argue when it is not possible to argue if it is inappropriate for the discussion partners as in the present situation. They are still right even when credible sources say that they are wrong. @Lepricavark Since these inventions were also of Hungarian relevance, I was categorizing it as a Hungarian invention, but it was failed. The resources have been, but in vain. Its English wikipedia, all the English invention, even if the source is not even. irony. Thank you. @Drmies PS: "feeling trapped" how should I interpret it, would you please tell me? --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive example what? , personal attacks example this so if If any of the editors say this is not a kind of attack? as it is said, is a personal attack, what I said was equal to this.. --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that you feel that you are allowed to call someone an idiot[43] but consider "Now you are just being silly"[44] to be a personal attack. You deleted the comment you just linked to, calling it "spam".[45] Do you now understand why you cannot use Wikipedia as a source? If not, are you willing to discuss the issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've been watching this develop from the sidelines, and I fully endorse Guy's initial complaint here. There's nothing unclear about much of the content changes by this editor, and their behavior runs numerous red flags up the pole. This is a classic nationalistic POV pusher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also completely agree with Guy Macon. This user behavior has been consistently disruptive. Going against consensus and discussion and constantly deleting talk page threads and notices for no reason, even in other user talk pages. This is the kind of person that only make Wikipedia worse. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

InterCity(IC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from mainspace edits attributing or categorising inventions, technical developments or similar, by nationality. InterCity(IC) is permitted to propose such changes on Talk pages or initiate an article RfC, but is cautioned to respect consensus should it go against him. This is not indefinite license to argue. Repeat proposals or RfCs for the same topic may be expected to lead to a broadening of the restriction. InterCity(IC) is cautioned against removing, refactoring or editing the comments of others. This is disruptive and may be expected to lead to blocks.

• Propose. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the deletion, you said that: Per WP:TPOC Wtshymanski is allowed to delete anything he chooses from his own talk page, and is not required to respond to you in any way. You are required to follow our policy at WP:EW. so this You deleted the comment you just linked to, calling it "spam". That's why I deleted it as an unjustified accusation. <Hungarian text removed> --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note. According to Google Translate, InterCity states in the Hungarian text that was part of the above that "I will not speak English anymore because it is unnecessary." OK, if the courtesy of using English on the English Wikipedia is unnecessary, thus forcing everybody who wants to see what you say to use a web translator, then your text is also unnecessary here. I have removed the Hungarian bit. If anybody wants to read it, click here. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC).

I believe his hovercraft is full of eels. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

InterCity(IC)'s logorrhea about Wtshymanski involved this sequence of edits:[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]

What struck me about the above is that InterCity(IC) refuses to even acknowledge that Wikipedia has rules, much less try to understand and obey those rules. Whether it is our rule against edit warring, our rule against citing Wikipedia, or our rule that disputed claims need to be backed up by citations to reliable sources, he obviously thinks that the rules don't apply to him. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'd also support a topic ban that prohibited InterCity(IC) from editing all namespaces, broadly construed, but this is a step in the right direction. Lepricavark (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support --Ita140188 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support although given that this kind of disruption comprises almost all of this user's short editing history I'm surprised we aren't talking about an indef block here. Hut 8.5 07:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given his unwillingness to follow the rules, the probability is high that he will violate his topic ban and get indeffed. I am a big fan of giving someone enough WP:ROPE before blocking, because I remember the first few months I edited Wikipedia as an IP and remember how disruptive I was. All it took was a good explanation that this was not like those other social networking websites to get me to read and understand the rules, and I have edited for 12 years since then without a single block. People can change and become productive editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• True, but there is a cost in giving additional chances to disruptive editors in that non-disruptive editors then have to deal with them, and those are the people we most value. If this editor did show any signs of accepting the kind of lesson you learned then my opinion would be different. Hut 8.5 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I can't say that you are wrong. --Guy Macon (talk)

Call for Snow Close

More time spent racking up support !votes would be a waste of time. Time for an admin to pull the trigger on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Standard Offer for User:B dash

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.

---

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

Editor is requesting a standard unblock with the rationale:

I have followed the SO, waiting 6 months without socking and block evasion. I am here to request an admin to take my unblock request to WP:AN. I promise not to use alternative accounts for inappropriate reason. I know that socking is a serious problem in Wikipedia, so I won't let it happen again. If I really need an alternative accounts, I will state them clearly in the user page and follow WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly. B dash (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Related UTRS SQL^{Query me!} 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What was the initial block for, besides the multiple accounts? He must have been doing something that caught attention. --Jayron32 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly the editor's several odd page moves to hurricane/tropical storm-related articles; their sockpuppet appears to have been supporting the changes. I would oppose an unblock at this time because, just by looking back at their talk page, B dash may not actually understand the issue of abusing multiple accounts. Hard to rationalize how they are a net-positive to the encyclopedia when you also include their problematic GA nominations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As an absolute condition, I would say any unblock would be on condition of editing only using the one account - no use of LEGIT, no public declarations, only one account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, no more GA nominations. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Editor has clearly shown understanding of WP:SOCKLEGIT. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note - block is related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UnderArmourKid. I'm not familiar with that case, I'm just posting here for the record. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see their name in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive, so maybe this is mistaken. I do see that they were unblocked after being initially blocked in relation to that case, although they were then re-blocked by a checkuser. I'm going to assume since talk page access was restored with a checkuser's permission that this account is not related, because UnderArmourKid has been socking as recently as last month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock with conditions on that note, the condition being that the user be restricted to one account unless they seek permission (let's say here, or via Checkusers/Arbcom if privacy is a concern) prior to creating a WP:VALIDALT if they need to for some reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing describing what they actually plan on doing on Wikipedia if they are unblocked, either in the most recent UTRS appeal, their talk page, or here. That is a minimum condition for an unblock for an indef, even for cases that are not being reviewed by the community. Cases that have community review should have a higher standard of demonstrating how the unblock will be positive to the encyclopedia. We've gone this long without their disruption: why should we let them back in, what benefit will it bring that outweighs the potential disruption that we know they have caused in the past? None of these questions have been answered here, and since they have not been answered, this appeal should be declined. The standard offer is not automatic, and given how shoddy this appeal is, I don't think it should be granted in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume he will edit articles about typhoon. He is capable of making constructive edits.[54][55] D4iNa4 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Switching to Neutral now that we have some idea what they wish to edit. I'm not fully supporting because there appear to be communication issues through this entire process that make me think we'll likely be back at a noticeboard at some point, but not enough to the point where I will oppose if a CU has no objections to it. Thanks to JameesBWatson for clairfying. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Since this is a CU block, we need to ping the CU who put it in place, Bbb23. There may be more info than meets the eye, and this is normal operating procedure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Dennis is of course right, for a CheckUser block we need to have an assessment by a CheckUser before making any decision, and also for almost any block it is normally accepted that one should ask the blocking administrator for an opinion before considering unblocking. For both those reasons any input from Bbb23, who placed the block, would be welcome.
• Here are my thoughts on the matter apart from the above, and they should of course be taken as provisional, subject to no opposition from Bbb23 or any other CheckUser. After sixteen months I am willing to give this editor another chance. I understand TonyBallioni's concerns, but the editor has now given an indication of what editing he or she expects to do, and we should also bear in mind that it will be perfectly easy to reimpose the block if it turns out that the editor continues to edit in unacceptable ways. If it weren't for Tony's comment I would have simply said that there was consensus here for an unblock with conditions, and that subject to CU opinion the account should be unblocked. However, in view of Tony's comment I would like to know whether, apart from the CU issue, anyone has anything more to say about the proposal to unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, waiting for input from Bbb23 also. For what it's worth, this editor has abused multiple accounts in a similar fashion at Chinese Wikipedia back in 2016 ([56]), but has since returned to somewhat productive editing. I am also convinced to give this editor another chance, once the CheckUser results are made available. Alex Shih (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: I see no evidence of socking in the last three months. I am neutral on whether the user should be unblocked. If the consensus here is to unblock, any administrator may do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support based on Alex Shih's input and Bbb23's findings, but only with a single account restriction. After 6 months, we can look at lifting that restriction if no issues have transpired. This means no use of any alternate account for any reason until this restriction is lifted, no exceptions. This is consistent with my opinions on SO for former sockmasters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• It seems to me that there is a general consensus that there be an unblock subject to conditions. The main condition, which several people have mentioned, is that B dash use only one account. There have also been a couple of editors saying that another condition should be no GA nominations. I shall therefore unblock subject to those conditions.
• Two editors have mentioned the issue of circumstances under which those conditions might be lifted, but there has been no follow up to either of the comments, so it is impossible to say that there is a consensus. Dennis Brown suggests that the matter can be reconsidered after 6 months, but in view of th editor's history, and the doubts expressed above about the editor, I would prefer a longer wait, at least a year, and really I would prefer more than that. Since, as I have said, the limited amount of comment on this can't be viewed as producing a consensus on that matter, any further comments on this would be welcome. For the present I shall say a year in the unblock conditions, but that can be changed if further discussion here indicates consensus for a change. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Problem with vandalistic and possibly WP:COI edits on "Polish death camp" controversy

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 keep adding well sourced information to this article as well as making numerous syntax and wording improvments.

