Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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 {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 18 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)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 87 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)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 46 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 37 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	31	0	31
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	45	0	45
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 49 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 37 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 293 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)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 195 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 160 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Super Goku V, @Compassionate727, and I appreciate your input @S Marshall! Sorry for not getting to this earlier; I've had some unexpected personal commitments that have taken up most of my bandwidth. Given that it looks like this would be left best as an unclosed discussion, I'll mark this request as resolved for now ( Not done). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Frostly and Compassionate727: Personally, I think it would be useful to try to discern some sort of conclusion from it, if only to provide editors some level of guidance as to how to respond to future notifications in that form.

  I’ve marked it for not done for now, to prevent it being auto archived before this comment can be read, but if you’re confident closing it won’t be useful I won’t object to remarking it as done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 9 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)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 4 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)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (47 out of 8801 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ada vbe Eben 2024-11-04 23:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias Wikipedia:Unified login 2024-11-04 20:51 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; lengthy history of vandalism here and no reason for changes without cause BusterD Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced 2024-11-04 17:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Asian News International 2024-11-04 16:55 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Daniel Quinlan: Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Protection Helper Bot Prachi, Gujarat 2024-11-04 13:05 2025-02-04 13:05 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Primefac Oduduwa 2024-11-04 10:52 2024-11-18 10:52 move Persistent sock puppetry Callanecc Ada and Abere 2024-11-04 10:51 2024-11-18 10:51 move Persistent disruptive editing Callanecc Egusi 2024-11-04 05:16 2024-11-11 05:16 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Chetsford Highway 4 shooting 2024-11-04 01:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement,WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade June 1980 West Bank bombings 2024-11-04 00:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Muhammad Shabana 2024-11-04 00:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade The battle of Hatikvah Neighborhood 2024-11-04 00:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Hussein Hazimeh 2024-11-04 00:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rula Hassanein 2024-11-03 22:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operation Tyre 2024-11-03 22:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operations attributed to Israel in Iran 2024-11-03 22:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Israeli Secret Document Leak Scandal 2024-11-03 22:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2038 Asian Games 2024-11-03 22:31 2028-11-03 22:31 create Repeatedly recreated: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13#2038 Asian Games Sdrqaz Eskerê Boyîk 2024-11-03 22:22 2025-05-03 22:22 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Ymblanter Ole Sæter 2024-11-03 22:16 2025-05-03 22:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Template:Zero width joiner em dash zero width non joiner 2024-11-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Talk:Shehzad Poonawalla 2024-11-03 09:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz 2024 in Israel 2024-11-03 01:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:CT/A-I Asilvering General Union of Palestinian Students 2024-11-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ikwerre people 2024-11-02 23:24 2024-11-09 23:24 edit edit warring Izno November 2024 Batroun raid 2024-11-02 23:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter David Ivry 2024-11-02 03:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ajlun offensive 2024-11-02 03:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Black September 2024-11-02 03:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:First Intifada 2024-11-02 03:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thom Yorke 2024-11-01 23:49 2025-02-01 23:49 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Rajput clans 2024-11-01 21:23 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: upgrade to WP:ECP; WP:CASTE El C Gwalior 2024-11-01 20:44 2025-05-01 20:44 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Sarah Jama 2024-11-01 20:02 2026-11-01 20:02 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (related content) El C Fathi Razem 2024-11-01 19:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade October 2024 Beqaa Valley airstrikes 2024-11-01 19:52 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip 2024-11-01 19:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Iranian reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009) 2024-11-01 19:44 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Ehsan Daxa 2024-11-01 19:29 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Draft:Carnival Internet 2024-11-01 18:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Vietnam War 2024-11-01 15:57 2024-12-01 15:57 edit Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik 2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade

Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata

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

---

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
• "Vandalism" reverts
• Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
• "warning" me for "vandalism"
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Toric degeneration
• Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)

I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.

Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Wikipedia" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:

1. That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
2. That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
3. That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
4. That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
5. That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
6. That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.

Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into draftspace userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
  There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [2] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [3]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like [4] are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely ([5]). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~

Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace

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

---

Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: He made one as recently as late July. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would support the proposed limitation. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts WP:DEADLINE. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, User:TakuyaMurata has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Wikipedia is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Wikipedia. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. Thincat (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words [6]. A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban

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

---

Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a WP:DRV or requesting a WP:REFUND to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.

