Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
OhanaUnited (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 356: | Line 356: | ||
*'''Support''' rescinding the warning. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' rescinding the warning. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
* I also '''support''' rescinding the warning. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC) |
* I also '''support''' rescinding the warning. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
*If this is under discussion, perhaps the log should also be amended with respect to the rather heavy-handed blocks Coffee applied to Casprings and myself? (See MrX's comment above) -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== 203.87.171.0/24 == |
== 203.87.171.0/24 == |
||
Revision as of 17:23, 26 December 2017
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 23 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the
{{User:MiszaBot/config}}at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter|algo=old(7d)which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC) - There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 156 days ago on 7 June 2024) discussion effectively ceased on 19 June 2024 with arguably enough difference of opinion to require an uninvoved close. Thanks! Draken Bowser (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 92 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 23 | 18 | 41 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Closed by editor Plastikspork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 298 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx T/C\R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request for a second opinion on decision not to semi-protect Barbara Lerner Spectre
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday I requested on WP:RFPP that the BLP of Barbara Lerner Spectre be indef semi-protected. The reason I made this request was due to long term efforts by IPs to add fringe anti-semitic sources to the page. This includes the "white identity" blog Occidental Observer and a book talking about the "Jewish Agenda." My request was rejected by User:Samsara who gave their reasons here. I discussed the issue with Samsara on their talk page, where my reasons for wanting the page protected and Samsara's reasons for declining are set out in more detail. I have come to AN to ask for a second admin opinion on the matter. Brustopher (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion – and I'm pretty good at the RFPP thing – Samsara is correct. There are two real choices here: the first is to fully protect it to force discussion, and the second is to block you for long-term edit warring. (I would lean toward the first, not the second.) In any case, this is not disruption by an IP or a BLP problem, but rather an attempt to insert a well-sourced quote. If you don't like the source, that's fine and dandy. Find another one, and it seems there are plenty in this case. Katietalk 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Katie and Samsara. I would likely have full protected to prevent edit warring, but declining semi-protection is fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:ACE2017
The 2017 ArbCom election results are posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017#Results, partially certified. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Now three certifiers, I think that means it's now certified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Do the results now have to be accepted by Jimbo (or the WMF), or is that no longer the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's a great question. The "welcome" messages went out, but no peep from Jimbo. The policy doesn't specifically call it out, but other pages mention him. — xaosflux Talk 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Waiting for the horse's mouth! (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Question_on_action_needed) — xaosflux Talk 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Do the results now have to be accepted by Jimbo (or the WMF), or is that no longer the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The new arbitrators are already being brought onto the mailing list and will officially take office January 1. Jimbo Wales hasn't made formal arbitrator appointments in several years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: I agree, and will clean up the documentation that is both here and on meta that references this process, but giving Jimbo a chance to officially declare that he is divorced from the process, if you have found where this has actually occurred previously, I'd love to see a diff. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Best place to look back is previous election results and Jimbo's talk page. Looking back at a post I wrote off-site when I looked at this briefly back in May 2016, it seems that the last 'ceremonial appointment' was back in December 2013. You could check to see if this has definitely not happened since, and then record that somewhere. That link I provide also points back to what Jimbo wrote then about how he saw things panning out. Not sure if anything definite was actually done, though. Other stuff happened since as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, in practice this is no longer occurring, but before updating pages referencing that the committee is still "appointed" by him (e.g. meta:Arbitration Committee, meta:Arbitration_Committee/Election_processes#English, Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration_Committee, etc etc etc., I was hoping to get a statement from him (currently awaiting reply on his talk page) that this is now a pure community process. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Best place to look back is previous election results and Jimbo's talk page. Looking back at a post I wrote off-site when I looked at this briefly back in May 2016, it seems that the last 'ceremonial appointment' was back in December 2013. You could check to see if this has definitely not happened since, and then record that somewhere. That link I provide also points back to what Jimbo wrote then about how he saw things panning out. Not sure if anything definite was actually done, though. Other stuff happened since as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall, Jimbo Wales saw his role in appointing ArbCom as more ceremonial than one of significance—so as his actual role in the administration of the project has diminished, his ceremonial role has simply faded out of memory. Mz7 (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for their insights on this. I had forgotten (or never knew) that Jimbo was phasing himself out of even the "ceremonial" rubber-stamping of Arbs, although I knew he was doing so in general, even, I believe, giving up some authority for the "Founder" user right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jimbo replied at his talk page, which resolves the process issue for normal community run elections. — xaosflux Talk 12:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This should be a routine AfD discussion with WP:V and WP:BLP the issues. A "citations required" notice was served on the article in September but was not acknowledged or in any way actioned. When I saw the article, which I found while I was scanning its category, I thought AfD was the logical next step. To be fair, another editor has stepped in and provided some citations so the article will probably be kept if there is no problem with notability.
My concern is with the responses I received at Afd from two other members of the WP:CRIC project and it appears to me, having already been involved with other AfDs relevant to that project, that there is a serious problem around verification and notability issues in a large number of cricket articles. The problem is compounded by the over-defensive attitudes of certain project members, especially by the author of Colin Hemsley, when these issues are raised and attempts are made to have them addressed.
I find it all extremely unsatisfactory (and extremely wearing). The core content policies and WP:BLP are, it seems to me, being openly defied by people in the cricket project who, to be blunt, do not even understand the difference between verification and notability. Regards, Waj (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar is a very similar (bulk) nomination with more participation, and has spawned a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Please_clarify_confusing_notability_issue_for_AfD_purposes. I started a thread here in October about earlier nominations of this sort when I gave up on trying to mediate the situation myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Wajidshahzeed: Looking at your comments there, I think it's you who actually doesn't understand WP:V, to be honest. An article without citations does not fail WP:V. WP:V does not require that sources be in the article at all, only that sources exist and that they be, within a certain degree of reason, accessable. If you had just limited it to WP:BLP failure, you would have been correct; however WP:V only allows unreferenced content to be removed, not that "uncited content fails verifiability". Now, that said, an uncited BLP is in violation of policy and should be either given citations or deleted, however the claim of "failing WP:V because no sources are provided" is not one that can be considered to be policy compliant. (That said, don't feel too bad about it: it's a (for better or for worse) common misconception. )- The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think overly strict adherence to "WP:V only requires sources to exist" can be dangerous. It leads people to think articles don't need sources. Or that it's OK to just wave a hand and say "I'm sure there must be sources lying around here somewhere but there's no need to actually find them." There's no reason for the average reader or editor to believe the necessary sources exist unless they're actually provided. Nor is there a reason to omit references to sources from an article if you know of their existence. The only safe and responsible course it to hold that an unsourced article fails WP:V unless it can be shown to meet it. Reyk YO! 09:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- An article that has no citations may not be in violation of WP:V. An article that has been previously challenged for not having citations and has had none provided, definitely is in violation of WP:V - citations are required for any challenged material. 'This entire article is unsourced' qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Bushranger. I hold my hand up here because I did not word the nomination correctly. I should have said that WP:V was an issue because no citations had been provided despite a challenge having been made three months earlier. I gave an incorrect impression by not mentioning the challenge then. I agree with Reyk and Only in death above.
- I must express concern with this response at the AfD by User:Bobo192, especially as he is a sysop. He is saying that my action in pointing out a certain breach of BLP (and a probable one of WP:V) is "disgusting". He is advising me that I should convert an external link into a reference when the link is to a subscription site that I cannot access. It would be unethical if I moved that link into a citation when I cannot see it. I am sure I read somewhere that you must only use the citation you have actually found and viewed, not one that you know about without seeing it. Of course, if sourcing the information is that easy and assuming he can access the site, why hasn't he as author done it himself? Not good. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm 99% sure that Waj is a sock account, something I've raised in the AfD. Their "final" edit is this after being presented with this. I'd appreicate if someone who's not involved in the AfD to take a look at closing it. Of course, I'd have no issue if someone would bring it back to AfD with a valid rationale to do so. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Dare I say once again, if we were able to stick to the same basic guidelines which have done us no harm over the last 13 years, this whole stupid situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place? It is this which genuine, hardworking WP:CRIC members are finding "wearing", and nothing else. If this had happened with any other sportsman from any other sport with any other guideline, the people putting these articles up for AfD would probably be significantly castigated and warned to stay away from Wikipedia. WP:CRIC is finding itself under unnecessary pressure for the same reason it has existed for as long as it has. People like myself and Jack (and others) are finding our work of the last 13 years undone by people who have just decided to turn up and it is this which is demoralizing. Bobo. 16:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Verifiability means the sources are clearly identified to readers in an article. Where this is not done, there is a duty to add the sources, or nominate the article for deletion. Once the article is nominated for deletion, people not only need to identify the sources, but edit the article to identify these sources exist. This is especially the case for articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The sources are "clearly identified". They're right there on the article. If they are not, especially on articles I have created, this is a clumsy oversight from me and the fact that they are still not there after 10 years is... silly, of course, but that nobody has put that right over that time is sad. You would not delete Test cricket player articles by this criterion - even though there are many Test cricketer articles with zero references - and to suggest you would with first-class player articles is, once again, deceptive. The solution is not to say, "No references, delete lol", but to say, "Greetings Bobotron, would you kindly alter these external links to references so that they satisfy article inclusion criteria even though it changes not a jot of the article's content?" Or, failing that, do it yourself. Bobo. 04:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
File uploaded locally prevents visibility of same file on Commons?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have a situation I haven't encountered before and I don't know how to resolve it. At the article Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (a page under a 1RR restriction) there is an image File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg which has been subject to a recent revert war on Commons. It seems that one of the revert-warring editors uploaded their preferred version of the file locally with the same name, and it is that version which currently appears in the article. I don't know how that's possible and I don't know how to fix it. Help?