• Added information on the Polish propaganda effort, well sourced. [57]
• Added information on opinions of Israeli ministers, well sourced. [58]
• Tried to remove a weasel word.[59]
• Tried to clarify an unsourced sentence.[60]

Each attempt on my behalf to improve the article has been reverted.

• first reversion here byStaszek Lem (talk · contribs) said (a) do not falsely edit the statement of the law and (b) lede is article summary not billboard for politicians. " [61]
• second revert here was a blatant unexplained removal of all information here by Nihil novi (talk · contribs) : [62]
• third revert here by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) claiming to "take it to talk page:"[63]
• fourth revert here by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) [64]
• fifth revert here Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) [65]
• an edit here, in which Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) readded the weasel word:[66]
• an edit here where the Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) claims the content on opinions of the Israeli politican I added was "irrelevant": [67]

I'm sensing a strong WP:COI from the editors, apart from the blatant misleading edits and vandalism. All the content I added was NPOV and well sourced documentatation of curent events. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This editor fails to discuss the issues with his edit in article talk page, instead of accusing editors in vandalism, and now jumping to heavy guns. I strongly suggest that edit disagreements must be resolved in article talk pages. Especiall on hotly politicized subjects like this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• People shouldn't have to start talk page discussions every time they want to add well-sourced content to an article.(see:WP:BEBOLD) What I added was well sourced, and my edits also attempted to make wording NPOV. You never gave a valid reason for removing the content. It seems you merely WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT or you're trying to assert WP:OWNERSHIP, over the article. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• When you reverted my removal of "falsely" you gave the explanation that "dont change the law." when the word falsely is inserted in that sentence it implies a truth, that is not objective. It is not neutral.

 "It criminalizes public statements that falsely ascribe, to the Polish nation, collective complicity in Holocaust-related or other war crimes or which "grossly reduce the responsibility of the actual [German] perpetrators"
 

That's not neutral and "falsely" should be removed. It should be changed to "that the law purports to be false" or remove the word completely. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately it's not likely to be helpful, and AN is definitely not the right place to discuss when people should initiate discussion. But one thing that is clear is that if you do try to add info and it's disputed then someone needs to initiate discussion and it's pointless to get into an argument over who should be first. So someone needs to initiate discussion and this WP:Content dispute should be resolved via discussion as they always are. Now if you've tried to discuss but another editor has refused to participate but keeps reverting, then there may be something for AN to deal with, but I see no evidence of that here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for you help Nil Einne (talk · contribs) -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One note though, I would be somewhat wary about using Haaretz as a source for such events as the Holocaust, largely because they are an Israeli source. One might consider them, or at least assess them, along the lines of Russia Times and Xinhua when it comes to Russian and Chinese, respectively, political news. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you're tarring Ha'aretz unnecessarily with that comment. It is, as far as I understand it, a responsible and objective newspaper. Not using it as a source for information on the dispute between Israel and Poland over the "Polish death camp law" controversy would be tantamount to suggesting that The New York Times or The Washington Post are not reliable sources for information about disputes between the US and Russia. Nor does Ha'aretz exist in a country that exerts official controls and restrictions on its media, as in Russia and China. I suggest that you withdraw your remark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz is a far-left extremist source. Reliable and objective sources such as Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.178.255 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's utterly and totally ridiculous, Ha'aretz is no more a "far-left extremist source" than are the Times and the Post. They can all well be considered to be "liberal" (barely), but that's very, very different, and has to do with their editorial policy, and not the objectivity of its news coverage. Just because the new deliberately right-wing media outlets such as Fox News and the Washington Times cannot, and do not want to, separate their editorial policies from their news coverage doesn't mean that others aren't able to do so. The right is so mesemerized by its claims of "liberal mainstream media bias" that it's no longer able to objectively evaluate news coverage: anything which doesn't hew to the right's talking points is automatically a "far-left extremist source". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, why are you editing while logged out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions Proposed

User:R9tgokunks appears to have the habit of yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute. The vandalism policy defines vandalism clearly, and states that the unwarranted allegation of vandalism is a personal attack. I propose that User:R9tgokunks be restricted from all posts to noticeboards except WP:AIV for six months so as to stop the waste of time of false claims of vandalism. Real vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV, where administrators will quickly sort out and dismiss false reports, and possibly block the reporters. Otherwise, this editor is a vexatious litigant and needs to be restricted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This was 5 days ago, and I've moved on from the articles in question it per Nil Einne (talk · contribs). R9tgokunks ✡ 00:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Josephp123

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:Josephp123 said on his user page that he is the creator of Wikipedia. I am not sure what should be done about that. CLCStudent (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing ... GMG^talk 16:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This guy claims the same thing, but GMG is correct that "nothing" is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

James Perowne

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 editor keeps changing the school that James Perowne went to from Sherborne School to Canford School. He has done the same with Nick Parker and several others. The information that these people went to Sherborne is properly sourced. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not done with malicious intent, as Dormskirk seems to convey. This is based on genuine sourcing, as well as contact with the school to confirm that these individuals are indeed alumni. I consider it to be a callous act of vandalism to simply revert back, rather than recognise that school alumni lists (which are rarely sourced) are done on the basis of goodwill and existing knowledge. If one were to limit school alumni lists to purely sourced material, the vast majority would be removed.

The reason why Sherborne School, in particular, has been addressed is because previous editors have assumed public school in Dorset has solely referred to Sherborne. This is not the case, as you will recognise.

In order to reconcile this conflict, I would propose both schools be included, and a further citation needed tag in place. This will remain until Canford School can provide written clarification, as I recognise a single source (a book) may not be adequate enough evidence. Nevertheless, I would welcome clarification from Dormskirk, rather than hostile aggression.

I am more than willing to work with editors to find more information.

Kingsqueens (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that it was done maliciously. But these articles included sourced information that these people went to Sherborne and you have removed that information. e.g. the article on James Perowne. Also despite numerous attempts by various editors you did not engage on your talk page. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve this conflict, substantiated by my inclusion of both schools and both sources. I would welcome your cooperation, so that we can improve the Wikipedia entry, rather than callously reverting. I look forward to working with you. Kingsqueens (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do that. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will update you as soon as I get reply in writing from both schools. I believe it is half-term so there will be some delay. Kingsqueens (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

An admin to hide ~1000 revisions

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.

---

Searching for the word "cunt" in the user page namespace, I found more than 1,700 uses of the word. At about half pof the them are used as insults and direct attacks. Examples: ". This cunt just wants to edit, please don't be a cunt about it", "You sir are a cunt. Just kidding, but you are a cunt.", "june 2nd stop being cunts", "Sebastiaan Gray-Block, is a cunt" and many other, Can an admin go and hide all the revisions that contain this word as insult? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The acceptable criteria for revision deletion explicitely excludes "ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". I don't think there is justification in policy for what you are asking. Also, I think it would be a tough sell getting an admin to take the time to revdel thousands of edits like that even if it were permitted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ed using the female reproductive organ to describe someone is incivility. Femnist organisation describe this as a serious demonstration of sexism. We can at least try and reduce the problem -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is incivility, but there is consensus that revdel is not the way to deal with it. There are recommendations at Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_personal_attacks on how best to deal with incivility. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact all username that contain the word should also be renamed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful not to run into the Scunthorpe problem. I agree with Ed that ordinary incivility should not be revdeled. Neither "Kusma is a wanker", "Kusma is a nazi", "Kusma is gay" or "Kusma is a cunt" are a problem in my user page history, and the fact that they are not revdeled is good for transparency reasons: now everyone can see why the vandals who wrote that were blocked. —Kusma (t·c) 13:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Research:Communicating on Wikipedia while female reveals the bad situation that has been formulated on English Wikipedia and there is action needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hide revision with insulting words

Can an admin please go and hide this revision and search and hide many other that use the word "pussy" as insulting word? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Since when is "Purple Pussy Cats" an insult? Isa (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No revdel needed here and no admin is going to spend days/weeks combing through all of Wikipedia history doing as you ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Follow-up note for future reference, e.g. in a case seeking individual punitive action: cunt is generally regarded as a "top-ten" terrible word in American English, but this is not true across English dialects; in British English (where it's more often applied to men), it's a fairly mild expletive, with a different implication. Beware NPA/CIVIL claims that are not cross-culturally valid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While in Australia, it is a common joke that you call your best friends "cunts", or other expletives, with an affectionate tone of course, because we can also insult with it as well. We're a contradictory bunch. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it's one of the worst words you can use in the UK. BBC editorial guidelines regard it as worse than the n-word: "The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as [c**t], motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and [n-word] are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences." SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

BBC has a global audience including millions of Americans. I'm hardly making up what I'm saying. Just Google it [68]; the matter has been discussed to death for years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race one way or another, but my understanding regarding cultural awareness regarding civility is that we should avoid using certain words that might be construed as lacking civility in other cultures. That made sense to me. Even if one were not the direct recipient of a C-bomb, it would still potentially present a hostile working environment to that person. But now, are you saying that we should not be saying people are being incivil when they're using words such as "cunt" to address other editors? You can't have it both ways.--WaltCip (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida

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 don't know if this is the right place, but I would like to point out that the article Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida is written in very poor English and should be completely revised and rewritten.--Allen Nozick (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

​It isn't. Might be best to go to WP:GOCE. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

BrowseAloud

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

---

There has been a lot of significant press coverage of BrowseAloud (deleted after this AfD) in the last few days, as evidenced at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws

Please will someone undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability?