• Support as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in keep (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by redirect rather than delete and now subject of the DRV. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_the_clarification_on_the_purpose_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace, and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Faithfully_flat_descent.E2.80.8E for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Wikipedia the whole. -- Taku (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Counter-proposal: I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- Taku (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
        • You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding WP:DEADLINE, is called a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes.  The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes.  Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (eg). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Result of DRV

Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draftspace cleanup

Consensus not established for restriction. Move along Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Legacypac Redirecting Draft:Macaulay representation of an integer while ignoring the discussion in the talkpage (I was given a week to expand it into a mainspace stub.) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic cover Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Toric degeneration etc. The logic "this [redirect] is very appropriate until someone wants to actually write this title" [7] is quite bizarre (not to mention a blatant disregard of the policies); how is the redirect preferable for editors to develop the draft? cf. #Willfull_and_persistent_disruption_of_Draft_space_by_TakuyaMurata Can we do something about this crusade to cleanup the draftspace? Not every single old abandoned (in fact the above are not even abandoned) need to be deleted. The only problematic ones are. To cut out the drama, I would like to ask: For one month, User:Legacypac is disallowed from nominating draft pages solely because they are old/abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Not likely. Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13. I'm just working on the oldest ones in Draft space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report (sort by Last Edit) You know how to reverse a redirect when you want to expand a title. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Then why aren't you using G13? -- Taku (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Taku well knows G13 currently (but not for much longer) applies only to pages submitted to AfC. Taku reverses any efforts to submit his Drafts to AfC. (Diffs available). Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC) So you admit you don't like the rule so you're just gonna break it? -- Taku (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Huh? There is no rule against seeking deletion of old contentless Drafts. I'd expect a math person to have better logic skills. This is exactly why there is a thread higher up about Taku's behaviour. We are talking Drafts with essentially NO Content and no improvements since 2015. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC) There is a rule against the disruption; your behavior has been quite disruptive. A thread like the above actually proves this. (Note it largely concludes against your position that I need to be sanctioned in some form.) I'm asking to end the drama for time being; that'a reasonable and much more productive. -- Taku (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: G13 applies only to AfC submissions. There is an open discussion on the talk page about expanding it, but "Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13" is a blatant falsehood. It seems implausible to me that you don't already know that. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Addressing the OP, would an IBAN be appropriate here? VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Warning to VQuakr: Calling my post a "blatent falsehood" is a personal attack and if you do not retract it I will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Wow. Again doesn't this prove my point: trying to push his own view, disregarding the policies as well as the community. -- Taku (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Please tone down your rhetoric; this is not a battleground. Continuing to attack Legacypac at every turn is not going to advance your case. -FASTILY 05:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I think most of what LegacyPac is doing is excellent. But he;s overwhelming the process. Even if he can work at that rate without making errors, admins are expected to be careful, and there are simply too many to deal with proper;y. What will get this morass cleaned up is not over-rapid, but consistent effort. If I were doing it, I know I neeed to shift tasks frequently to avoid errors, and I wouldn;t do more than 20 or 30 at a time. Assuming LP is twice as good as I am at it, 50 a day by any one editor might be a reasonable amount. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Sure, except: a) I've been mostly working the shortest most useless ones that require little time to check b) over the last month or so I've already gone through most of the 5500 pages and screened out many of the more promising ones and made a mental note which to delete. c) I speed read 5 times faster than a typical university student reads, at close to 100% comprehension which really helps my processing speed. d) The admins are keeping up and the CSD cats are not clogged up when I check them. e) my accept percentages are very very high. f) I take breaks to deal with ANi, talk pages, some article building etc cause the spam/junk gets old after a while. g) There have only been a handful of tags declined like 5 Taku stubs, a few DGG liked, maybe a few more. Thanks for voicing your thought though. There is a huge pile of junk to process and I' looking forward to seeing the bottom of the pile and the new count on the bot report tomorrow. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC) perhaps part of the reason noone else has pulled any items out of your list is because atthe spend you are going it is a great deal of work to keep up. That's basically the problem--not that yo're doing them wrong, but that you're flooding the process. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC) One-month suspension Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose ridiculous attempt to silence your opponents. Legacypac's behaviour is not disruptive, his cleaning out of draftspace is in fact extremely useful. If only Taku spent as much time working on his perpetual-stub drafts as he did arguing for them to be kept whilst attempting to get sanctions on those who try to stop him then we wouldn't have this issue. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose You don't sanction or IBAN users who are calling attention to your problems. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose as retaliatory, and I suggest a big, fat, sloppy trout to TakuyaMurata as well -- and a short block if he makes another proposal against Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Legacypac

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

---

Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Problem of too many hopeless pages sent to MfD, in which SmokeyJoe proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a WP:REFUND (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- Taku (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#What_draftspace_is_not. -- Taku (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BU Rob 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Premature. -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Another disruption

See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Time Out!