As a side note, the two editors involved (and a third) are mostly working constructively on the article's talk page to work through the content dispute, and so I'm trying to avoid blocking any of them (I'm also involved, so there's that). But if any admins reviewing the situation think that a block would get the point across better than I've been doing then I'm not going to have anything bad to say about that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Coffee said that it is not a violation in two times because the conflict occured in WMC. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ivanvector: File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg is from commons:, do you have an example of the 'local version'? It is possible to upload a local version of an existing commons file, it requires the
(reupload-shared)permission, currently only available to admins. — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)- I see what happened, Panam2014 has revealed the problem. The original file is File:Yemeni Civil War.svg (different extension), I can fix that. Also, what Panam2014 is referring to above is somewhat of a tangent to this issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Looks like you have confused the file with a similar file name, File:Yemeni Civil War.svg. — xaosflux Talk 15:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. I'll go apologize to everyone around me in the office for all that fish I'm about to have for lunch. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- For whatever its worth, I dropped at note at COM:AN/B in case anyone there feels further action is or becomes warranted. GMGtalk 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. I'll go apologize to everyone around me in the office for all that fish I'm about to have for lunch. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- When you’re mentioning or referencing someone, you know it’s common courtesy to at least ping that person that you’re actually talking about. Furthermore, you made a request to block me and didn’t even leave a message, luckily @Ivanvector: made me aware of such situation and when I had gone there your request was denied. Now as for my local file as soon as I had uploaded it, I made a request to delete because I said it was a duplicate, so I don’t understand why you’re trying to take things out of context. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you're referring to me, I dropped the {{an-notice}} on the talk pages of all three of the editors I referred to in my original post, so I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're referring to Panam2014, they may have assumed you were aware of the thread already since I had already notified you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I was talking about Panam2014, he has well over 6500 edits, to just assume things. He knows its policy when opening a case about another editor to notify him promptly. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- CC22' behaviour is problematic and time consuming. It modifies the file and the page whereas it was stable for weeks. This behavior is unacceptable and can not ignore it. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I just noted that there's a thread about the two editors involved here (Panam2014 and Chilicheese22) on AN/I. [2] Should they either be combined, or this one closed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- This thread can be closed. The issue of there being a duplicate local file was resolved, it was simply a mistake on my part. The ANI thread is a broad spectrum of issues which includes what was going on here, but there's no need for there to be two threads about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Editor being bullied
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP being reported below is 62.255.118.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- will take other editor to Arbcom unless comment is struck
- more rhetoric with someone else
- more part 2 with other editor's question
The TP has been "watched" quite carefully by another admin who posted there twice thereafter without dealing with the comments. The offender was warned yesterday. PS-I don't care what's said about me because I've turned this in because I can let loose with some very colorful profanity (well, before someone blocks me!. ;) We hope (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Question from a mostly uninformed admin: Given the comments on Blofeld's talkpage, would a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singora be warranted there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- It may, as Dr. Blofeld had been the target of the blocked editor's rancor earlier this year. However, the quacking is very similar. We hope (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There's only one person I know obsessed enough with me and who quacks like this and that's Singora. Difficult to prove though given that the IP is Reading, England and Singora's previous IPs were Thailand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, the IPs TP & history shows the recent incidents aren't one offs. We hope (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Checked against the Singora case and the UA does not match but it is worth noting that it is a proxy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- What's to be done about the bullying and other uncivil behaviors at the article TP and at Dr. Blofeld's TP? This IP is the one who began the RfC at Cary Grant, which seems to be a major mess because of the bullying, bludgeoning, etc. from a few sides. We hope (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- And today's question is the same as yesterday's-what's to be done about this IP editor bullying and being uncivil to others? We hope (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- What's to be done about the bullying and other uncivil behaviors at the article TP and at Dr. Blofeld's TP? This IP is the one who began the RfC at Cary Grant, which seems to be a major mess because of the bullying, bludgeoning, etc. from a few sides. We hope (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked this IP address on the basis that it is a proxy. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! We hope (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Paid use of administrator tools RfC
An RfC has been started on paid use of administrator tools and disclosure of past paid editing during RfA at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Disclosed paid editing advisory banner
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm sure some of you who are more on top of these sort of things are already aware, but there has been a spate recently of editors (often IPs) tagging articles with {{Disclosed paid}} in response to an interpretation of changes in German law (the interpretation being, approximately, that any edit for pay constitutes advertising and all advertising is required to be accompanied by a message to that effect). There was some discussion about this at Template talk:Disclosed paid from which I see that no consensus has emerged for this treatment. However this does seem to be a potentially pressing legal issue. I've been removing the template (for example at Hilary Rosen) citing no consensus or WP:NODISCLAIMERS and advising editors to participate in the discussion. How should we be responding to this? (Note: I said "German law" because in the few instances I've seen the editor always refers to "German law", so I don't know if linking to the European fair trading law section refers to the same thing or if something else has recently changed in Germany specifically) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seems like something you want to ask WMF Legal about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's not my area of expertise but I'm not aware of any such change in German law. In Germany, you are legally required to identify paid content as such but that has not changed recently afaik. I think the ruling they allude to is this one from 2012. However, this ruling was not made against Wikipedia and has no legal binding for the Foundation as far as I can tell. In the end, German or European fair-trade laws do not bind a website hosted by an American Foundation, so per our policies, such taggings should be reverted and the user educated that we don't care what a court in Munich says. I do think you should inform Legal about this though if you haven't already, let them sort it out. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks both, that's good advice. I will send a note to legal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is a conversation about this on WT:COI. There is also concern from a US law standpoint based on FTC regulations that from my (non-lawyer) understanding have been further clarified since the TOU change was put in place. WMF Legal is aware of the concerns some in the community have and have stated that they will be looking into the matter. I expect they will be looking at both German and US law. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks both, that's good advice. I will send a note to legal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
cyberbot I disrupting AfD logs with bad transclusions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, cyberbot I has been transcluding 2 WikiProject Deletion sorting pages to the AfD log [1] [2] today, which makes the log completely unusable. After I reverted the edits (and notified the operator), the bot did the same thing again after 3 hours [3] [4]. Could an admin disable the AfDbot task or fix this issue in some other way so that we don't have to fix the log every 3 hours please. Iffy★Chat -- 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The bot is doing exactly what it should be doing - transcluding pages that have AFD discussion on them that are not transcluded to the AFD logs. This issue is actually with the two transcluded pages, which I will attempt to suss out and fix. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Disabled that task on User:Cyberbot I/Run/AfDBot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, the issue was fixed about fifteen minutes ago. Re-enabling the bot. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but as a bug fix that was not obvious at all. OK with re-enabling though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Never said it was obvious, just thought you'd like to know why I reverted you so soon after you had disabled it. I think I might have been a little brusk in my tone, and for that I apologize; I was intending on being explanatory not accusatory. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- No harm. It's the Internet; tone doesn't carry õver and I do often talk in this short way as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- õver? How/why õver and not over? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Loőks łike ȧ typọ ţo ḿe. Guessing some keyboard layout with a combining ~ key on it. Κσυπ Cyp 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Or perhaps Jo-Jo meant över. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
- Loőks łike ȧ typọ ţo ḿe. Guessing some keyboard layout with a combining ~ key on it. Κσυπ Cyp 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- õver? How/why õver and not over? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- No harm. It's the Internet; tone doesn't carry õver and I do often talk in this short way as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Never said it was obvious, just thought you'd like to know why I reverted you so soon after you had disabled it. I think I might have been a little brusk in my tone, and for that I apologize; I was intending on being explanatory not accusatory. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but as a bug fix that was not obvious at all. OK with re-enabling though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, the issue was fixed about fifteen minutes ago. Re-enabling the bot. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The user talk page User talk:68.146.84.92 isn’t working
This talk page isn’t working and not allowing anyone to edit it. Try editing it to see for yourself self. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.146.84.92 184.56.47.51 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yo, it's perfectly editable; but per WP:BLANKING, "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" may not be removed, hence the notice's continued replacement. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Ethan Allen IP Jumpers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following IP addresses have vandalized Ethan Allen in the last 48 hours: user:165.161.15.54, user:165.161.3.115, user:165.161.3.113, user: 165.161.8.51, user:165.161.3.116. What I don't know is whether a range block or page protection is more feasible. 2602:306:3357:BA0:2DDB:CC53:F3A3:9B1D (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe has already protected Ethan Allen, but I see a good deal of other vandalism coming from the range, which isn't very big (165.161.0.0/20), so I've blocked it for two weeks. Thank you for reporting, 2602:306:3357:BA0:2DDB:CC53:F3A3:9B1D. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
Whitelisting
BeachBunnyGirl recently asked me for assistance in de-blacklisting an article, since I'd been involved in the article in the past. In short, several years ago there was a rash of spamming in our article about a lake resort town, Put-in-Bay, Ohio, and several of the links ended up being blacklisted. One of them, the useful website of the village's chamber of commerce, was used in the infobox: there being no official website for the village, those of us discussing the situation at talk chose to use the CofC site in its stead. However, someone's since replaced the CofC site with spam, and as the CofC site is blacklisted (on Meta, not here), it can't be put it back without de-blacklisting. Since it's on the Meta blacklist, and since it's not likely to be useful anywhere except this individual en:wp article, I left a note at the Meta admin noticeboard requesting whitelisting assistance, but I was told that I needed to add it to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist here at en:wp.