I have asked the deleting admin, but they are not being cooperative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Appeal to overturn revocation of page mover right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing in light of Zawl retiring from WP, as a probable fallout of the way, this thread has progressed.For the record, on the basis of a multitude of factors, there's an unanimous consensus that the revocation of the right was appropriate.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

---

I would like to appeal the decision by Primefac of revoking my page mover right. I have discussed with the revoking administrator but we came to no agreement despite him offering to reinstate my position as a page mover with some restrictions such as not moving pages related to music, songs and discographies.

I declined to accept the restrictions because I believe I did nothing wrong in the first place that warranted the revocation. Primefac says "While you have not done anything specifically using the PGM tools you're still carrying out very questionable page moves in order to further your own agenda", I disagree with this because it is not true. Per my understanding, "to further my agenda" refers to some previous disputes I had with another editor before getting the page mover right but since being granted the right by Alex Shih last year, I have not carried out controversial moves without getting consensus unless it was requested as a technical move at WP:RM.

Primefac cites the reason of removal in the log as "history of questionable moves culminating in Special:PermaLink/826149115". In the discussion at WP:RM, what happened was, the editor whom I've had disputes, requested a non-controversial technical move of a page I created You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) (I created the page at You Owe Me after moving the longstanding title there to You Owe Me (Nas song) [without suppressing redirect]). It was requested to move You Owe Me to You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song), I contested this uncontroversial move request but the discussion there escalated into a reversion of my WP:BOLD move of the longstanding title by a non-admin.

In my discussion with Primefac on his talk page, he provides three possible ways how I could have handled the move and asserted that after moving the longstanding title (from base to [Nas song]), I should have created a disambiguation page instead of (The Chainsmokers song) at the base title. This is a minor issue that could have been sorted easily and I don't believe it warrants the removal of my right as a page mover. The reason I created (The Chainsmokers song) at the base title instead of a disambiguation page, is because I think the song is primary topic and a dab page is unnecessary. Primefac also stated that "other than this one topic area you haven't abused the tools or even broken guidelines/policies."

When it was said to me that I should agree to the restrictions before getting back the right, my response was:

Why should I be subjected to restrictions when I've done nothing wrong in the discussion? This was one move. How can it be a pattern, which in this context means repeated controversial moves (since getting the right), when I haven't done? Ss112 requested a move in the "uncontroversial technical moves" section and not "revert undiscussed moves", and not about the page I moved (Nas song) but the page I created (Chainsmokers song). I contested it but Ammarpad, disregarding formality, was quick to assume it was a request to revert an undiscussed move. If everything was done correctly per procedure, this wouldn't have happened. I followed procedure, they didn't. I don't deserve this, as an editor it is my right to contest a requested move, engage in dispute and not be subjected to the whims of an admin. Following procedure, if someone had requested to revert my move of (Nas song), I wouldn't have objected. But it was about (The Chainsmokers song) and I had a different view in mind that the song was primary topic and felt that objecting to the request was the right thing to do. It escalated into a "reversion of an undiscussed move" which is not even the case and that, by a non-admin who ignored requests to leave the discussion to an admin. There's a guideline somewhere that if someone asks a non-admin to not close a discussion then they shouldn't close it. I don't agree that the revocation of my page mover right is just, and would like to have it back without any restrictions. — Zawl

Pinging involved admins: @Primefac: @Alex Shih: @Anarchyte:

As a page mover who has moved over 1,000 pages in accordance to guidelines, I feel that entirely revoking my right over a small misunderstanding is a bit too harsh, especially without a warning. — Zawl 14:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am on mobile right now and haven't read too much into the context, just one quick query: You mentioned you created the Chainsmoker song at the base title because you think it's the primary topic, based on what? Alex Shih (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the only other article with the same title (You Owe Me (Nas song)) was poorly sourced and wouldn't survive AfD if nominated and that the new song having 3,000 page views compared to the Nas song (less than 40 views), indicates the song passes the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Readers are more likely to find The Chainsmokers song over the Nas song and that was why I moved the latter page out of the way to create the new article at the base title. — Zawl 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not a valid rationale. Quality of the other article have no relevance here. Wikipedia page views is also not a valid point to decide which article should be primary topic. I will comment more when I get home but based on your response here alone, I endorse the rights removal. Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Per my experience at move discussions, usually a primary topic is determined if it is the more likely term and page views can be an indicator of that. — Zawl 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, technically page views can be considered one aspect of figuring out a primary topic. But that said, it was still a terrible decision you made overall here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal it’s an example of you making a controversial move to establish a primary topic on your own without an RM. That is disruptive and shows a lack of understanding of how the article title and page moving policy and procedures work. The fact that Zawl continues to defend the move on the merits without realizing the issues doing it himself rather than asking for consensus via an RM show that the disruption is likely to continue. I generally don’t follow the “easy come, easy go” approach to page mover because of how difficult it is to actually remove due to the inevitable appeal by a vested contributor, but if there ever was a case for the “easy go” part after giving someone a chance with the flag, this is it. Good removal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is performing one controversial move the equivalent of demonstrating a pattern of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus, as stated in the criteria for revoking page mover rights? I've done this once, maybe I thought it was uncontroversial but here I've learnt my lesson and I certainly didn't expect a TNT after my first mistake. — Zawl 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Were you just hoping certain people wouldn't happen to see this or something? Because I can definitely attest to some very questionable page moves of yours within the last year. You must be aware of those arguments that happened months back that I tried to mediate with you and another editor. You both were making weird page moves for the sole reason of getting "redirect" creation credit, which is ridiculous on multiple levels. I can't believe you didn't lose any special rights then. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The dispute between me and Ss112 on your talk page happened before I was granted the page mover right and I've not performed any controversial moves without consensus since then until this one. — Zawl 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then you probably should not have ever had it to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac and Sagecross in that I would not have initially granted the right given concerns with how you view the page move process, and while we typically don't remove for diagreement on granting criteria, if the same concerns are manifest after the flag has been granted, and demonstrated poor judgement hasn't changed some months later, then yes, I think removal is justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence on this; on the one hand it was just one bad page move. On the other hand, it was an eggregiously bad pagemove; in this case the use of an advanced permission in order to "win" a conflict with another user. That's basically one of the biggest no-nos towards having advanced permissions. I'll not endorse nor object to the removal of the right, except to note that. --Jayron32 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal - based on my past experience with the editor, it never should have been given in the first place. He already had a history of disruptive page moves before this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

​What other page moves has the user made that could be considered disruptive? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere - This discussion last August 2017 details some of the issues he was having with editor Ss112, though I believe there was more, because I thought it ended with me giving them both a final warning to stop bickering over stupid stuff like who gets credit for creating redirects, and that's not really documented here. We can ask Ss112 for more examples - he's been mentioned enough here that he should probably be notified of this discussion anyways - but I was hoping it wouldn't come to that, as the discussions will almost certainly devolve into a mess with the two of them interacting. (Though I suppose it doesn't matter much, it seeming pretty unlikely that there will be consensus to overturn this action anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