I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Wikipedia exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need you. Wikipedia will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Wikipedia (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Wikipedia-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not NEED you. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and for great effect, Wikipedia doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.

Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not own a production factory called draftspace.  Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• support as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a good solution to the problem. Without this, we will surely have drafts that will never be improved sitting in the draftspace. Hopefully, we can bring these drafts to the attention of those who know stuff about the subjects. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - uh, this isn't a solution, this is just moving the problem from one place to a different place. If drafts would be fine as a project sub-page, they would be fine in the draft namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy of all content in a single page

I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To heck with Taku this is absurd. [8] see below:

Propose 1 week block

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

---

Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. [9]. Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully Oppose Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a silent acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at WP:REFUND request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Removal of Personal attack

TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Wikipedia. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. [10] Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for administrator involvement

This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.

  You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I plan on was thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:

  1. Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
  2. Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
  3. After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
     1. A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
     2. A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
     3. A calm discussion somewhere else.
  4. As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.

  In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive. Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "

"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is

Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.

• It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
• Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.

-- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Wikipedia's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Wikipedia is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Wikipedia is still a clear and present danger. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:REFUND. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."

However [11] and [12] Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds WP:POINT behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of competence questioning or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but the procedure for requesting a refund of a page deleted by G13 clearly states If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it because you intend to continue working on it: (emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since February 9th of 2014. Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move them all to Taku's userspace. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? Hobit (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve, this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- Taku (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)

But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac "Untold drama instead of either building good content.", which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration?

It looks like arbitration is the next step. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by Taku-cruft, without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. Purgy (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a useful idiot addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that "started a deletion review purely as process for process' sake" is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially related pages

There is a discussion on the purpose of the draftspace at User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. Since the issue is really about the policies about the use of the draftspace (as opposed to editors' behaviors), the page might be relevant. In particular, I haven given my take on the draftspace (as well as on AfC).

See also Draft:Geometric Mixed-Motives for an example of a math draft started by someone other than me. In time, a draft like that will be deleted. I'm objecting to practice like that. Objections to destructions like that should not be disruptions. -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On the Geometric Mixed-Motives you are as woefully wrong as possible. If you took the time (instead of looking for cherry-picked examples to hang your banner on) you'd see that the anonymous user had the AFC "draftmode" banner in the content from the very first instant. Approximately 1 minute later, the same anonymous user requested an AFC review meaning they are giving it to the community to judge it's worthyness. It was reviewed by what appears to be an editor in good standing and was declined. The anonymous user knew exactly what they were getting into when they submitted the content. Unless you're making a very poor quality argument about others your example is so wrong that you appear to be setting yourself up as the patron saint of hopeless math draft pages. As was said untold times before, the way to keep this draft off the deletion pile is for the page to be improved and brought up to an acceptable quality. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

that User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace is useful - to keep themselves occupied. It will get MfD'd sooner or later. There is nothing more to do with Taku until 6 month rolls around and his drafts get CSD'd again for inactivity. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Copyright/attribution violations resulting from actions in this thread

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

---

Sorry, there's an outstanding issue here that must be addressed. Johnuniq's solution to copy all of the content from TakuyaMurata's various drafts into one large list created a complicated copyright problem - there's a requirement for all contributions to be credited, and although notes have been made to satisfy the requirement, part of that requirement is that the original contributions remain visible. So the solution has exacerbated the problem: as long as the list exists composed of the content of Taku's drafts, we cannot delete the drafts. The usual solution is to move the original contributions to a subpage somewhere, but some form of this was proposed above but didn't reach consensus to implement, and would still prevent the drafts from being deleted wherever they end up, and that seems to be a major point of contention in the first place. The only remaining solution is to delete the list, which I am about to do.