So my question: is there a way to whitelist a URL for a specific page, while still preventing its use everywhere else on the English Wikipedia? Kind-of-like what we do with images on the bad images list. If that's not possible (and looking at the page, I'm guessing that it's not), I'm happy to add it to the whitelist and use it in just that article, but I'd definitely prefer to have a way to restrict it to just this one article.
Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- With all the evidence coming out about Put-in's interference in American affairs, I suggest we proceed with utmost care on this. EEng 03:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- You really oughta put that in small :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- The two web sites that were mentioned by User:BeachBunnyGirl are http://visitputinbay.com and http://visitputinbay.org. I don't see much value in using either link in the infobox. Our article Put-in-Bay, Ohio is about the village of Put-in-Bay (population 138) and that village has no web site. The closest governmental web site that would provide any information is most likely that of the township, http://www.pibtownship.com. From a newspaper article we learn that the village has an administrator, a mayor, a village council and a police department. But we don't learn anything at all about those matters from the Chamber of Commerce web site (.com) or the corresponding .org, which belongs to another group. So in my opinion, we could omit both these links and not bother with the whitelisting. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- You really oughta put that in small :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposed new user group
Relevant discussion: "Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians." >SerialNumber54129...speculates 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever heard of a user group on Wikipedia not referring to user rights/flags. An explanation of what the term means in this context is probably warranted. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I'm a bit surprised there's no "opposition" section in the discussion. If you only get the option to support or do nothing, then of course it's going to be implemented. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- User groups, in the context of editing, refers to who are the admins, rollbackers, confirmed users, etc. User groups, in the context of organization, refers to affiliates that gather for a common theme like Art+Feminism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also thought it was the former that was being referred to, so I was a bit confused at first when I read the proposal. BTW, the pointer to it would have been more appropriate for the Village Pump rather than here, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Me three. Saw "user group", thought "userright", got very confused. Looks just like it's a proposal to start a sort of meta-level wikiproject. Neat idea. If there's any thematic group it'd work with, it'd be the milhist folks. Anyway, looks like there's nothing to see here. I move to close/archive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also thought it was the former that was being referred to, so I was a bit confused at first when I read the proposal. BTW, the pointer to it would have been more appropriate for the Village Pump rather than here, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- User groups, in the context of editing, refers to who are the admins, rollbackers, confirmed users, etc. User groups, in the context of organization, refers to affiliates that gather for a common theme like Art+Feminism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I'm a bit surprised there's no "opposition" section in the discussion. If you only get the option to support or do nothing, then of course it's going to be implemented. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
2018 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:
- Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:
- Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- Keilana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining OS)
- Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
- Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2017 at their own request:
- Checkuser: Casliber, Keilana, Kelapstick
- Oversight: Casliber, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin
- Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
- All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Casliber and Kirill Lokshin at their request.
- All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of GorillaWarfare and Drmies at their request.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I can't believe it's almost over. It's like a dream. :( Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Every November/December, I consider running for a seat. But, my refusal to hand over personal info, gets the best of me. Oh well, I wouldn't get many support votes anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- At least we can't blame Putin for this result. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
86.179.83.0/16
Can an admin please block 86.179.83.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing? The entire range appears to be used by long term abuser Iniced. Thank you! Hastiness (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, there are legitimate anon contributors on 86.179.0.0/16. Also, please don't create IP user pages like this. —DoRD (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, what the fahhhh?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, at 10:49, 23 Dec @Coffee: left a notice on my talk page concerning some edits at the Andrew McCabe page (long story short, there's some potential WP:BLP vios on the article, I removed them, a brand new account created with the specific purpose of only editing that article started an edit war, that brand new account, is well versed in Wikipedia policy, it's an obvious sock, per WP:DUCK, yadda yadda yadda - standard story) and that he placed the article under discretionary sanctions. I left a response on my talk pointing out that Coffee was (once again) enabling disruptive fly-by-night accounts. I also asked how the placement of DS on the article affected the current status of the article since another user had made a further revert, continuing the edit war, AFTER Coffee placed it under DS.
Lo and behold, several minutes later I find myself topic banned by Coffee for... well, not sure what exactly. I haven't made any reverts. Hell, I haven't made any edits to any articles. I just responded to Coffee's notice.
When I expressed incredulity at the ban (and yes, the exchange at my talk got heated, seeing as how I'm pretty pissed off right now), Coffee claimed that the topic ban was made for leaving this note on another user's page. JFG was the user who continued the edit war on the article on behalf of the WP:SPA account, after I left the article alone. Here is the text of my note exactly:
This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me what exactly about that note is topic ban worthy? I mean, you can disagree (and I'm guessing JFG does) but topic ban worthy? What. The Fucking. Fuck.
Honestly, the more likely explanation is that Coffee took offense at my response ON MY OWN TALK to his placing the article under DS and enabling the WP:SPA account (though Coffee's subsequent comments are even stranger - they state that they were not aware of the edit warring warning, which he himself placed on my talk - which raises the possibility his account has been compromised. Or, more likely he's just making up inconsistent excuses for his actions ad-hoc) and made the topic ban as a "respect mah authoritah" kind of block.
Full disclosure: in the past I have criticized Coffee for not having the maturity and temperament to be an admin (this sort of proves it) and have often stated that the "can't restore edits even once" discretionary sanction provision that he came up with is ridiculous and counter productive. Volunteer Marek 00:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note Please be sure to check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area. This short-term topic ban was placed to give time to the user to evaluate their behavior against our policies in this area, including our policies on discretionary sanctions. It was also placed to prevent further disruption in their editing of Andrew McCabe and related articles. I did not see their rant regarding my warning prior to leaving the ban... and such a response would doubtfully have had any effect on my topic ban if I had seen it prior at any rate, as their comment appears to only make the issue I had seen at JFG's talkpage more apparent. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, in regard to this claim "Please be sure to check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area." - the answer is once. In a highly controversial WP:AE report which was exactly over Coffee's ridiculous "can't undo an edit without consensus" restriction which has caused an insane amount of disruption (the restriction, not the editors) in this topic area because it's so freakin' hard to understand, and so easy to game. I resent the fact that Coffee is trying to imply (notice he writes in purposefully vague terms) something which isn't true. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, feel free to review the entirety of my explanation/back-and-forth to this user on their talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Reviewing administrators: Please see this personal attack VM just made about me on his talk page. If this is their behavior when they get sanctioned, they need a longer topic-ban in my administrative opinion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "Evaluate their behavior" - are you trying to be a condescending prick? "Prevent further disruption" - what further disruption? I stopped editing that article. JFG was the one who continued the edit war, hence my note on his talk page which was the basis for this topic ban. This is idiotic. You've totally flipped it. Instead of sanctioning or warning the guy who continued the edit war, you topic banned the guy that left a note about it. Volunteer Marek 00:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- JFG restored the article to its state prior to your edit war. Your second personal attack is noted though. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- It wasn't "my" edit war. And JFG continued the edit war. Yet you topic banned the guy who left a note about it, rather than the guy who kept on edit warring. Seriously, you are not fit to be an admin. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Tone it down Volunteer Marek. I understand you are irritated right now so I'm cutting some slack, but a couple of your comments directed to Coffee are bluntly not acceptable. You have pushed this particular envelope as far as you can w/o getting blocked. If you have some issues or concerns discuss them civilly. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Damn skippy I'm irritated. I just got topic banned for leaving a note on another user's talk page. A polite note. Not a personal attack. Just a goddamn note. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- "your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by 'jumping in first'" does not appear very "polite". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notes like this are frequent, standard, made all the time, you can look through any active editor's talk page and you'll see half a dozen of them. To topic ban somebody for it is fucking stupid. Really really stupid. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- "your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by 'jumping in first'" does not appear very "polite". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Damn skippy I'm irritated. I just got topic banned for leaving a note on another user's talk page. A polite note. Not a personal attack. Just a goddamn note. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- JFG restored the article to its state prior to your edit war. Your second personal attack is noted though. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "Evaluate their behavior" - are you trying to be a condescending prick? "Prevent further disruption" - what further disruption? I stopped editing that article. JFG was the one who continued the edit war, hence my note on his talk page which was the basis for this topic ban. This is idiotic. You've totally flipped it. Instead of sanctioning or warning the guy who continued the edit war, you topic banned the guy that left a note about it. Volunteer Marek 00:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