​Huh... that is... certainly illuminating. I agree that the tools should not have been granted in the first place based on this interaction alone. thanks for providing a link to the discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't have much to say here, except to say I noticed You Owe Me being turned into the Chainsmokers page when Zawl began linking to that page on Chainsmokers articles I have watchlisted. I was confused, because I had seen another editor already create disambiguated redirects for the song because You Owe Me already existed as an article about the Nas song. Zawl's history of having made underhanded page moves is already being considered by most editors commenting here it appears, so I don't think I need to go into that. You've also already linked to my raising it on your talk page previously above, as those were times when Zawl's actions concerned a page or redirect I had created. Ss112 22:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal for the use of a more advanced permission to "win" a conflict with another user. I would also caution Alex Shih to be far more careful when granting the more advanced permissions. I'd say, to both parties, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, slow down and do things in a more considerate and careful manner. Nick (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal - If you think an article is PRIMARYTOPIC and all that then you fire up an RM .... You don't start moving articles based on your own assumption ...... If there is conflict between Zawl and Ss112 then that's a whole new reason why you don't move articles, Support removal. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal - Sorry Zawl but comments like: "My title selection is based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as this song will eventually become the primary topic. It's just a matter of time." (from the discussion page) are the worst kind of primary topic arguments. Furthermore, when another user requested that your creation be moved back to You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) you should have immediately done so and then used a formal RM to request your preferred title if you still thought it was appropriate. The other user cannot revert your bold move without the page mover tools and they should only be used uncontroversially, so any use that turns out to be controversial should be self-reverted on request. You don't buckle down and start arguing that yours is the primary topic based on a two day old song. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe I don't understand something, but I have the Page Mover privilege, and it was my understanding that I had been granted it to use in cases that were not judgment calls. It appears that User:Zahl, I mean User:Zawl, used the Page Mover right to change which of various topics for which there is a disambiguation is the primary. That is a judgment call, and it sounds as though they have a different concept of Page Mover than I do. If they used it for a judgment call without letting the community decide, and the privilege is supposed to be used in unambiguous cases, then I support the removal. Maybe I don't understand the privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Other than that, it appears that User:Zahl's defense is Too Long, Difficult to Read, and when someone posts an overly long defense, it makes me think that they are angry rather than being reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon - FYI, incase you were purposely pinging the editor in hopes of getting a response - you're using the wrong name. "Zawl" is the editor in question here. You keep pinging "Zahl", someone who hasn't edited since 2006. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal - You used your right to win an argument. Enough said. Nihlus 23:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal, per WP:PMRR #1 and #4 (possibly also #2), and I have to agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's and Sergecross73's view of the multiple kinds of lack of judgement and understanding displayed. Most of what the appellant, Zawl, is providing is vociferous argument of righteousness, that Zawl's interpretation of and predictions about WP:AT and WP:DAB and related naming conventions are necessarily correct, when an RM-experienced admin is saying otherwise, there's no evidence for consensus in favor Zawl's assessment (it's an RM conversation Zawl avoided having), and they took action to get their "right version" immediately after someone requested the "wrong" one at WP:RM/TR. PMRR doesn't require that a pattern of problematic RM activity become established after granting the bit, only that it exist at all; this editor's history prior to receiving the bit, combined with more recent action afterward, would appear to establish such a pattern. The bit arguably should not have been granted in the first place, but it happened before more scrutiny, similar to that for template-editor, was applied to page-mover requests.

  The WP:NOTGETTINGIT tenor of Zawl's objections reminds me strongly of those of the person who had three AEs against them almost concurrently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189 – an attempt to prove an "injustice" by wikilawyering hotly over technicalities, rather than an admission of error in the eyes of the community and its admins. (This is not an incurable problem. Zawl: Learn from the mistakes of others, or be doomed to repeat them. The mistake here is in thinking "I'm sure I'm right" equals "Wikipedia agrees I'm right" – something that requires discussion, not action. I learned that the hard way myself several years ago. The correct WP:POLICY arguments mean nothing if the argument isn't aired.)

  PS: Zawl's idea that a 2-day old song magically becomes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on a spike in search hits is just flat-out wrong. This argument is rejected as silly WP:RECENTISM every time it comes up at RM. The editor lacks sufficient understanding of how RM operates to be a page-mover at this time, even if the bulk of their moves to date have incidentally not been problematic. An untrained, unsafe handler at the gun or archery range may shoot properly downrange 1000 times, but they only have to shoot one person in the foot out of carelessness – much less protest the other person shouldn't have been in the way – to get banned from the range.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal Having been involved in the previous silliness at Sergecross's talk page where Zawl used a unicode character to start a new article, then redirected the existing redirect which occupied the correct valid name, it never should have been granted. But its sometimes hard to find those incidents when reviewing someone. This entire idea of moving the Nas song with the rationale of essentially "there are more than one song with the name", then replacing it with another song rather than a disamb, was silly and transparent from the start. Nothing but an attempt to grab "creation" credit, as seen numerous times before. I'm not going to dig for them right now but I think there's been other incidents such as moving things to draftspace, getting the redirect speedied, then recreating it. I'd almost suggest the user be barred from moving songs/albums entirely or changing their redirect targets. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – I don't mean to draw Alex Shih's granting of the permission into question—I've had no contact with them since—but just to clear something up: I did contact them after they granted Zawl the permission (in July 2017), as I thought something like this may happen, and I linked them to Sergecross's talk page. Alex's response read in part: "As I did not see this e-mail in time, I will leave another message to the editor to make it clear that any controversial editing behavior and problematic page moves will result in the user access being revoked, which can be done by any admin at anytime. Whenever that happens, just let me, Sergecross73, or anybody else know." As for my opinion in this matter, I agree with pretty much all of what Ferret said directly above, so naturally, endorse removal. My opinion after bringing this to the attention of Huon and Sergecross (multiple times) hasn't changed. Zawl appears to have "retired" for now but I'm sure all here have seen this happen before during heated times. Ss112 04:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ss112. For those interested, the message I left for Zawl can be found here. Alex Shih (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal, mainly per Ferret and Sergecross. After the discussion that took place on my talk page, I delved a bit deeper and noticed this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. I'm sure Zawl is good in other areas of the encyclopedia, but perhaps they should take a step away from page moving for the time being. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Like a lot have said above, The Chainsmokers song clearly isn't the primary topic and the initial move by Zawl was a horrible decision. On a side note, I was the editor who originally redirected You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) as I saw You Owe Me was already occupied by the Nas song. I'm almost certain that Zawl, given their history, saw that I've already redirected their desired namespace, and went ahead to make such an unwarranted move just so they don't have to write on a redirect somebody else has created. It appears they still haven't let go of the credit thing... Hayman30 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User rights removal

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 remove my NPP permissions as I have lately been inactive on this field. Thanks for your time --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Stop by WP:PERM to request again in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Mediawiki space page creation

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 have a look at this request. I am developing a tool to help new editors and a page needs to be created in order to have a warning message on the edit of some special pages. Thank you for your assistance.   ManosHacker ^talk 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@ManosHacker: I don't think that is the right page. It looks like you want an edit notice for when someone edits a specific page. Which page is that (provide the edit url someone will be on when you want them to see the notice). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi xaosflux thank you for your reply. I need an edit notice for every subpage edit of Template:Article page template, but not the page itself. This page "hosts" all article templates below it, and all these need this special care, not one page.   ManosHacker ^talk 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@ManosHacker: Do you mean these? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And is having the notice on the base actually a problem? If not you can just make this at Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Article page template. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes xaosflux, it is for these pages and I do not have a problem if the base page gets the notice, too, I can detect the page and avoid the display using code. These pages have to be as clean as possible because they temselves are a base for articles and newbies get confused. If there is a clean way not needing admin rights, then I will gladly follow it. Is there a link on how I can make Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Article page template work?   ManosHacker ^talk 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried to create the page and it says I have to be a Template Editor. Well I am not, really. If I apply for template editor and get the right, but still cannot edit Mediawiki namespace, then yes, please build the notice you recommended, for now.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@ManosHacker: I created it for you, try it out. You should be able to edit it as well now. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, thank you! I cannot edit it but this is not a problem at all for now. This is a saver.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done @ManosHacker: good to hear. If you need any changes on it, just follow the submit an edit request link and it will get queued up for any of the patrolling template editors or admins. Good luck with your project. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CBAN for My Royal Young

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

---

My Royal Young (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) on 24 April 2017. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young/Archive. Since then, a lot of sock accounts and numerous IP addresses have been used for almost ten months replacing content on certain articles with 'patient nonsense' and spamming certain user's talk pages (one being my own). The user sometimes creates nonsense arctiles/drafts, their behaviour is definately inappropriate and has been repeatedly told about WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, requiring them to cease editing. In addition to those inappropriate edits, many users have caught this user vandalising articles as soon as it happens. MRYWikiWarriorOps2017 (talk · contribs) is the most recent sockpuppet account I have found which has been registered on this wiki. Given the large number of sockpuppet accounts and the history of the long term abuse, I am considering a ban to be a formality.

I therefore move for a formal community ban against My Royal Young (talk · contribs), to be applied to the entire en.wikipedia, of indefinite duration.

• Support as proposer. Iggy (Swan) 00:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Support site ban as a formality to clear any red tape, and to officiate this user as block on sight when we see any of his presence here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Even in the case of exasperating sockpuppeteers, let's avoid that sort of terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad - I'm sorry. You're absolutely right - I didn't mean for that to come out the way that it did, and the bold lettering didn't really help either :-). It was a bad attempt on my part to TL;DR my justification for supporting this ban in that doing so would formally allow the community to report and block any account of this user and as soon as it's identified as one. I've modified my statement above, and I thank you for the response you made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to oppose, per WP:DENY. Nobody would ever unblock, and I get the feeling this is only giving the troll the attention they want. Plus, since it looks like there's significant cross-wiki disruption involved, wouldn't a global ban be more appropriate? Sro23 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Sro23... this is just what My Royal Young wants. WP:RBI is a better response to this vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• He is also a cross-wiki abuser, I think should appeal him a meta:Global bans at Meta-Wiki instead. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sro23: - Yes, a global ban would be appropriate there. There has indeed been that type of vandalism elsewhere. Iggy (Swan) 00:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Per the above CBAN discussion, I think these should only be done to indef’d accounts when there is a strong reason to do so. I’m not seeing it here, but I’d also think it is a bad idea to close this opposing the CBAN. Maybe this could be withdrawn? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• This is a de facto ban anyway. Nobody is going to unblock a sockmaster like this, and all socks will be blocked as uncovered. You do know that we don't run weekly checkusers on banned users, don't you? Guy (Help!) 10:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Global, permanent ban and block on sight. I've had this person vandalize my user page previously and repeatedly. Also, people, please remember that "DENY" is an essay. If we're going to treat is as policy, then it needs to be put before the community to approve that status. Until then, we need to stop imposing it like it actually means something. It doesn't. - ^theWOLFchild 10:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Broader suggestion