I want to ask that everyone who participated in this thread please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and please immediately stop using cut-and-paste to copy pages or parts of pages. If you need help with a page move please see Wikipedia:Requested moves or ask here. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• OMG, won't this go away? OK, copying like this is just a bad idea. It solves nothing and makes the drafts much less useful (okay, from barely useful to almost not useful in any way). That said, assuming he is the _only_ contributor to those drafts, copyright law is met as long as that page says that. It's when you can't figure out who did what that there is a problem. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, I edited the existing User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts to append copies of drafts. The edit summary complied with WP:CWW and the first line of my text was "Copy of wikitext from draft pages created by TakuyaMurata." Each section started with text such as "Copied from Draft:2-category". Takuya moved the page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage. My intention was not to create a permanent record but to allow people to easily see what was being discussed, namely mostly very premature sub-stubs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was all fine, except that the move from Taku's space to Johnuniq's space was a cut-and-paste, but I already fixed that. The only problem is that attribution in this way requires that the original diff is visible, and with the ongoing dispute it seems unlikely that condition will continue to be met. If there's consensus that the solution is to merge all of the drafts(/notes/whatever) into one list in this manner then there's probably a compliant way that we can do it, I'm not sure off the top of my head but I'll ping BU Rob13 and Anthony Appleyard who I expect are more familiar with this. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be agreement here that this merge solved the problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Histmerge. Find an admin who has a high tolerance for pain and a couple of hours to spare ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, TakuyaMurata, and Johnuniq: Something like this atttribution problem happens whenever two pages are text-merged. Put a history note in the "one large list"'s talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: in this case, copying the text to the large list is being used as justification to delete the pages containing the original text (drafts, mostly). It's my understanding (via WP:RUD) that if an attribution note is made on the large list, then the origin pages must not be deleted. Am I wrong about that? Alternatively, if it's agreed that a solution is to collect all of these drafts into one large list, is history-merging all of them into one page acceptable? I'd be willing to do it, if there's consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: If any of "all of these drafts" are WP:Parallel histories, that would prevent history-merging. What are the names of all those drafts and of the assembled list? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a list at the top of the deleted revision at [13]. I'm not sure that list is complete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not complete; see my next message. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any reason to spend more time on this. I saw a discussion on the drafts where it was obvious that most people had not reviewed them due to the difficulty of considering 149 pages. Someone suggested that the author might like to keep one page with all the drafts (which are often just one or two lines). The author seemed unlikely to request anything as they are happy with the untouched drafts so I compiled the 60-KB list and added it to the author's existing userspace page. That was on the theory that they might not request it, but they might accept it as desirable if done. The author rejected the list by moving it to my userspace and that's all we need to know. Deletion is a good outcome. I put a list of the 149 titles in my sandbox (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

So unhappy to post this

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

---

I'm so unhappy to be raising this today. I so hoped this was solved at the end of June and I've been paying no attention to Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today. I went looking and was shocked at what I found.

Evidence

• An IBAN was imposed on June 30/July 1 [14] which I have very carefully followed.
• I supported the IBAN to get some relief from constant WP:HOUNDING
• Godsy strongly opposed the IBAN [15]
• an IBAN exception was carved out for commenting on XfDs started by the other person.
• The closing admin is away prepping for a hurricane (Prayers for User:xaosflux and anyone else in the path)
• There are about 31 open WP:MfDs right now
• over the last 8 days I initiated 13 of the 31 open MFDs and
• Today Godsy voted against my nom on 12 of the 13 plus 1 other MfD that I'm very involved in [16]
• Each vote was only several words and the 13 votes were rapid fire between 12:07 and 12:11 [Special:Contributions/Godsy]
• until today, Godsy has not participated in MfD since June 27 and did not participate in any other MfD today. He evidently specifically targeted MfDs I'm automatically watching, and to 100% oppose my efforts to delete.

I also was very surprised to find that Godsy's only contributions since the June 30 IBAN have been mostly focused me and my edits. Special:Contributions/Godsy

• a) develop his sandbox3 with my alleged sins
• b) complete filing a ArbComm case against me he started when it was clear the IBAN would pass (rejected)
• c) pop into the Taku AN thread on Aug 16 to comment on a topic highly connected to my editing
• d) requesting permission to comment on a proposal I put forward in the same thread [17] and then opposing my proposal [18],
• e) Vote to Overturn at DRV the close of a Taku page, again, something I'm pretty involved in. [19]
• f) fiddle with and mostly clear User Talk:Godsy and User:Godsy which hides the ANi, block, IBAN posts.
• g) replace all content on User:Godsy with a countdown clock that ends the moment he can appeal the IBAN on July 1, 2018 [20] which suggests planning a year in advance to step up his campaign against me.
• h) make a comment on Jimbo's talk on 1:47 July 16 [21], just under 6 hours after I was specifically invited on my talk page to comment there [22] Good chance he followed the link from my talk because I've seen nothing to suggest he is very interested in ACTRIAL and he was not notified of that discussion.
• i) edited zero articles, initiated zero XfDs, and done zero to move the project forward.