| Tangent. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I think everyone here was acting in good faith, and can get all sides. Coffee, who I respect a lot, is doing difficult work in AE, and is one of the few admins who is willing to work in the area. I can see why Coffee might view JFG's restoration to the status quo as within the sanctions, and view Volunteer Marek's post as trying to work the sanctions to his advantage. I've had egg in my face before about AE sanctions I meant one way, and thought everyone would read them that way, and they didn't. Discretionary sanctions are a tough area, and I have sympathy for admins who work there regularly.I also can see Marek's point of view: every interaction I've had with him on AE he's always done this type of message to try to avoid a WP:AE filing. He thought he was doing something good to try to avoid enforcement of what he thought Coffee meant by the sanctions, and he got sanctioned because Coffee looked at it a different way. That would irritate me too (though, I don't condone the language used towards Coffee here at all).I think what is probably the best action at this point is for Coffee to remove the sanctions on Marek voluntarily, and for Marek to talk to Coffee in the future if he has any questions about the sanctions. I think this would help prevent any future issues and hopefully make everyone whole in this particular circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni:, note that I've explained why the material violates BLP here. Now, I realize that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on that. In fact, I do think there might be SOME material in what I removed that could be included without violating BLP - if properly rewritten. However, when BLP comes into play, the burden is on the person trying to restore the potentially BLP violating material. Indeed, I believe you pointed this out yourself not that long ago in another discussion. Not much damage will occur to the encyclopedia if the material stays out for a few days and then consensus decides to put it back in. A serious amount of damage can occur however if it's kept in for awhile and it does violate BLP. Hence, I was completely in the right (and so is User:Calton, whom Coffee is now threatening to ban as well) to insist that this get hashed out on the talk page first. And do keep in mind that it was a WP:SPI, loudly quacking brand new account (as John points out below) that was doing the restoring. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Marek, you sum up my philosophy on ONUS pretty well. I don't particularly agree with your BLP explanation and am not sure it falls under the exemption, but I do prefer that these things be discussed and almost always prefer being conservative on these things. If I were active in that discussion, I'd likely call for it to be removed until we could sort out the BLP issues, so I get your point of view. At the same time, I've been in Coffee's shoes before, and get how difficult dealing in these areas can be. He is one of the few admins who is willing to make the tough calls here, and while I might not always agree with him, I always know that he is trying to make the encyclopedia run more smoothly. That's why I think the best solution here is what Malinaccier describes below as shaking hands and moving on. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, the edit war is actually continuing and somehow I don't see Coffee handing out warnings or sanctions to TWO out of THREE users who have continued to edit war on this article. And these are precisely the two users who have violated WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Volunteer Marek 07:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Marek, you sum up my philosophy on ONUS pretty well. I don't particularly agree with your BLP explanation and am not sure it falls under the exemption, but I do prefer that these things be discussed and almost always prefer being conservative on these things. If I were active in that discussion, I'd likely call for it to be removed until we could sort out the BLP issues, so I get your point of view. At the same time, I've been in Coffee's shoes before, and get how difficult dealing in these areas can be. He is one of the few admins who is willing to make the tough calls here, and while I might not always agree with him, I always know that he is trying to make the encyclopedia run more smoothly. That's why I think the best solution here is what Malinaccier describes below as shaking hands and moving on. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni:, note that I've explained why the material violates BLP here. Now, I realize that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on that. In fact, I do think there might be SOME material in what I removed that could be included without violating BLP - if properly rewritten. However, when BLP comes into play, the burden is on the person trying to restore the potentially BLP violating material. Indeed, I believe you pointed this out yourself not that long ago in another discussion. Not much damage will occur to the encyclopedia if the material stays out for a few days and then consensus decides to put it back in. A serious amount of damage can occur however if it's kept in for awhile and it does violate BLP. Hence, I was completely in the right (and so is User:Calton, whom Coffee is now threatening to ban as well) to insist that this get hashed out on the talk page first. And do keep in mind that it was a WP:SPI, loudly quacking brand new account (as John points out below) that was doing the restoring. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not find the note Volunteer Marek left to be particularly objectionable (i.e. ban-worthy) in isolation; however, my reading of Coffee's topic ban is that it was made because of Volunteer Marek's long history of disagreements in this topic of editing. Now, I do think Coffee's move is heavy handed, but I do think it was within the realm of reason given Volunteer Marek having come off of a one month topic ban from Donald Trump on December 15th. I agree with TonyBallioni's suggestion that Coffee removes the sanctions on Volunteer Marek and further suggest that Volunteer Marek offer an apology to Coffee for his behavior. At this point, it is probably best for both parties to shake hands and move on. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is no "long history of disagreements" here. There is one DS sanction I was subject to. One. Which was also over Coffee's ridiculous "can't undo an edit (even if it violates BLP or other guidelines) without getting consensus" restriction, which pretty much everyone who edits in this topic area will tell you is an insane, pointless, counter productive, totally-gamable, difficult to understand and easy-to-violate-on-accident restriction. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- So, you’ve never taken anyone to WP:AE to enforce that same restriction? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is no "long history of disagreements" here. There is one DS sanction I was subject to. One. Which was also over Coffee's ridiculous "can't undo an edit (even if it violates BLP or other guidelines) without getting consensus" restriction, which pretty much everyone who edits in this topic area will tell you is an insane, pointless, counter productive, totally-gamable, difficult to understand and easy-to-violate-on-accident restriction. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Tony as well. Talking with VM before coming to such a heavy-handed decision could have spared us a lot of drama. Despite his case, this isn't to say VM should have acted so hostile toward Coffee, and, although I don't expect an apology, it would help move this issue in a positive direction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- The topic ban against VM is short (24 hours) so it might be argued that the issue should be dropped with a warning to VM that while venting for a short time after a sanction is anticipated, such rants are unacceptable. However, Coffee's above "check WP:AC/DSL for how many times this user has had issues in this area" demonstrates that a simple count will be used against VM, so the sanction should be examined here. The first edit by TeddyToons (talk · contribs) was to revert VM using "CRYBLP" in the edit summary. Given the context, Coffee might have indefinitely topic banned TeddyToons for such blatant DUCKing (on reflection, it might have been well-aimed trolling intended to provoke VM). However, it appears Coffee interpreted VM's comment at User talk:JFG#McCabe as warranting a ban (Coffee mentioned that in diff). I agree with the comments above that such comments are standard in all contentious areas—I watch a few pages unrelated to American politics and people frequently use that approach, and it generally works well since it gives an opportunity to ensure others are aware of the background—there is nothing inappropriate about VM's comment. My recommendation would be that Coffee reverse their topic ban so this discussion can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Coffee: Please review the reason for the topic ban in view of comments made here. Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to ping Coffee since he said he wasn't going to pay attention to this page. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why bother? He made it clear that his mind couldn't be changed, another quality seen much too often in the admin corps. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping Coffee. In case you haven't been following the discussion, please see above.