To avoid the need for these sorts of recurring discussions, should we consider instituting a policy that any sockpuppeteer with more than [some number, e.g. 20] confirmed socks will be considered as the equivalent of community-banned? I can see pros and cons to this approach, so let's discuss, whether here or on a policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed thoughts on this. I thought of proposing it myself after the above thread. My concern here is that it would prevent needed bans of sockmasters with less than X socks. I think a better approach would be that in addition to the current restrictions, CU confirmed sockmasters can only be unblocked after community discussion or by an ArbCom appeal (with an obvious exception for the blocking admin to lift if there has been a technical error.). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think people can make mistakes and learn from them. One round of CU-confirmed socks? Meh, I don't think that's enough to warrant a ban. But personally, I wouldn't unblock after multiple rounds (where the subsequent socks are created after the original CU check) without making the user go through WP:SO and even then, I'd be hesitant. I'd support changing policy to consider such cases to be WP:CBAN'ed. --Yamla (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • My concern is that it would prevent the banning of users who because of other reasons need a CBAN from getting one. A user who uses socks to evade a community imposed indefinite block being an example of a scenario where I think community consultation should occur before unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Another way to address my concerns would simply be to eliminate the mostly theoretical distinction between community indefs and CBANs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The issue here though is an administrator-imposed indefinite block versus a community ban. (On a side note, last year some other editors and I argued that there is no such thing as a community-imposed indefinite block: it is only the tool used to enforce a ban. However the edit that resulted from the discussion (which started at the Village Pump and continued on the banning policy talk page) altered the description of an "editing restriction" to include an indefinite block, thereby introducing a potential ambiguity that there is some theoretical difference.) isaacl (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Rather than setting some sort of threshold, just give CheckUser admins the discretion to commute a regular indef block in to a CheckUser block with the caveat that a commuted block requires community discussion for an unblock. There will usually be a SPI for most sockpuppeteers anyway so a note on the SPI for the master account should suffice not to mention it can also be noted in the block log. There is already an established practice that CU blocked accounts should be referred back to the CU anyway so this wouldn't really change much. Blackmane (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Something like this is what I was talking about. Normally CU blocks involve other disruption beyond having multiple accounts, so requiring community review is in my view a positive. It would also address the CBAN question, as declined unblocks after discussion are considered CBANs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I sort of support a move like this, though only so long as there is a rational reason for going the extra step of formal bans. My take based on the discussion above is that there is an issue as respects cross-wiki disruption and getting global locks. I am not sure about that explanation as yet; I think that there is an aspect of seeking to influence administrative decisions on other wikis that may be beyond our station. I am not sure if this is an improper reason. I am also hoping that we might be able to take this problem as an incentive towards discussing comprehensive banning policy reform. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Once someone has around 20 confirmed socks in a few cases, they are already considered de facto banned now. This is particularly true since they are almost always CU blocked. No admin CAN unblock them unilaterally. This wasn't so much the case 5 years ago, but we have gotten more aggressive with CU blocks, which is probably a good thing. I don't think we need policy as much as a community understanding that once someone has a large rap sheet at SPI, you can treat them as banned. When someone reverts someone as a sock, it really doesn't matter if they are banned de facto or de jure, they are still responsible for being right about the connection, and the distinction is meaningless. Formal bans are simply not very useful in these sock situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I generally agree, except that I believe we should enshrine the current treatment of CU blocks in our policy. Part of the problem is that the practices surrounding CU actions are generally not ones where the unwashed masses' opinions are factored in outside of a formal RfC or similar. Whether our policies are positive policies or are simply codification of existing practices, we should have broader community discussion of these things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support this broader suggestion (not sure if 20 is the right number, but I'm willing to accept it), provided that there are at least 3 rounds of blocks - that is, a set of new or never-used accounts is established after the initial block, and a third set of new or never-used accounts is established after the second set. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Per Od Mishehu, I don't know if 20 is the right number, or even a necessary number - I would go with 3-4 rounds of socks being blocked and that is it. How do we administrate this, do these editors need to be listed? (and additionally, when do we consider to give these editors a LTA-page, which in some cases may be needed - though be avoided in others). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: The LTA page is already existed, the "page creator" which was created by a good hand sock of himself. One of our global steward Ajraddatz has also warned him that not to engage a "good hand, bad hand" vandalism socking behavior at here in previously, while he still continued his disruptive behavior for personal amusement in anyway. No any local admins and global stewards are going to unblock and unlock him, using the vast number of dynamic IPs for vandalizing the projects was available on the records. MRY is a active cross-wiki abuse vandal from Philippines, instead of appeal him the community local ban on the discussions, requisition him the global ban at Meta-Wiki site would be preferable. In this case, we just give him the WP:RBI treatment and that it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: I was more talking in general, if we just define that people who sock so long / so often are by default community banned, do we then also have to by default record them those 'auto-community-banned' users somewhere, is it reasonable, where applicable, to create an LTA for these users, etc. (I am thinking about another user who would fall in this category, vide supra). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it need to be specific? Can it be something like, 'Socking is against community norms, disruptive socking may result in indefinate community ban imposed at administrator discretion or by proposal at AN.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer that it would default into that, User:Alanscottwalker. Socks tend to personalize against the admin that (last) sanctioned them, if I after n socks and m blocks have to formally instate a CBAN at my own discretion that effect may be stronger, and similar when initiating a ban discussion here. If it just defaults, then anyone can just tag the main account as community banned, and list them (and where appropriate, make an LTA for them). Any complaints are then 'it is not my decision/suggestion, it is a community decision'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Obvious outcome is obvious. What Newyorkbrad said. Any uninvolved admin (and policing the abuse does not make you involved here) can add such a user to the banned list, and just drop a note at ANI to say it's been done. I think we're probably all happy with this going by default unless there are objections. Pace Alanscottwalker and Dirk, it's also absolutely fine to come here and ask some other admin to do the needful, but we don't need a debate or a vote in these cases, precedent is clear on this. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Indefinitely block and global lock is already banned to him, my standpoint is consistency as the SPI clerk Sro23 that has mentioned at above, it doesn't need to give this vandal troll the attention they want. SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

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.

---

After today's incarnation, Krajoyn (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by Favonian (talk · contribs) on 9 November 2017. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krajoyn/Archive which has 36 separate investigations, all with at least one registered account and some cases have IP addresses. The user ignores the policy of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, leading them to the illegitimate use of multiple accounts. Some of the socks have been used to revert edits by Favonian and others, and engaging in one-way edit wars and some articles are semi-protected due to sock puppetry as Favonian claims that the edits are made by Krajoyn. That was before I realised this was Krajoyn. Loads of sock accounts have been identified today, most of them have edited articles, they are the most recent sockpuppet accounts that some are aware of. Given the number of sockpuppet accounts identified over the months and the history of abuse, no admin would be willing to unblock the user at this time. I consider a ban to be a formality, but it might help Krajoyn understand the seriousness of the abusive behaviour.

I am considering a formal community ban against Krajoyn (talk · contribs), applied to en.wikipedia, of a minimum of six months from the last edit they make with any account or via any IP address.

• Support as proposer. Iggy (Swan) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Ugh, this is why we have started the proposal at User:TonyBallioni/Wording after NYB talked about it last time. This is an LTA who doesn't need a site ban and even having this conversation is giving him more credit than he is due, especially since he's never once tried to get unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So, I guess, sure, symbolic Support per Favonian who is doing a good job keeping dealing with this LTA, but I'd prefer we just streamline this in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Meh. It's my policy to block, revert, and ignore such users rather than faff with community bans in order to achieve the same. Heck, I'm only writing this so that I won't ever have to write this again. Also, for the record, it's been suggested that this is a sock of an older sockmaster - my opinion is that it is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, if only symbolic. I'm grateful for all the assistance I get in this case, but having diligent CUs and other users willing to revert this nuisance is probably the only thing that's really effective. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Guess this is his contribution to the discussion. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Any Site-Ban of a sockpuppetmaster is symbolic rather than effective, but the symbolic action is needed, because sockpuppetry should not be tolerated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Supportt--yes, it's symbolic, but in this case I don't mind going that extra step. This one is particularly sneaky, and seems to enjoy the lying. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with what TonyBallioni and Robert McClenon said . -- ChamithN (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Symbolic support until we can get the discussion in Tony's talk page formalised into policy. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• This is essentially pointless, but OK. GAB^gab 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support so that he will get the message. — MapSGV (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Community ban for User:UnderArmourKid

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.