I'm definately not welcome on his talk [23]

Also I never noticed before that on June 28 Special:Contributions/Godsy he engaged in extensive canvassing to alert editors (a majority of whom just voted against a 1 way IBAN on Godsy) about the proposed two way IBAN, likely hoping for a repeat result.

Questions

1. Do these sections of WP:NOTHERE apply?

General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. and/or

Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive ...escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia... A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.

2. Is this editing pattern continued WP:HARASSMENT even if it is barely within the bounds of the IBAN?

3. This makes me feel like I've got an enemy watching my every move who is dancing along the edge of the IBAN. Am I being too sensitive here?

4. What, if anything should be done about this behaviour pattern? Thank-you and again, so sorry to be bring this back to the community. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

On (3). You are being about 15% too sensitive. About 115% of what would be healthy. It's weird, but mostly harmless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the stuff seem harmless. I mean it's well established that editors can remove nearly everything from their talkpages per WP:USERTALK so there's zero point getting worked up if they do so. Godsy is clearly aware of the iban. Likewise, even if the case is rejected, I'd be very reluctant to say someone preparing a case for arbcom is wrong. (The problem is when people seem to be taking forever to prepare the case so it stays in wikipedia all this time.) But I do have concerns (if it's true) about someone making a countdown clock for being allowed to appeal. Although even in that example, I'm not sure if there's much point worrying about it. All they're doing is ensuring that their appeal will fail. More concerning still would be, if it's true, that they suddenly appeared in MFDs and only in MFDs with LegacyPac's involvement. Yes there was an exemption but it wasn't intended (at least on my part) to allow Godsy to continue to pursue LegacyPac. Still I'm not sure there's enough for any action, so I would just let it be. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about him cleaning up his userpage. I'm just pointing out that is the only other thing he's done that is not related to pursuing me. Just click edit on User:Godsy to confirm the countdown clock is set to July 1, 2018 exactly one year from the date of the iban imposition. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Godsy shows an editor who needs a long wikibreak. Godsy has exploited the technical wording of the IBAN statement to further their campaign against Legacypac. The statement did not cover the obvious, namely that it was expected that each editor would find something useful to do other than hound each other. Therefore, voting at an MfD started by the other was seen as a reasonable activity for someone following WP:HERE. However, Godsy prefers to fan the flames. In this edit Godsy placed an image of people "most miserably tormented" with a countdown timer showing how much time Godsy needs to wait before the IBAN can be appealed. It is rare to see a contributor unable to hide their hostility after so much disruption. Options are an extreme final warning or preferably a one-week block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

New section post-close-reversal

@Primefac: thank-you and I'll happily agree. For absolute clarity this means no more commenting on XfDs started by the other party correct? That would be "reply to each other in discussions"? That is how I read the section just above WP:BANEX.Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Legacypac, Godsy seems to determined to wikilawyer this one to death. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In light fact that Godsy apparently has nothing better to do than sidle up to and drool all over the exceptions carved out during the previous discussion, as well as wikilawyer this thing to death, I am proposing the the IBAN expanded; the only exceptions will be those stated in WP:BANEX and resets the one-year counter for appeals. Legacypac has already agreed above to accept these terms. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Just noting that I believe you have the authority as an admin, if you believe that Godsy's editing is WP:DISRUPTIVE, to unilaterally impose any sanction you think is appropriate. It would not, of course, then be a community sanction which can be overturned only by the community, but a normal sanction, which can be overturned by any admin -- although discussion with the admin who imposed the sanction is the recommended usual procedure before overturning. Given those limitations, you don't necessarily need to have the community's approval to impose your suggested change to the current sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping to ignore all of this, the nonsense that it is, but it appears I will not be able to do so.