- My take: FTR I tend to agree with Tony's assessment. I can see both sides of this, but in the particular case at hand the TBAN may have been a bit precipitous. This is not intended as a criticism. We all do our best day to day to stay on the right side of judgement calls, and sometimes we fail. It doesn't help that there are a few too many folks who seem to think that passing RfA confers some form of infallibility or omniscience and who therefor attribute any failings to malice or willful incompetence. All of which aside, I do believe that in this instance forbearance while seeking some clarification might have been the better course. For now I also suggest lifting the TBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I've not known you to have bad judgement in matters like this, so I see no reason to not listen to your advice here. @Volunteer Marek: The 24 hour topic ban is hereby vacated and replaced by a firm warning to not accuse other editors of attempting to "game the sanctions", or otherwise comment on motivations unless such accusations are being made at WP:AE. This change has no effect on the page restrictions nor the discretionary sanctions that are still active across much of the area. Please continue to adhere to such sanctions as normal. I don't expect you to understand where I am coming from on this, but I do wish that you know I have no hard feelings towards, nor vendetta against, you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee If I haven't made any bad calls in matters like this it's because I am one of those admins Tony alluded to. I avoid ARBCOM like the plague. I don't even like the drama boards like ANI and ... ummm... here. In the 364.5 days I have been an admin I have imposed ACDS editing restrictions on an editor exactly once and then only to avoid having to indef them. Anyway IMHO this thread has run it's useful course and perhaps someone can close it now. Merry Christmas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I've not known you to have bad judgement in matters like this, so I see no reason to not listen to your advice here. @Volunteer Marek: The 24 hour topic ban is hereby vacated and replaced by a firm warning to not accuse other editors of attempting to "game the sanctions", or otherwise comment on motivations unless such accusations are being made at WP:AE. This change has no effect on the page restrictions nor the discretionary sanctions that are still active across much of the area. Please continue to adhere to such sanctions as normal. I don't expect you to understand where I am coming from on this, but I do wish that you know I have no hard feelings towards, nor vendetta against, you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- My take: FTR I tend to agree with Tony's assessment. I can see both sides of this, but in the particular case at hand the TBAN may have been a bit precipitous. This is not intended as a criticism. We all do our best day to day to stay on the right side of judgement calls, and sometimes we fail. It doesn't help that there are a few too many folks who seem to think that passing RfA confers some form of infallibility or omniscience and who therefor attribute any failings to malice or willful incompetence. All of which aside, I do believe that in this instance forbearance while seeking some clarification might have been the better course. For now I also suggest lifting the TBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, whatever disruption was supposed to be prevented by a 24 hour TBAN probably ... could ... have been foreseen to be ... likely matched by this thread... which was very likely to be forthcoming. I suspect that has something to do with... well I checked the log, and this appears to be the first time that a 24 hour TBAN has ever been instated as an AE action, at least in the unarchived logs (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). And... wikilinking to wikt isn't normally the most effective way to diffuse a heated situation. So, there are problems with the initial string of edits, but this doesn't seem to be the most effective way of solving them. GMGtalk 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure this out, following all the links and diffs given by Coffee, and I still don't have a clear idea of what specific problem the topic ban was meant to solve. I see that as problematic. The other problem I see is Volunteer Marek's aggressive and condescending response to Coffee. Not sure how to best resolve this, but if I were Coffee I'd make it easy on the community, give VM a clear explanation of what specific things VM did to get banned (including all relevant diffs!) and what my thought process was, and then I'd likely rescind the ban. Then if I were VM I'd apologize for calling Coffee a snot nosed brat and stuff. ~Awilley (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given Coffee's message to me on my talk page regarding the removal of a potential BLP violation, VM's response is understandable, maybe even justified. BLP policy does NOT in any way shape or form require potential violations be "blatant", as Coffee claimed, BLP policy requires caution in controversial edits, and by any reasonable interpretation and practices, BLP policy trumps discretionary sanctions Coffee claims applies. Coffee is so obviously wrong and his threat on talk page -- and it's a threat, not a warning -- is so out of line that it's clear to me that he's not merely mistaken, he's actively putting his thumb on the scales. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- And the irony here is that he accused (and sanctioned me for) of "making a threat", where in fact I only left a note on a user's page, whereas *he* was actually making threats at your talk page. What's the difference? Coffee is an admin so he gets to make threats but we're not so we can't even leave notes? I was gonna drop this but then I saw that and just how cynically abusive that is, and it just got my ire up again. Sorry, this isn't a "hug and make up" kind of situation. This is a "not an isolated incident", "conduct unbecoming" and "someone who shouldn't have the tools in the first place" kind of situation. Volunteer Marek 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek removed a bunch of text from the article in an edit with the summary:
rumor mongering BLP vios
. - A new account, TeddyToons, reverted VM with the message
stable consensus / CRYBLP
as their first edit. - Both of them reverted back and forth, till 3RR was reached.
- Coffee then added a DS template on the talk page, imposing 1RR and the "consensus required" restriction, and left a message to VM and TeddyToons about edit-warring. Neither VM nor TeddyToons made any further edits to the WP page.
- TeddyToons' last edit was reverted by Sro23 and then re-reverted by JFG with the message:
Restore pre-warring version until talk page discussion resolves the dispute.
- VM left a message to JFG on their talk page. Coffee then topic-banned VM for 24 hours, citing the last diff.
Now, I will react to this matter:
This is a completely unjustified TBAN. There is nothing in the last diff which deserves any sanction. If that is the standard, nobody will be safe in this area (or in any other area, for that matter). Besides, a 24-hour TBAN is completely useless (the practice at AE is usually something like a month or three months, at the minimum). Such a silly TBAN only serves to be a "mark" on someone's record, to be used in the future by various parties. This, needless to say, is an extremely bad thing. I see nothing in Coffee's replies above which give even a smidgen of justification for this action. "Discretionary" does not mean arbitrary.
Now, I understand that this is a contentious area and admins do what they can. What Coffee should have done is to bring the matter to AE and let others weigh in. If JFG felt threatened or something, they could have brought the matter to AE (JFG didn't say anything about the matter, AFAIK). This way, the matter could have been debated and appropriate action taken. There was no hurry for any sanction, since neither VM nor TT had edited the page since Coffee's placing of restrictions. I would bet good money that if this matter had been brought to AE, nothing would have happened, which is the correct course of action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Coffee has done a lot of good work for the encyclopedia, but in the past couple of days I've seen admin actions from him that are overly-aggressive and lacking in appropriate discretion, including blocking Casprings, Scjessey, and the aggressive warning and topic ban of Volunteer Marek. The only user who should have been blocked is the very obvious sock-troll TeddyToons.
- The DS editing restriction that prevents reverted edits from being restored without consensus is crippling the principle of determining consensus by bold editing and is being blatantly abused by SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks who use it to WP:GAME the system. This is obvious to anyone who has edited articles with this restriction, but a handful of admins continue to insist that it's preventing disruption while they somehow manage to ignore disruption caused by SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks.
- Marek's personal attacks on Coffee are understandable given the circumstances and Coffee's tone, but they are highly-inflammatory. Coffee is due an apology from Marek.- MrX 13:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Rescind the TBAN and mark it as such on the DS Log page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support: See my explanation in the section just above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- As info, the topic ban has already been rescinded - see here. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. I'll close this section then. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- As info, the topic ban has already been rescinded - see here. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Rescind the warning at DS Log
- The section above is obsolete, but the "warning" logged at DSLog is scarcely better. It serves the same function: as a "mark" on VM's record and it will be used against them in the future (you can count on it 100%). In my opinion, there is nothing here which requires a formal sanction. It should be rescinded too. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support after reviewing the chronology provided by Kingsindian in a previous section, and noting that Coffee reverted Alex Shih's close on this matter. This more than anything makes the whole affair look like an attempt to rack up "Volunteer Marek" entries in the official DS log, which I'm sure isn't the intent, but still looks bad. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion
I know this is probably the wrong place to suggest this, but if Wikipedia actually took its BLP policy seriously, (a) every BLP would be under pending changes, and (b) this drama would never have happened. Once upon a time, Wikipedia marketed itself as the encyclopedia anybody could edit. That slogan was abandoned years ago. We have WP:ECP almost by default on contentious articles based on an ArbCom decision, but we turn a blind eye to a policy with legal considerations. Something is seriously wrong with that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- We do not have enough manpower to handle pending changes if they are configured at every BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Baloney. I'd bet that practically every one of those BLPs is on somebody's watchlist. What edit does an unregistered editor have to make to a BLP that can't wait until an experienced editor reviews it and allows it to go live? We're talking about a policy with legal ramifications, not NPOV or NPA. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you underestimate how many times per day IP editors update stats on sports biographies. GMGtalk 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not think this is correct (and, yes, I am actively editing in contentious areas).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Baloney. I'd bet that practically every one of those BLPs is on somebody's watchlist. What edit does an unregistered editor have to make to a BLP that can't wait until an experienced editor reviews it and allows it to go live? We're talking about a policy with legal ramifications, not NPOV or NPA. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- For reference, Category:Living people has 1,104,414 members, out of 6,908,541 total articles. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- My impression was that the German Wikipedia has pending changes applied. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe they have flagged revisions, which is not the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pending changes redirects to Flagged revisions. Whatever be the exact mechanism, the principle is the same: some editor has to approve changes. If it can work on the German Wikipedia, why not here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- For pending revision, the changes are not shown until approved. For flagged revisions indeed every change has to be approved, but they are still shown before approval unless configured otherwise. (I had extensive experience with flagged revisions in the Russian Wikipedia seven years ago). In the first case, the changes need to be approved asap, whereas in the second case they can wait (and indeed they do wait for years in the Russian Wikipedia). I have heard that indeed in the German Wikipedia changes are approved reasonably quickly, but here we can not even recruit enough editors for the new page patrol, and it requires way less efforts than if all our BLPs were set on pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for clarification. As to your latter argument, I would suggest that the NPP population and population for pending changes/flagged revisions are not the same. For the latter, it can be anyone (of reasonable experience) who has a BLP article on their watchlist. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- For pending revision, the changes are not shown until approved. For flagged revisions indeed every change has to be approved, but they are still shown before approval unless configured otherwise. (I had extensive experience with flagged revisions in the Russian Wikipedia seven years ago). In the first case, the changes need to be approved asap, whereas in the second case they can wait (and indeed they do wait for years in the Russian Wikipedia). I have heard that indeed in the German Wikipedia changes are approved reasonably quickly, but here we can not even recruit enough editors for the new page patrol, and it requires way less efforts than if all our BLPs were set on pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pending changes redirects to Flagged revisions. Whatever be the exact mechanism, the principle is the same: some editor has to approve changes. If it can work on the German Wikipedia, why not here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe they have flagged revisions, which is not the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- My impression was that the German Wikipedia has pending changes applied. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Rescind the warning at DS Log