---

UnderArmourKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a proflic sockpuppeteer, with over 190 sockpuppets. Since 2014, he is vandalising Wikipedia and after the user is blocked, he is using sockpuppets to get around the block. The sockpuppet investigations for this user can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UnderArmourKid and LTA page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/UnderArmourKid. This user ignores WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Given the high number of sockpuppets and no admin is willing to unblock it, I consider a indef ban against UnderArmourKid on en.wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:B49F:DAF:EF9A:E2DD (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless and potentially harmful. Issuing community bans on LTA cases just provides them the recognition they want. It doesn't give us any additional tools in fighting their abuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• See the current proposal at VPP: I suggest closing this so we don’t end with a consensus against banning, which we’d also like to avoid. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Global blacklist discussion about .club, .space, .website

Seeking the community's opinion on the usefulness and ready availability to utilise links to the top level domains

• .club
• .space
• .website

Due to the amount of spam activity featuring these websites (spambot and some user), there is a general conversation about the usefulness of these three top level domains for the Wikimedia sites. Discussion at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Thoughts_about_blacklisting_.club/_.space/_and_.website/

If there is useful feedback for the global community, please add it to that discussion. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls block Thai editer Btsmrt12 the new spam account of Golf-ben10

Pls block Thai editer Btsmrt12 he is newest account of Golf-ben10 who got blocked for edit on Wikipedia because he likes to spam. And now he is back to spam on The Face Thailand, The Thailand season 4 and other pages again as Btsmrt12. pls block him, thank you.Dopexdope (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs). I don't see any problems with his editing after clicking a few random diffs. Can you clarify by including diffs of specific problems you see? Also, you are required to notify any user you report here. I will do so for you this time, in the future, please take care to let them know so they can come to present their side of the issue. --Jayron32 19:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dopexdope: Thank you for creating an account and welcome to Wikipedia! I will notify Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs) if you have not done so. Also, Dif's? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here --Jayron32 19:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Help the Anti--Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build

Hello everybody! Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): I had trouble getting admins on Commons to block an editor that called someone a "disgusting jew". And then I had trouble getting admins here to block the same user when he continued his activities here. How will these tools help if many admins are unwilling to act when presented with obvious harassment of other users? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow. You posted a link to a discussion that led to the person you reported being blocked, for exactly the reason you stated they should be blocked. Maybe you meant to link to a block that didn't actually happen? --Jayron32 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In both cases the user was eventually blocked (and thanks to the admins who did so). I said I "had trouble" getting them blocked. By that I mean that although they should have been blocked at the first sign of overt racist or antisemitic comments, they weren't. I had to start a discussion on an admin noticeboard, where even then admins argued against blocking. When someone uses the phrase "disgusting jew" or "brown dog", there's no need for discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Drop the drama, please. No one argued against blocking. We were looking for a block reason that would "stick", in light there were no diffs provided of the same behavior happening on en-wiki after the final warning. If Editor A complained that Editor B called them a Nazi over on the Hebrew Wikipedia that probably wouldn't result in a block here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on this one, but I won't press the issue. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I create Portal for a football club?

Hi, Can I create Portal for a football club? Like Portal:FC Barcelona or Portal:FC Porto ? For example we have: Portal:Association football Clutching (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. This isn't really an administrator issue; perhaps Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse would be a better place to ask? --Jayron32 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. Most Portals are morbid and should be deleted. Editors don't maintain them and readsrs ignore them. Portals are so 10 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean "moribund" (near the point of death) rather than "morbid" (gruesome or ghoulish), but perhaps not... --Jayron32 04:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Candidates for euthanasia... Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trudat. I haven't seen a useful or active portal in a good many years; the best part of portals has really been subsumed by Wikipedia:Featured topics anyways; if someone started a discussion to close down the portals function, I'd be there to support that in an instant; you're entirely right. --Jayron32 05:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone were to start a discussion at VP suggesting that Portals be deleted or made historical via an RFC, it might get more traction nowadays than you'd expect. Food for thought. Rgrds. --64.85.216.167 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe has an excellent plan for Portals. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• No. I mean, you can do whatever you like if it doesn’t hurt mainspace, annoy others, or violate anything at WP:NOT, but please don’t. Portal:Association football Is your example? No meaningful edits in the last fifty edits over 7 years. Averaging 53 views per day. Any time you spend on portals is time wasted. Sure, it’s your time to waste, but more than likely your waste readers and other editors time in the process. Why not improve mainspace pages related to your interests. See my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Portals_are_moribund. Some few may be good, but most should be archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88

A question on topic bans

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

---

So I know that I've been topic banned from XFD. However, I recently made a WP:HEY improvement at Happens Like That, which is currently at AFD. Is leaving a note on the AFD discussion saying "Hey, I improved this article, you might wanna take another look at it" something that would be considered a violation of the topic ban? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If the article Happens Like That falls under XFD? then it's likely a t-ban breach. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think editing the article is in breach of the topic ban just because it happens to be up at AfD. But going to the AfD discussion to talk about it would be. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Even a good faith comment that isn't a vote? In that case, could someone kindly add a note indicating that I greatly expanded the article immediately after it was nominated? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm giving you a hard time here. But. You got banned from XfD related activities-- asking someone to make the edits you're banned from doing yourself might look to some like you're trying to dodge the ban. That is almost always a bad idea. I think you're better off just making the improvements and trusting the AfD participants to notice them and take them into account, without you actually saying anything about it. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think improving articles to try and save them from deletion is really what TPH's topic ban was intended to prevent. The issue was his nominating articles for deletion as a lever to get them improved. TPH himself improving articles was decidedly not the issue - in fact, the whole idea of the topic ban was to encourage TPH to improve articles himself rather than using AFD to force others to do it. I also think that drawing attention to such improvements is wholly reasonable, albeit he can't do so at AFD (because allowing that would require a nuanced view of the intent of the topic ban by all admins, which we know is never going to happen). Perhaps if in these instances TPH were to be allowed to leave a single, neutrally worded and polite message on the talk page of the AFD nominator, or one of the other participants in the discussion, informing them that the article has been expanded/enhanced/improved/whatever since the AFD nomination was made? It seems overly harsh and self-limiting to suggest TPH, editing in good faith and within the remit of his topic ban, has to make these edits and then cross his fingers and hope someone notices them. Fish+Karate 09:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Related to this specific AfD, the nominator stated they were willing to withdraw the nomination, so I have closed the discussion, as the article definitely meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 to F+K. It should be about the spirit of the tban, not the letter of the tban. If TPH wants to notify participants of improvements or even e.g. add delsort notices or the like, I don't see that as a problem for the tban. The exception could even come with a standard neutral wording those who are more skeptical put together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• TPH, was this article already on your watchlist? Because if you found it through watching AFD, I ave to say that is probably a really bad idea right now. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Why? He's banned from editing XfD pages, not from looking at them. No part of the topic ban said he could not use AFD nominations to inform his editing choices, to improve articles. I say good luck to him - it's infinitely better than what he was doing prior to the topic ban. Fish+Karate 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