• An accurate characterization of my editing:

• An interaction ban was imposed on July 1 which I have followed.
• I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
• I opposed the interaction ban for reasons I clearly express there.
• Xaosflux is still editing, but at a reduced rate.
• Many miscellany for deletion discussions are open right now.
• Some individuals initiate more than others, and some consistently present poor rationales for deletion.
• I participated in ones that interested me, as I am allowed to do, most of which were in the old business section (the ones most in need of more participation).
• I had several miscellany for deletion discussions open at one time on September 7, and saved them all at around the same time, which is perfectly acceptable.
• I've largely been on a break since the interaction ban was implemented, and still am.

• I've edited very little since the interaction ban, only things that I believe need my attention the most when I happen to pop in:

• a) See User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#A community interaction ban has been imposed on you and User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#RFAR in regard to the arbitration case filing.
• b) see a).
• c) I'm allowed to comment at the administrators' noticeboard.
• d) I'm allowed to ask for clarification of the interaction ban and edit accordingly, see User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017# A community interaction ban has been imposed on you.
• e) I'm allowed to participate at deletion review.
• f) I archived my talk page to User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017.
• g) There is nothing inappropriate with my userpage, it meets all applicable policies and guidelines.
• h) User talk:Jimbo Wales is one of the most, if not the most, watched talk page on Wikipedia.
• i) I'm allowed to spend my time editing as I see fit.
• ) I have not engaged in canvassing in the past, rather, I have sent out appropriate notifications.

• Questions:

1. No.
2. I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
3. This whole thing is nonsense.
4. Nothing, it is entirely appropriate.

@Nil Einne: See above.

@Johnuniq: I put a picture of Saint Blandina on my userpage. She is the patron saint of the falsely accused and tortured. I think that fits my current situation well, though "tortured" is too strong of a word.

@Primefac: Process is important and you must remain neutral when closing discussions.