- The section above is obsolete, but the "warning" logged at DSLog is scarcely better. It serves the same function: as a "mark" on VM's record and it will be used against them in the future (you can count on it 100%). In my opinion, there is nothing here which requires a formal sanction. It should be rescinded too. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support after reviewing the chronology provided by Kingsindian in a previous section, and noting that Coffee reverted Alex Shih's close on this matter. This more than anything makes the whole affair look like an attempt to rack up "Volunteer Marek" entries in the official DS log, which I'm sure isn't the intent, but still looks bad. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note - With Alex's blessing, I am reopening this specific subsection. Per this discussion, the warning was originally rescinded, and then reinstated citing the fact that this thread was not robust enough to constitute a consensus. Since it seems to be an outstanding question, if there is strong opinion or argument one way or the other, this would be the appropriate forum. GMGtalk 00:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- ...okay, I feel like this is something I shouldn't have to say to a fellow administrator, but: Coffee, the First Law of Holes is applying here. Stop digging. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support rescinding the warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also support rescinding the warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- If this is under discussion, perhaps the log should also be amended with respect to the rather heavy-handed blocks Coffee applied to Casprings and myself? (See MrX's comment above) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
203.87.171.0/24
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone renew the block on this range? It's used by an LTA, see contribs. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Done Thank you Simplexity22 for the heads up! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Legal threat by indeffed sockmaster
This is merely a formality since the editor in question is now indeffed for sockpuppetry. The sockmaster behind user account Frankabr. has issued what looks like a legal threat at his talk page here [3] (see the comment, "Where would a lawyer send you papers?") The sockmaster is attempting to persuade admins to consider an unblock at all three of his accounts (two of them socks, User:Envirowhacko and User:Chessfool. Since it's the holidays, I know people are a little more sentimental and the number of folks paying attention to matters needing attention is down. Just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks of scrutiny considering there has been a legal threat made and that's always been a sure way to true and forever indef status. Happy holidays, eh? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see now that an admin has taken care of the legal threat by blocking talk page access. May I suggest this also happen at the sock account talk pages as well? Thanks for acting so quickly, Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers (and Merry Christmas)! bd2412 T 22:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Blocked user claims to have an admin's phone number
While looking through the requests for unblock report, I came across this. I'm not sure where this falls on the red-alert scale (given the admin in question has openly provided "sufficient details to find it" on their userpage), but I'm pretty sure this is something that is decidedly not kosher. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've emailed the admin to make sure they were aware of this. I'm debating on removing TP access for now. SQLQuery me! 03:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- He definitely has some strange ideas. Talks about what and who he knows, but can't "name sources"? Sounds like he mistakes us for some Hollywood rag. He certainly is not submitting acceptable unblock requests. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
Some background information: Andrew Davidson (recognizable by his signature "Andrew D.") is a long-term contributor who has contributed positively to this project extensively. However, he has long been known for his disruptive, and regularly recurring, oppose !votes in RFAs, such as in the ongoing RFA for Muboshgu. In this RFA, Andrew asked a question which has since been heavily redacted for containing potentially BLP-violating information regarding a RevDel-ed edit. In response to Andrew's oppose on the same RFA, Beyond My Ken told Muboshgu that "It's his [Andrew's] judgement which is untrustworthy -- as he's proved over and over again on RfAs -- not yours." On the basis of this and many other disruptive RFA votes, other users have already suggested that Andrew be topic-banned from RFAs (e.g. [4] [5] [6] (these are all quite recent, too)). For these reasons, I would like to formally propose such a ban. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I've supported this for a long time. His votes include some real gems that are observationally equivalent to trolling. See, for instance, this, where Andrew opposed because the candidate hadn't outed themselves or disclosed their gender. ~ Rob13Talk 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- It should be noted that your specific example, while it reflects quite poorly on Andrew, is two years old. If these proposed sanctions are to pass, we need to have evidence from several more recent RfAs. Lepricavark (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of age, it makes clear the attitude Andrew takes to RfA. Oppose at all costs, finding whatever flimsy excuse he can to do so. Recent examples of similarly baseless opposes are plentiful. He's argued that saving a clearly-unsuitable article by moving it to draftspace is somehow a sneaky attempt at getting it deleted, opposed for removing unsourced content, opposed a candidate as being a reckless deletionist for nominating a list of all films that feature Christmas specifically in a non-important role (!), complained that a candidate didn't characterize a living person as a descriptor so bad it had to be revdel'd when Andrew said it, and argued that bot operators should never be admins. He almost always asks questions after he has already opposed, showing that he's asking for the sake of asking, not to evaluate the candidate; I have never seen him change a !vote based upon an answer to such a question. His behavior is highly disruptive. I want to add that I wouldn't support an RfA topic ban just because I think someone is using crazy criteria. The problem is that Andrew isn't using criteria. He's opposing any way he can in a "watch the world burn" kind of way. ~ Rob13Talk 05:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- It should be noted that your specific example, while it reflects quite poorly on Andrew, is two years old. If these proposed sanctions are to pass, we need to have evidence from several more recent RfAs. Lepricavark (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Some quick notes: this has been brought up earlier this year, in a much more comprehensive manner. The same thread was also mentioned in the current RfA, so I am a bit surprised it wasn't mentioned here. In addition, topic bans should be proposed in WP:AN instead as a procedural note, so I will proceed to move this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strong support--He is clearly surplus to our requirements.And keep this thread open for at-least 24 hours.Winged BladesGodric 05:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support: The comment at BethNaught's RfA alone, honestly, should've drawn an RfA ban. No opinion on the length other than to say I generally don't like indef topic bans because they tend to be permanent for better or worse. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- For the record and the curious, Mendaliv is referring to this edit where Andrew Davidson gripes about Beth's name and lack of clear stated gender. Seems similar to Andrew's comment on Muboshgu's RfA. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support - My observation is that Andrew Davidson's oppose votes do not seem to arise from a predetermined criteria for the acceptance of new administrators, instead he appears to do extensive research in order to find something (anything) which he can use against the RfA candidate, and then proceeds to oppose on that basis. If he can not find something substantive, he will use even the flimsiest rationale to base his oppose vote on. It's really well past time that he should have been banned from RfA. I don't think his modus operadi is likely to change, so I'd be in favor of indef, because it leaves open the slim chance that I'm wrong, and he can have a change of heart, and convince the community of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Before it is pointed out to me, yes, this is a change from my !vote in January. I have since changed my mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Andrew Davidson's long record of opposition to most RfA candidates for flimsy and minor reasons has passed the point of disruption. In fairness to Andrew, he supported my RfA. However, I have been flabbergasted dozens of times by his conduct at RfA, and it is time for it to stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Concurring with BU Rob13 and other supporter of this proposal. This pattern of voting goes back years, also during his editing as Colonel Warden. He has habit of regularly being the lone opposer (or one of very few) even on RfAs that are clearly going to be successful, and he appears to have a an aversion to RfAs that may well close with a blank 'oppose' section. Over time, I have made various appeals to his better nature on his talk page but they are ignored. He occasionally does support a candidate, but without being accused of bad faith, I believe this to be a ploy for his eventual argument against requests for a topic ban which he has known for a longtime would end up here sooner or later. Despite his otherwise admirable outreach work, I'm afraid that his participation at RfA contributes very much to the combined reasons why we don't get so many candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I fully agree. It is not an accident that when the idea of a topic ban started being floated (early to mid 2016) his support percentage went up. ~ Rob13Talk 06:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- support- Net negative at RfA for a long time. He opposes candidates for such crimes as not being a native (though fluent) English speaker, voting delete on an AfD that he wanted kept, and enjoying the work of Hunter S. Thompson. And does so with calculated superciliousness. I think it's primarily trolling. Reyk YO! 07:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I hadn't been aware of this before, but looking through the links provided...wow, the description of 'find something, anything, to oppose' is entirely accurate. Barring somebody from RFA should be an absolute last resort, as we need the broadest possible swath of opinions on those seeking the mop, be they good, bad, or ugly, but when there is a pattern of behavior that is indistinguishable from trolling, eventually it can only be taken so much. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support. He did oppose my RfA, so I suppose that makes me involved. However, the other examples provided by Rob are ridiculous. I agree with Kudpung's impression that his support votes form a calculated attempt to appear reasonable—but when you see that in other RfAs he makes many unreasonable votes, some in direct opposition to established policies (e.g. mine), this attempt fails. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 09:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly a net negative to the RFA process and unable (or unwilling?) to understand the difference between good-faith disagreement and petty, irrational nonsense drama. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: Anyone can oppose RfA for any reason and many do. If one really wants to give a superficially plausible reason, it is very easy to mask your true reasons. Bad reasons aren't a reason for banning people from RfA votes; disruption is. And there is no evidence for any disruption here. The way the RfA process is set up, 'crats are free to disregard bad reasons. I do not like Andrew D.'s reasons often, but I see in them a risk-averse mentality, which is quite understandable given that adminship is a (mostly) permanent position.