For the rather obvious reason that if he's watching AfD with a view to representing expansion from sub-stub, to minimal just-about-article as a WP:HEY standard improvement, then we're going to either get a lot of requests like this or end up with wholesale proxying to evade his topic ban. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He can make those requests to me on my talk page if he likes. I don’t mind. It’s a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Fish+Karate 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JzG, and find your offer to provide him an indirect avenue to flout his ban rather odd. Nihlus 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And there it is. TPH was banned from nominating/posting at XFD because he was misusing it and because he was being inexcusably aggressive, hectoring, and rude to people while doing so. The intent of the topic ban was to get him back to improving articles. He wasn’t banned from improving articles. If he wants to improve articles nominated for deletion to try and save them, great. This is what I meant about nuance being tough for some people. Fish+Karate 19:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The community's consensus was clear: TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed. Additionally, since you've said it twice now, no one is saying he cannot improve articles that happen to be nominated for deletion; we are saying that him commenting on an XfD would be a clear violation of his topic ban, and you providing an avenue for him to make indirect comments would be a violation as well. Nihlus 20:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue that most ppl that comment at AFDs look at the article only once and unless notified that something has changed, won't have any reason to re-look at the article. Any other non-banned editor who works to improve an article during its AFD would have the ability to post at that AFD to ping appropriate editors to say "Hey, I've addressed X, please look again". Even without anyone relooking, that editor could at least address an argument to whomever closes that they attempted to improve it. TPH effectively has zero ability to tell anyone about the improves unless he leaves a general message on the article's talk page (I can see people saying that TPH pinged those that !voted to delete to review via the article talk page, that would be considered a violation of the ban too). We're basically giving TPH no incentive to improve articles that are at AFD. That's not helpful for WP's long-term mission, particularly if there's general agreement that TPH's improvements have been beneficial. I know part of this is out of TPH's hands, the SOP that XFDs operate under, but we should try to find a workable solution here. --Masem (t) 03:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but there is a point to the topic ban and a reason it was put into place after a long discussion. Completely ignoring the community's decision because someone "needs" to improve AfDs is ridiculous. The point of the topic ban is to get him away from an area that he has caused problems for; him hovering around the ban and tip-toeing up to the line in the sand tells me that we'll have more problems in the future and that he isn't really getting the message the community sent him to essentially go do something else. Nihlus 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a ban in place. It was to prevent TPH from abusing the XFD system (as I read through the ban's thread). Is this trying to abuse the XFD system? No. Is this improving the encyclopedia? Absolutely, yes. And as I lay out, it discourages TPH from participating in behavior that is meant to show they recognize their past infractions at XFD were not helpful, making any attempt to improve articles (a full 180-degree from the banned behavior). We have freedome to carve out a very narrow exemption for reporting to an XFD when they improved an article. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more still trips the topic ban. --Masem (t) 05:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given the reasons TPH was banned from XFD, I don't see an issue for them to be trying to improve articles that happen to be at AFD, even if they followed XFD listings to get to it (this is clearly outside the intent of the ban). Pursuant to that purpose, I do think it's smart to try to notify the XFD that something was improved, but that's definitely against the mechanism of the topic ban which says to stay away. I do agree with Fish and karate's stance above, that a neutrally worded, non-!vote at XFD to say "I improved it, please review, and discuss on article talk page" is nowhere close to the spirit of the topic ban, and should be allowed. (If we need a slight clarification that TPH is allowed to post at XFD with such neutral message, but not a !vote or any other discussion/response, then we should add that). --Masem (t) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Being topic banned from deletion activities includes commenting on XfDs or asking others to comment on XfDs for you. Either activity would breach the topic ban. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Feel free to notify me on my talk page of any significant improvements made to articles at AFD. Paul August ☎ 03:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: How is that appropriate given the discussion immediately above? Nihlus 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems perfectly appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so you're unable to answer. Nihlus 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: By the way, I think your response to me just above is rude and uncalled for. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care whether a proxy editor notifies people at an AfD when an article has received substantial improvement. Anything that gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia is a problem, and that includes deleting articles that meet the encyclopaedia's requirements. I have no opinion on whether this particular article does that, though TPH, if you can expand that article another 200-300 characters of prose, it will meet the 5x threshold required for a DYK nomination. That is if you're interested in it at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given the circumstances that led to TPH being banned from XFDs, I don't think his minimalistic-commenting at an AFD to barely notify participants of improvements and/or some editor proxying for him to do the same would do any harm to Wikipedia.Spirit of restriction matters, not the wording.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I don't think TPH informing someone (like me for instance) that they've improved an article at AFD, would even breech the letter of the restriction. Paul August ☎ 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Non problem. In my experience any article that undergoes changes is pointed out at the AFD by numerous people quickly enough. I have no issue with TPH if he wants to notify the filer of the XFD that changes have been made. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless we're talking an article with a lot of editors that have a vested interest in keeping it, I disagree completely that this is what happens at AFD. Improvements in articles that aren't high on watch lists will go unnoticed unless pointed out at AFD. --Masem (t) 14:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed ban modification

Since this is a community issued topic ban it can be modified by community consensus so instead of discussing how/whether the current ban applies and ways around it why not just see if there is a consensus to modify the ban?

If TenPoundHammer has made significant improvements to an article at AfD they may place one 'Comment' notification at the AfD simply stating 'I have improved the article to address deletion concern. Please consider re-examining the article. or words materially to that effect. The notice is intended only to draw attention to the changed circumstances of the article and TPH may not otherwise engage in 'AfD' activity per their existing ban.

Jbh ^Talk 15:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support- good idea. Reyk _YO! 15:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- I don't see why not. I think that TPH's topic ban was due to stuff on the deletionist end of the spectrum? If so, allowing for this exception--limited in scope and for comments that are basically the opposite of what caused the topic ban--doesn't sound like it'd be a problem, yeah? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support proposal. Let's try this out. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. We don't want a fixed article to disappear when it shouldn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a no-brainer. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Sure GMG^talk 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Don't think such fine tuning ought to be necessary, as this would seem to be a common sense exception that need not be stated explicitly, but apparently not. Let's keep our eyes on the prize here, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not some inflexible administrative bureaucracy, that only cares about the hypothetical letter of the law. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Just like Paul, I also think it should be unnecessary, but with all the lawyers around here, best to spell this out. --Jayron32 16:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Like Paul and Jayron, I wish this was a project where it wasn't necessary to spell this exception out. Unlike Paul and Jayron, I guess I can kind of understand how it came to be necessary. So yeah. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why I didn't just snow close it instead of comment; odds of this not being unanimous are less than 15%, odds of it actually failing are less than 1%. This is not the kind of thing where it's vitally important for everyone to get a chance to opine. Oh well, too late now, I'm "involved". Next admin who reads this, though... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Armageddon

Nothing major and I didn't know where to post this exactly, but there's a bit of issue with the cast section of Armageddon. It seems apparent that TheOldJacobite has been removing added cast members in that article's cast section done by other editors, which is too short and he has been continuously doing that. 1 2, 3. I was not involved in this, but I have to tell you. Armageddon needs somewhat of a bigger cast section since they are notable actors on it and that TheOldJacobite has been removing the added notable actors & characters on it whom he deemed minor & it's getting too far. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I will say that this isn't the first time TheOldJacobite has been popping up on radars, and they need to be careful that this is starting to look more like a behavioral problem rather than a series of content disputes. If they can't manage to find where a talk page is and how to use it, they're probably going to have a bad time. GMG^talk 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: TheOldJacobite has remove the most of the cast listed in the infobox as seen on this diff, which those names were on the billing board of that theatrical poster. He's becoming a problem editor and his behavior is getting way out of hand. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version, since, among other things, the reverts reintroduced obvious typographical errors, and have left them a warning, since apparently they can't be bothered to respond here or on the talk page. If the edit warring continues, the appropriate course of action would probably be to file a report at WP:ANEW. GMG^talk 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ZEdzEd3168

I'm also concern with the block of ZEdzEd3168 (talk · contribs). This user is come from Chinese Wikipedia. He is definitely not User:Dragoon17cc. He thinks that pretending a LTA can make the community "hate" them more. He is still a new user, and he realises his mistake. He also promises not to abuse multiple accounts. He has already been unblocked in Chinese Wikipedia. I know that different sites have different rules. Usually the indef blocked user have to follow Wikipedia:SO, waiting 6 months without socking. After unblocking in Chinese Wikipedia, he has made a lot of good edits. He should be given another chance.

• @Callanecc, Alexander Misel, and Outlookxp: pinging the blocking admin, and the realted admin in Chinese Wikipedia. Others may also comment on this block. --B dash (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the SPI archive at both English and Chinese Wikipedia, some of the details concerning this user are very confusing. I have also been reading the now removed talk page record ([69]), it appears that many of the context were off-wiki and is not really relevant here anyway. I have left a note for this user in regards on how to move forward with their appeal. As B dash has launched a new SPI, we will probably have to wait for the CU result there. In the meanwhile, ZEdzEd3168 would probably want to write a proper standard offer request so that it can be considered by the community. Alex Shih (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think staying with these accounts as socks of each other and this accounts (including Dragoon17cc) as separate would be fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Request from New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol could use some experienced help

• While we have managed to significantly reduce the New Page Patrol backlog during our recent backlog drive we are still a ways away from reducing it below the 90 day google index point. New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with with the influx of new articles and the end of the initial phase of ACTRIAL is just around the corner. It is likely to hit us hard with even more articles to review each day and we need to be in a good position to deal with it if possible.
• We could use a few extra experienced hands on deck if anyone has time available.
• If you aren't admin and would like to help, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi

I would like to initiate a discussion actions on the articles created by the user Makhamakhi. The user was recently blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing as he was creating articles of no encyclopedic value and not properly referenced. The log of the block can be viewed here. The user has created around 500 (482 to be exact) trivial articles and a lot of them had been deleted whenever it was in AfD. I had quickly reviewed the articles which still exist and in my view all of them are candidates for deletion as they are mostly original research, unsourced or primary sources. But flagging them en mass may not be a good or particularly efficient option. So I wanted to bring this up here so that the administrators can take appropriate action or either deleting them all under speedy or some other action. I recommend a speedy on all of these articles. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 07:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The closest criterion that comes to mind is WP:G5, which allows for deletion of pages created by a banned user if they created the pages while they were banned (i.e. socking). That doesn't apply here. The community has very rarely made special-case exceptions, but for cases on a much larger scale than this (i.e. the number of pages thought to have been affected by WP:X1 was nearly 100,000). It seems to me that regular deletion process is the way to go here. I picked one of the pages from the list at random, Azim family, which could easily be a surname anthroponymy page if the targets listed are notable. This needs discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For some time many of his article creations were unattributed copies and splits from existing articles (despite a number of warnings). Some of these were dealt with, but there may be others of that type still remaining. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is worrying that it took so long for him to be blocked. The problem was reported about 6 weeks ago at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Bangladeshi editor. The delay has obviously allowed time for a lot more mess to be created. I understand the principle of AGF, but it was very soon obvious that this editor was a liability rather than an asset. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a gander, and don't see any reason not to just mass delete them. I'd happily take care of it myself, I wouldn't mind dusting off the nuke button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:--Some are notable enough.I will try to save a few pending which nuking would be a good-option.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- While there are articles created by him that should be deleted there are many that are notable. Why dont we go decide the articles on a case by case basis and not resort to mass deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The few can always be recreated by anyone at any time, if Winged Blades of Godric hasn't resolved outstanding issues as volunteered above. - Sitush (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong way around. Policy dictates that we should not delete when alternatives exist and nuking a number of pages just because some are bad violates both the editing and the deletion policy and I will personally WP:TROUT any admin who uses Nuke to deal with those articles without a very clear consensus (which does and should not exist here). A random quick look of the articles created finds Ke Apon Ke Por (TV series) and The Rain (film), both clearly notable subjects that should not be deleted. AFD and PROD can easily handle the rest, especially since similar kinds of articles can be grouped in a single AFD. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• This user had created a sock Ratsama (talk · contribs) just prior to the first instance of a ban. It also had an unusually high number of articles, all except one have been deleted by now. MT Train^Discuss 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters

There is currently an RfC being held at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters about an update to the banning policy for repeat sockmasters. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:nagualdesign

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

---

I'd like to report myself. For the past few weeks there have been rising tensions at Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster where I and other editors have been at odds with Dennis Bratland, who believes that we are exhibiting ownership of content, violating NPOV and stonewalling. I have encouraged him to either stop making accusations or take it to WP:AN, which he considers to be another way of me saying "You're not welcome here". He has also now left a warning on my talk page. Frankly, I'm bored of it, and so I'd like to hold myself up to scrutiny. I'll also notify Dennis about this discussion on his talk page. nagualdesign 23:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Haven't really looked into the details, but this should probably be moved to AN/I, as AN is not usually a forum for content dispute resolution, nor is it usually a forum to examine regular user conduct on isolated cases I think. Alex Shih (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is nothing wrong with NagualDesign at that page, but it reflects some editor's exasperation with Dennis' chronic disturbance for a few weeks now. I first reported his warring and personal attacks on 10 Feb. ([70]), and the discussion was joined several by other editors who offered no support for Dennis' POV nor his combative behavior through walls of texts. In a nutshell, Dennis wants the title, and main subject of this car article to be changed to reflect the marketing value of this Tesla car recently launched into space. When he realized the consensus was against him, he demanded to make a "long Marketing section" and place it at the top. Elon Musk does not invest in marketing ads, and Musk relies on the reactions by experts talking to the media.

Dennis argues that SpaceX announcements of the launch's Objectives should be specifically and intentionally ignored, and must be superseded by the reactions of [his] experts published by the media. He claims that since the media he quotes are reliable, the POV of the article should reflect the reactions regarding marketing. Dennis went as far as making a formal proposal to rename/move the article name to Tesla space ad (2018) ([71]). The marketing value is already mentioned in the article, but this is beyond an edit request, he wants it to be the only focus and even delete the other reactions such as "Art" and "Space debris" sections. It is a fanatic's POV I have rarely seen in Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Formal proposal"? BatteryIncluded, lying at the Admin Noticeboard is bad. One shouldn't do it.

Could you please find a dictionary and look up the words "formal" and "proposal"? You are here arguing that this is a "formal proposal"? At least you have a diff for that one. Better than nothing, which is what everything else amounts to. Can you please supply your diff of any post where I said that "SpaceX announcements of the launch's Objectives should be specifically and intentionally ignored"? If you don't have a diff, can you please rescind your accusation/lie? Also, can you post a diff of where I said I want it to be he "only focus"? If you can't find a diff of me saying any such thing, can you please rescind that accusation/lie too?

Also, let's say for the sake of argument that you're not just lying, and I did want that to be the only focus of an article. Is wanting that against any Wikipedia policy? Are you here at the Admin Noticeboard reporting me for wanting to change the focus of an article to something you disapprove of? Is that a policy violation?

If you realize that these accusations are either a) false, or b) not anything you can complain to WP:AN or WP:ANI about, then please rescind them. If you think of any violation that is in the scope of AN or AN/I, please post diffs of where I did one of those supposed violations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur entirely, Bratland is a roadblock for editors working in good faith to make a neutral article. At issue is Bratland's fundamental assumption of bad faith. He sees the article (Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster) as a fan boy production and advertising for SpaceX. And this bad faith is projected onto other editors. He can't get consensus with RfCs and runs up against 3RR so he digs in harder finding new ways to introduce bias into the article. It's a win for him to be disruptive. So here we are at ANI. After weeks of RfCs, 3RRs, walls of discussion, etc.. -- GreenC 04:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You’re lying if you’re here saying nobody supports addressing the undue weight issues I’ve been discussing. Others have tried to get a word in, and you and a few others have stood watch to rebuff then. After they are individually run off the talk page, you turn back to me and say “See! Consensus is against you!” That’s ownership behavior. When I call you on it, you complain of bad faith. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As a person who's been actively ignoring that article on the assumption it will be merged (with massive size reduction) to Falcon Heavy test flight in a few months, is it worth my time to read the talk page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless somebody makes an actionable request, and posts diffs to justify it, I can't see what the point is. I'd like the accusations against me to be either struck out, or supported with diffs, by my accusers, but won't hold my breath.

If I thought it would be accepted, I'd go to WP:RfCl and request a ruling on whether or not there really is consensus favoring the status quo of the Elon Musk roadster article. That is essentially the sticking point: while I don't claim that there is consensus favoring any one specific solution, it's just as true that nagualdesign, BatteryIncluded, GreenC, and Sladen can't claim there is consensus that the version they keep reverting to is neutral. There are at least as many editors who say the structure violates WP:UNDUE, but they don't act as a bloc, and they don't hang around the article day after day tag-teaming any attempt to change it. Status quo stonewalling has effectively kept it the way it is because every attempted solution gets picked apart as being less than perfect, and the others who have said they think the article has an NPOV problem don't hang around day after day reverting to the status quo. Wikipedia:Editing policy and WP:BRD ought to allow us to make changes from the less-than-perfect status quo to another less-than-perfect version that at least moves us in the right direction. This is a classic situation, described in WP:STONEWALL, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:OWN.

If an WP:RfCl request could establish "no consensus" for the status quo, and that the status quo is not neutral, then maybe this bloc of editors would have to allow the article to evolve into some other shape.

If that is not actionable, then there's nothing here to resolve and, as you say, we wait for it to finally get merged back into the article it never should have been split from in the first place. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't got the energy to sift through Dennis's many kilobytes of contributions to find diffs, but here are some direct quotes from Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster where he accused me and other editors of various misdeeds (though I doubt that he will be able to provide any diffs that corroborate his assertions):

Yes, its very clear that there is a dedicated group of editors who have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value.

A small cadre of 3-4 Wikipedia editors are saying that, yes. But that's original research and soapboxing.

You and three other editors have decided that the entire top half of the article is going to use one source, and only one source, and any other point of view is forbidden. It's a SpaceX soapbox.

This point needs to be driven home because a small group of editors on this article are singularly focused on not paying any attention to WP:WEIGHT.

Yes, you've decided as a group to stonewall, and for some reason you think this is a brilliant choice.

It sounds like we've reached the stone wall again. I would expect that you're going to continue to see complaints about undue weight, such as this thread started by the IP editor above, until the gatekeepers of this article agree to make changes in how the material is presented.

The problem is that a small group of four editors has taken ownership of this article. Every time someone like you, Chrisvls, stops by and points out that it is violating WP:UNDUE, they get stonewalled by these four editors, and then after a frustrating day, that editor leaves and finds something more worthwhile to do. The ones who hang around then get to pretend there is consensus to keep the article in the current format rather than do anything about it.

This exactly what I mean about this pattern of ownership. Editors who make their case once are discounted. You've decided that anybody who disagrees with you has to be harranged with repeated demands to re-state their case, and if they don't hang around and put up with that, you pretend they don't exist.

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:Stonewalling describe these classic Wikipedia tactics. The illusion of consensus is created by driving away outside opinions. These "go away", "drop the stick", "go have a cup of tea" bits of passive-aggressive advice are thinly described ownership behavior. "I suggest you take it to WP:AN" is another way of saying, "You're not welcome here".

Yelling "shut up" at me 50 more times is going to be just as ineffective as it was the previous 50 times you tried it. What you do is not "discussion". What you do is create red herrings to throw the discussion off topic and poison the well.

The last four quotes are from Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#Order of the sections, which was the final discussion we had before Dennis posted a warning on my talk page and I came here. It's a good example of the kind of exchanges we've been having and I'd encourage others to read through it themselves, rather than have to read the entire talk page. That last quote is actually pretty laughable, and exemplifies the kind of exaggerated perception he has of events. nagualdesign 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should add to that this spurious accusation at User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018:

Yes, I said that several times. Are you drunk? This looks like the work of a drunk person. Do you see what you just did? I suggest trying to calm down or sleep it off or whatever you need to do to get some perspective.

He's also had a rant at User talk:Sladen#Third request to stop harassing me:

I've asked you twice before to stop hectoring me with your repeated demands for "propose concrete wording".

Those are just the ones I'm aware of. nagualdesign 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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