I knew things like this would pop up, which is why I limited my editing and continue to, only addressing the most important matters. User talk:Xaosflux#Objection - ADMINACCT is another example. The individual I am banned from interacting with wants the interaction ban to be much, much larger than what one entails. We disagree about drafts and whether or not things should be deleted out of process or for no good reason. They seem to want me banned from all such discussions regarding those issues. They are involved in seeking sanctions against others they simply disagree with, e.g. TakuyaMurata in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata and have done the same to others in the past. I believe they think causing drama like this will result in expanded sanctions allowing them to effectively silence someone they deem to be an opponent. Free, open, and civil discussion from those with all reasonable viewpoints is a pillar that holds Wikipedia up, and I hope the community does not allow it to be crushed. I would suggest the community either 1) close this by adding a sanction to the original poster of this thread which states matters concerning this interaction ban may not be brought to the administrators' noticeboard or subpages of it by said party, accept to appeal the ban at the appropriate time if desired. Said party may only bring matters concerning the interaction ban to the closing administrator (i.e. Xaosflux) or the arbitration committee (this will largely avoid further disruption and drama, the intent of the interaction ban) or 2) send this matter to the arbitration committee. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Listen, I will be the first one to say that I have had run ins with both Legacypac and Primefac and am not huge fans of theirs at the moment. Nevertheless, the behavior displayed by Godsy is petty and borderline WP:NOTHERE. Responding to legitimate problems with "take it to Arbcom" is exceedingly worrisome. Complaining about the community's ability to enforce restrictions by saying it goes against Wikipedia policy is further pettiness and the community should not waste further time on someone who is trying to game the spirit of the sanction, aka "the nonsense that it is". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus Kryik: I believe the community has shown an inability to handle this matter, hence my suggestion to kick it to the arbitration committee. Even if the interaction ban is converted to a traditional one, it will not prevent me from doing things the individual I'm banned from interacting with deems inappropriate and they'll cause a fuss if I engage in them. E.g. to quote WP:IBAN, "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." The individual I'm banned from interacting with doesn't want me to edit pages they do, evidenced by their complaints that my name shows up on their watchlist (i.e. "Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today") and other more explicit statements in the past. It would be good for the arbitration committee to decide whether or not unambiguously improving pages another has edited constitutes harassment, as that is where this matter stems from, and the community has been unable to deal with the matter (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?). The situation is too complicated, and I feel like I may be rambling, so this will be all I have to say (tonight at least, if not for much longer). Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems fairly straightforward to me. WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
      • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
      • reply to each other in discussions;
      • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
      • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
      • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
    • Nothing about that is confusing. Now, editing only pages that they edit could be considered WP:HOUNDING and would be a violation of the spirit of the ban, like you've done up until this point. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support anything up to and including an indefinite block of Godsy. The extraordinary nonsense posted above means no crystal ball is needed to know the future of this sorry episode. @Godsy: We each have a private list of people we think should not be here. On the one hand, it is nice that you are so transparent, but on the other, it is not good for you or the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but the "they" I use above is a singular they, to refer the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use). It isn't meant to refer to anyone else or a "list of people". Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks for confirming that your list consists of a single editor. But why in the world would you want to post that clarification? The point of the IBAN was that the community does not give a damn who started it or who is at fault—we want it to stop. I recommend taking a wikibreak of at least three months. At the end of that time, if you feel any compulsion to check what Legacypac has been up to in your absence, take another three months. Repeat until cured. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Godsy already took his concerns to ArbComm who unanimously refused to hear the case [24] but hey he knows where to file again. I'll probably waste less than 9 words on the next filing. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not familiar with all the details but I do share the impression that User:Legacypac has a behavior problem: that they tends to seek blocks/sanctions against anyone who disagrees with them. The proposed ban only permits such a problematic behavior to be tolerated; very detrimental to the health of the community. It's ok to disagree; it's not ok to try to silence the other side by any means. (At least this is how I understand the situation.) -- Taku (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that the editor above, TakuyaMurata is involved in an extended dispute with Legacypac, which can be found above on this page, at #Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata, and may therefore not be unbiased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Godsy protests far too much, but I'm not entirely sure what he's being accused of here. WP:MfD is a small place; and an exemption to the IBAN was specifically created to try to allow both to participate in the area. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Good faith is nice, but please have a look at Special:Contributions/Godsy before commenting. I count half a dozen edits that Godsy has made since early June that are unrelated to pursuing Legacypac. Per not bureaucracy, the IBAN was worded in a way that means Godsy did not violate the letter of the IBAN but the intention was clearly violated. The current proposal would stop the pursuit. For anyone checking the contribs, please be aware that the mutual support between Godsy and TakuyaMurata is because both oppose Legacypac. It is painfully absurd. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Suppose - Godsy this obsession with Legacypac derailed your RfA, resulted in a brief block, and an IBan you are wikilawyering around. Consider this proposal a benefit to you; cut your loses and perhaps take a wikibreak before more serious sanctions will be put to the drawing board.