I'll take just one example: the oppose in BethNaught's RfA. I didn't vote in the RfA, but I did make a comment on the talk page disagreeing with Andrew D.'s position. The way I read their comment, their rationale is that they don't trust that the candidate isn't a returning user. One may or may not agree with their reasons (and most people didn't), but in an anonymous environment, when electing a user to a permanent position, some people tend to trust their instincts. Nothing wrong with this general attitude. I note that for this "worst of the worst" example which many people cite, the RfA passed easily and there was zero disruption, which is the most important point. I suggest that the right way to proceed is to tolerate oddballs on Wikipedia, as long as they don't become disruptive. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is flawed reasoning on a number of fronts, but most notably because there has actually been significant disruption evidenced by the shear volume of unproductive discussion caused by this single user's bizarre RfA oppose comments and questions. In the BethNaught RfA, there were dozens of comments generated from Andrew Davidson's wacky oppose rationale. That's disruption. The comments even had to be moved to the talk page, and some were collapsed because they were so heated. Perhaps this is not simply trolling behavior, but some sort of one man crusade against the perception of groupthink. Regardless, the disruption, and the impact on candidates and potential candidates is a net negative to the process.- MrX 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
OpposeAt RfA, it is indeed my policy to examine the candidate's history and then oppose them if I don't like what I find. I don't have formal criteria but I'm usually wanting to see evidence of content creation and a positive attitude – helpful, constructive and pleasant. If the evidence indicates that the candidate might be otherwise then I tend to oppose because admin rights are granted for life and it's not easy to get them removed. If I have any doubts, I therefore tend to play it safe by opposing.
- As an example, consider the current RfA of Harrias. I noticed this starting when it showed up in my watchlist on Christmas Eve but I am not familiar with this person, did not cast a vote in their first RfA in 2012 and so did not have a immediate view. I looked at their nomination statement and their own account of their history looked quite good but the mention of Wifione was a good warning to check carefully. I checked out their user page and established that they seemed mainly interested in cricket. I'm not interested in that myself but it seems reasonably respectable. I then looked at some logs of their admin activity as this RfA is a re-confirmation. I looked at their log of blocks and it didn't appear that they were trigger-happy. I then looked at their log of deletions. It seemed that they mainly deleted articles which had been nominated by PROD. I looked through the list to find a topic which seemed notable and selected Benevolence in islam. This had been deleted and so I couldn't see it to check it out myself. I therefore requested that it be restored at WP:REFUND. It has been restored now and I have had a quick glance at it. I'm not familiar with the topic and made a start by browsing sources. I've gotten the impression that benevolence is a core aspect of Islam and they have a word for it – ihsan. I reckon that it's possible to make something of the topic but, on the other hand, I can see why it was deleted as the current draft looks to have been written mainly from a religious perspective, rather than being more neutral. So, overall, I'm still inclining to support Harrias as they generally seem good-natured and offering themself for re-confirmation seems especially noble and respectable.
- Evaluating a candidate by closely examining their history still seems the right way to go about this. I deny and reject the suggestion that my votes are not made in good faith. My position is that I have high standards and so it is a natural consequence that I will oppose frequently. If others are more lenient or accepting then they are welcome to their views and they get to cast votes too. If we all have our say then the outcome will be a balanced summary of our various findings, opinions and positions. It doesn't seem right to exclude or punish minority views as this will tend to distort the process, as explained at groupthink. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Vote struck; the prospective target of a topic ban cannot !vote on whether they're topic banned. ~ Rob13Talk 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given the concern of so many respectable and experienced users about your !voting and it's functional equivalency, do you feel that there is any need for even slight change(s) in your practices?Winged BladesGodric 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, I shall read the discussion with interest and note the various suggestions. The main thing I've noticed so far is a complaint that I don't have written criteria. I've previously considered writing these out to help people understand my comments and position. I might get this done now and would probably start by looking at previous examples written by others. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment- wasn't someone - Eric Corbett, perhaps? - prohibited from commenting at RfA but nonetheless allowed to !vote? I'm not a fan of Andrew D's often specious comments at RfA and at AfD but it could be that we're proposing to operate two standards here. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, per Arbcom case and amendments thereof; I note though that the concerns there were more about talk page commentary than !votes if the findings of fact are an indication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to remember User:Kmweber sticking out as being banned from RfA (I'm not actually certain if Kurt was banned from RfA or just flat-out told to stop opposing every self-nom simply because they're self-noms). I always thought that was actually quite an extreme, though perhaps at the time it fit more in with Wikipedia's culture. Either way, I feel comfortable supporting this RfA ban because of the flat-out offensive nature of some of the RfA opposes, whereas I see Kurt's opposition to self-noms as being just straightforward opposition to a practice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- This seven year old discussion says that Kmweber was for a period of time banned from editing the Wikipedia namespace, which includes the RfA pages; it seems like a) the restriction was because of AfD concerns rather than RfA and b) it apparently lapsed since it's no longer on the "editing restrictions" page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to remember User:Kmweber sticking out as being banned from RfA (I'm not actually certain if Kurt was banned from RfA or just flat-out told to stop opposing every self-nom simply because they're self-noms). I always thought that was actually quite an extreme, though perhaps at the time it fit more in with Wikipedia's culture. Either way, I feel comfortable supporting this RfA ban because of the flat-out offensive nature of some of the RfA opposes, whereas I see Kurt's opposition to self-noms as being just straightforward opposition to a practice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, per Arbcom case and amendments thereof; I note though that the concerns there were more about talk page commentary than !votes if the findings of fact are an indication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kingsindian Brustopher (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose a ban from voting in RFAs. If his comments are too disruptive (in the general environment of RfA, where it is traditional that small issues are blown up way out of proportion and good users opposed and driven away over nothing, they look like the standard nonsense we have always tolerated) then perhaps he could be restricted to just voting instead of being allowed to advertise his rationale. (His votes don't seem to disturb anyone, just the unconvincing explanation that comes with them). Alternatively, just look for his RfA opposes and then vote "support per Andrew D.". —Kusma (t·c) 11:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Peculiar question In an ongoing RfA, Andrew Davidson posted the question "
What is the origin or meaning of your account name
" after they had already !voted to oppose the candidate. (see Q12). The question and particularly its timing did not seem like a valuable use of the community's resources. If the answer was actually going to change their !vote, then I'd say we are not losing much if he isn't allowed to comment in RfA's anymore. As Sitush mentioned above, maybe a compromise is allowing him to !vote without commenting.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC) - Comment (I've already voted above). Since following more of this discussion, I've been back and had a look at BethNaught's hugely successful RfA (and it's talk page) which along with everyone except Davidson, I wholeheartedly supported. I think his behaviour there was disgraceful and exacerbated by his futile attempts to justify himself, as he does here. It was part of a pattern then - probably the worst example of it - and still is. User comments on that RfA should have been the tipping point, but it's taken exactly two more years to bring it here. It's impossible for him to be unaware that his oppose votes will invariably cause the very drama on RfA that many of us have been pleading for years with the community to avoid. One way of cleaning RfA up is to make an example if those who come with the intention of disrupting. I can't understand how he, as a mature, intelligent person can coolly participate with other established users at real life events knowing that they are aware of his otherwise mean spirited proclivity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
futile attempts] to justify himself
. You'd prefer he not justify himself? All I see on the page is people objecting to his oppose vote by giving their reasons, and he sticking to his position by giving his reasons. Whether his reasons are right or wrong isn't relevant. What "drama" is there on the page and why is it important? Andrew D. made exactly three comments on the talk page, two of which were replies to others. Besides, the RfA passed easily. If people think that Andrew D. was trolling, then just ignoring them is the best option. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)- Kingsindian, we're talking about a very clear, long term pattern here. One which is unacceptable and invariably causes unnecessary drama of the kind that gives RfA its bad reputation and puts candidates of the right calibre from running. It's not a case for brushing it off with a simplisitic 'Besides, the RfA passed easily' . Perhaps if you were to investigate for yourself... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support- RfA is already a thankless, stressful process for candidates. We don't need people whose personal standards for adminship are so far outside of the project's norms that their participation in RfAs is consistently disruptive and damaging to the process.- MrX 12:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honest question - Is giving one's opinion on a RfA a vote or a !vote? If it's the former, then we need to let him vote his conscience, and only take action if his rationales are disruptive - simply having your personal standards be out of line with the community standards isn't enough. If it's a !vote, and voters whose standards are wildly different from the communities should be reigned in, then I need to both protest the echo chamber formed, and re-evaluate how I approach RfA voting personally. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Formally it's more a !vote since there is no fixed numerical formula and bureaucrats have and sometimes exercise the authority to give more/less consideration to particular rationales (it's usually more the oppose rationales that are so scrutinized) in borderline cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honest question - Is giving one's opinion on a RfA a vote or a !vote? If it's the former, then we need to let him vote his conscience, and only take action if his rationales are disruptive - simply having your personal standards be out of line with the community standards isn't enough. If it's a !vote, and voters whose standards are wildly different from the communities should be reigned in, then I need to both protest the echo chamber formed, and re-evaluate how I approach RfA voting personally. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support a t-ban from the RfA process. As noted, it has had a reputation not far short of AN/I when it comes to unsavourary behaviours and outright personal attacks, and Davidson's peristent near-trolling can only have contributed to that atmosphere. This is not a situation that can be rectified by codifying their own criteria. They are contributing, effectively, to putting editors off from standing at RfA, and that is severe enough to warrant a tban. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - I am disappointed that someone tried to initiate this banning. The selection of admins is one of the aspects of Wikipedia that can most strongly influence its character, so it's important that prospective admins be well vetted. Andrew D. is rather famous for having particularly stringent criteria, but I've heard several times that his input has been a turning point in a discussion when he brought up something that others hadn't considered. On the other hand, a single vote against a candidate won't block him or her if others feel that the positives outweigh the negatives – as many of the examples above demonstrate. A successful admin should not be so fragile that he or she is bent out of shape by a bit of debate on the RfA page. If Andrew D. is banned from RfA, it will be a chilling sign for the operation of Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's a fine-line between constructive criticism and trolling.I don't know how opposing an RFA due to non-disclosure of gender, his irrelevant thoughts that all technical positions (CU, Botops etc.) must not be alotted to volunteer editors, etnically-biases gems like this and more of the like falls in the former category.The former must be promoted whilst the latter must be curbed.Winged BladesGodric 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't buy his argument that example that you mention either. (Some confused logic that an nominee may have had a previous account.) But neither did anyone else, and the RfA went forward to acceptance. His arguments may be appear peculiar in some cases, but Andrew D. is definitely not a troll as you have claimed, and, in some instances, other editors do find merit in his arguments. He is a "special" individual who has done quite a bit for Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone here doubts his input to the project; concerns are very specifically being raised as to his position on one particular portion of it. The somewhat idiosyncratic "specialness" of his input there has so far gone unrecognised. The disruption it has caused (two trips to this noticeboard, multiple discussions on the RfAs he participates in, talk page etc) has clearly not gone unrecognised, however. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's no actual rule that Andrew D. has broken, except for a very subjective reading of voting against the grain on many discussions as being disruptive behavior. In fact, the RfA rules specifically grant broad latitude to editors in what arguments they can make. Thus, I actually believe that Andrew D. is not just following the letter of the law, but actually the spirit of the law. The way that RfA is structured, a dissenting voice is not going to break the process, but may in fact strengthen it.
- Serial Number 54129, you suggest that only banning one aspect of this user will not affect his other work, which you admit is good. However, I don't think that we could delegitimize this user with a (false) ban because we think he can be irritating (but not breaking any rules) and then expect that this user won't be harmed in other areas. For users who violate a specific rule in one area (e.g. continued violation of the 3-revert rule on a particular subject), topic bans are advisable. But this is not the case here. OtterAM (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone here doubts his input to the project; concerns are very specifically being raised as to his position on one particular portion of it. The somewhat idiosyncratic "specialness" of his input there has so far gone unrecognised. The disruption it has caused (two trips to this noticeboard, multiple discussions on the RfAs he participates in, talk page etc) has clearly not gone unrecognised, however. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't buy his argument that example that you mention either. (Some confused logic that an nominee may have had a previous account.) But neither did anyone else, and the RfA went forward to acceptance. His arguments may be appear peculiar in some cases, but Andrew D. is definitely not a troll as you have claimed, and, in some instances, other editors do find merit in his arguments. He is a "special" individual who has done quite a bit for Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's a fine-line between constructive criticism and trolling.I don't know how opposing an RFA due to non-disclosure of gender, his irrelevant thoughts that all technical positions (CU, Botops etc.) must not be alotted to volunteer editors, etnically-biases gems like this and more of the like falls in the former category.The former must be promoted whilst the latter must be curbed.Winged BladesGodric 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kingsindian. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Furthering from the 'bot operators', Andrew writes
But there isn't a desysop process, is there? Nor are there term limits, probation, supervisors, audits, or other standard features of good governance. In such circumstances, it is prudent to be cautious.
I'd consider this excessive obsession and worry over the admin corps, which doesn't appear to be healthy, and it's not Andrew's job to worry about this. If he wants to lodge some proposals about introducing these sorts of things, he can. The caution appears uncalled for. This oppose is for Andrew's good. Take a break. Don't worry. There's many other people who can be an RfA to stop a cowboy admin from winning. As for Kingindian's rationale, we clearly aren't tolerating Andrew, so it's merely hope that we can. If this proposal fails I fear ArbCom some time in the future. !dave 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC) - Support - Everyone's entitled to their opinion no doubt about it .... however with Andrew he seems to try and find every reason to oppose, Maybe he doesn't want any admins here who knows however at present his constant opposes are disruptive and I would go as far as to say some of his !votes could be considered trolling, His comments are of no value to the RFA process. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose on principle - An equally effective solution would be to fucking let it go. For me, the turn off at RfA - just voting on one, let alone being subjected to one - is the constant bickering over every single ill thought out comment. One lone or even a few soppy sad opposes on flimsy to no grounds are significantly less toxic than all the other bullshit RfA's go through. Mr X brings up the
significant disruption evidenced by the shear(sic) volume of unproductive discussion caused by...
the fact that people can't let it go. Believe me I have the same issue. I see a stupid comment and I want to drop a note to the person who made it advising them to re-evaluate their life, but, most of the time, this has absolutely no effect and certainly no positive one. I would prescribe a simpler remedy; ask your questions, read the other questions and answers, make your vote and then just leave. People keep saying that theBureaucrats will give this oppose all the consideration it deserves
, but, either ya'll don't believe that or you just want to exert control over the process. Again, I've done it too. I've told people their comments are wrong, I've moved discussions from the RfA to the talk page, and I've argued with people I believe to be behaving inappropriately. RfA's would be much quieter if none of those things happened and, by consequence, more pleasant too. Actually that's in part why I've reduced my participation at RfA and have no intention of participating in the current confirmation or re-confirmation one. Beyond that, I would merely be re-affirming what I stated in January this year, I don't like setting this precedent and therefore won't be supporting it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC) - Comment: (I have already !voted above). The events at Muboshgu's RfA should be clarified here. When I read the OP, it seemed to suggest to me that Andrew D had done something naughty in the Muboshgu RfA. This is not true. Andrew D asked a question about a RevDel (the contents of which he couldn't see). Their edit contained no BLP violations: indeed, the edit was simply redacted by a 'crat as a precautionary measure and not revdeled. This is similar in principle to a courtesy blanking, and does not imply any wrongdoing (Xaosflux can clarify, if they prefer, whether the redaction implied any wrongdoing.) I note that at least one admin Ivanvector objected to even the redaction (though they accepted the action and didn't revert it).
Leaving aside this matter, Andrew D.'s oppose (not related o this matter) is a bog-standard oppose: they disagreed with the user's judgement at AfD. Whether one agrees with their rationale or not, it is a completely legitimate reason to oppose. I'd like to see someone show otherwise.
Bottom line: Andrew D. did absolutely nothing wrong in that RfA, and it is illegitimate to use that as part of some "pattern of behavior". Why is it that every case of purported outrageous behavior collapses under the barest scrutiny? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Kingsindian, who has managed to persuade me that the only way the community will be able to deal with the toxicity of Andrew’s RfA comments is through a full topic ban. Short of this, he will only take encouragement from those who oppose any type of restriction on any action on Wikipedia on principle. The thing that is most wrong with Wikipedia today is that we forget that the people who we work with are actually people and treat them like enemies or worse yet, robots who have no feelings. If those opposing the topic ban of Andrew aren’t even willing to have a conversation about how his actions might be seen as disruptive, I don’t think anything short of a topic ban will be able to show Andrew that the community finds his behavior disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @OtterAM, Kingsindian, and Mr rnddude: Except for those rare occasions where even Davidson can't find an excuse to oppose, such as Ealdgyth's, RfA is still very much 'a horrible and broken process' . Those who even narrowly miss being 'promoted' after a 'crat chat can be left with a very daunted enthusiasm for the project - which does not rhyme with Davidson's efforts to win new users at the editathons he facilitates. If he were t-banned from RfA, it would help make it a healthier place and attract more candidates. It would also serve as a warning to plenty of others who rejoice in the fact that RfA is the one venue where they can be as obnoxious as they like with impunity - there really is no other forum on Wikipedia that is such a cesspit. Note that we're not talking about an isolated RfA here; we're talking about at least 10 years or so (long before you ever knew about RfA ) of often being the sole, or one of very few opposers on RfA that are clearly destined to succeed. That's definitely petty, small-minded, and the antithesis of magnanimity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- -and let alone collegiality >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just want to add to this, as a general comment -- there's one way to fix this right here, right now, and that's with a topic ban. The opposers wait for a useless thing called hope for a future solution. !dave 16:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I don't think anything needs to be "solved" regarding Andrew D. His dissenting !votes are unique points of view, written courteously, and sometimes influential but often judged to be insufficient to change an outcome. People like this are necessary to keep the system honest. As others have pointed out above, disruptions to the RfA arise mainly from users who fight with each other because they have difficulty accepting that others have a different point of view, not lone dissenters like Andrew D. OtterAM (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I disagree with most of Andrew's votes, some of them I find ridiculous, but he's entitled to his opinion and we should be careful not to stray into the realm of banning people just because we disagree with their opinions. No single editor has any great influence at RfA; if Andrew is out of step with consensus, his opposition will be greatly outnumbered and the candidate will pass easily, as often happens. If his comments cross the line into being excessively personal or offensive, that should be dealt with at the time (as it should, but rarely is, with any editor) but I see very few of those presented here and a lot more comments that most of us disagree with. Sorry, but rigorous scrutiny is the point of RfA, and RfA will certainly not be the last time in an admin's 'career' that that somebody draws absurd conclusions about them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support. My views on this matter has not changed since January. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower678's RFAs are exactly what not to do when voting in RFAs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)