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I was initially minorly supportive of Godsy (I mean when I first read this about this a couple or so months ago on ANI), but it's become increasingly clear I was wrong. I don't know, and frankly don't care why Godsy doesn't understand we want them to leave LegacyPac alone, and their actions are harming the encyclopaedia. And note, I've said before and I'll say it again, there do seem to be at least some minor issues with LegacyPac's edits, so this has nothing to do with any personal favouritism towards LegacyPac. In fact frankly I find it disgusting that Godsy who claims to recognise problems with LegacyPac's edits is making it difficult to actually work towards resolving those concerns by continually making us go through this nonsense. But whatever the reasons, Godsy is clearly unable to understand they are now the key problem, so we need to force them to. While the countdown clock by itself may not be enough for action it actually demonstrates the point very well. As I said in my first response, if it stays up it's a guarantee that any appeal by Godsy will fail. (If it's removed depending on other stuff there's a chance but the clock would definitely not help.) the fact they put it there can only suggest they don't understand this basic and obvious point. Frankly I've lost my patience enough that I would also support a completely community ban, or an admin deciding to just indef. And so would also support such if there are any further attempts to wikilawyer around it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neither oppose nor neutral in the spirit of [25], which seems a bit too lawyer-like for me. Κσυπ Cyp   07:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support along with a warning that if Godsy doesn't find something to do other than be a Legacypac-focused SPA, an indefinite block is the next step. His hair userpage should also be deleted as POLEMIC. On a side note, administrators do not have authority to unilaterally modify community bans, though why Godsy feel arbitration policy is relevant is beyond me. GoldenRing (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe than an admin can impose a stricter sanction on top of a community-placed sanction. If that admin-imposed sanction is removed, the community-imposed sanction still remains, until lifted by the community. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret the relationship between sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• That is correct. An admin could place an editing restriction that was stricter or made the community sanction irrelevant, but if that restriction is lifted, the community sanction remains. The most common example would be community placed editing restrictions where the editor is subsequently blocked indefinitely. Even if the block is lifted, the original sanction remains. Arbcom is a different matter and has been handled in different ways by different arbcoms. Some have replaced community sanctions in entirety, others have incorporated them into Arbcom sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• That is true of blocks, which can be imposed unilaterally on discretion, but administrators do not have the authority to impose bans unilaterally, so they also don't have the authority to modify bans (eg the scope or duration) unilaterally. According to the banning policy, bans can be imposed by community consensus or the arbitration committee. The only complexity is where discretionary sanctions apply, in which case administrators have a delegated authority from the arbitration committee to unilaterally impose bans. That doesn't apply here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Over-analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I would be inclined to leave this be, that is not to amend the sanctions in place, if not for one small thing. Godsy has not participated in a single MfD where Legacypac was not already involved in some way since July 1st 2017. The list of MfD's that Godsy has participated in; Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy participant. My findings; 1. There are currently 29 Draft space articles nominated at MfD, 16 of these are "Old business", 14 are Legacypac's nomination, 2 are other people's nomination with 1 of those have Legacypac's participation, and 12 of these have Godsy's participation. 2. The MfD's where Godsy has not commented are; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Samacharpati.com opened by Legacypac and closed as delete on Sept 9., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alfonzo Rachel Onel5969's nomination that is still open but will likely be deleted (Legacy is a participant), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Elizabeth Mears closed as delete on Sept 9., Legacy nom, no Godsy involvement, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cato Sapiens Legacy nomination, has only one other !vote, and lastly Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quantum enveloping algebra (2) Legacy nomination, has weird technical issues, no Godsy involvement. 3. For those of you keeping score at home, you will notice an aberration in the maths here. There are 16 Old business drafts, 12 of these are Legacypac noms or participations that also have Godsy's participation. How then are there five drafts that Godsy has not participated on? The aberration comes from; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League which is a userpage, not a draft. There are technically only 11 draft participations from Godsy. 4. Only 1 of the 16 "Old business" draftspace MfD's does not have some kind of Legacypac involvement. 5. Godsy has !voted exclusively on Legacypac noms or participations. My interpretation of the findings; a. If there are 16 drafts, 14 of these are Legacy noms, and 1 more has Legacy's participation, then that leaves 1/16 (or 6.25% of) drafts where Godsy could completely avoid Legacypac. Thus, an overlap must be expected. b. Godsy has participated in 11/16 (or 68.75% of) "Old business" draft MfDs so it is reasonable to expect that there will be near 100% overlap between Godsy and Legacypac (90.91% to be mathematically exact). c. The five drafts that Godsy has not participated on are either i) closed or going to close in Legacy's favour or ii) have not been touched by Legacy anyway. Which leads me to d. It seems to me that the only draft MfD's Godsy hasn't touched are coincidentally those which deletion is favoured. This suggests that Godsy !votes on MfD's that are going to close against Legacypac. This is a striking feature that Legacy has noted before at AN/I, that Godsy always participates against Legacypac. This means 1 of 2 things, either Legacypac is a very poor nominator, or, Godsy just wants to contradict Legacy. Either or. And I say either or because of e. of the 14 Legacypac nominations, excluding Godsy's !votes, 4 (28.6%) are favouring the nom, 5 are likely to be kept (35.7%), and 5 (35.7%) are really being contested and could go either way. This isn't a particularly favourable nom rate, and at least 2 of those that are leaning nom, when accounting for Godsy's !vote, slip into contested territory reducing the stats to 2-5-7 (14.3%-35.7%-50%). I will note, however, that MfD has a much lower bar for keeping drafts around than AfD does for articles. So, I would expect deletion nominations to be rejected much more often. This all leads me to my final finding and TL;DR comment; f. This is really down to how much AGF you give either party. One could easily infer that Godsy's participation solely on MfD's that Legacy has nominated is due to WIKIHOUNDING. One could, however, counter-infer that the overlap is reasonable if for no other reason than that Legacy is responsible for the lions share (90%) of current "Old business" draftspace MfD nominations. I, personally, don't know which it is. I find it suspect that Godsy has all sorts of references to the IBAN on their pages, and that they just happen across ACTRIAL on Jimbo's talk page hours after a note was posted to Legacy's page, but, I don't know what to do with the MfD stuff as a) a full IBAN isn't going to inherently prevent Godsy participating on MfD, b) it's not going to prevent him commenting on MfDs that Legacy has nominated or c) doing practically anything else that he has. None of these actually violate any of the clauses of the IBAN. Godsy has not edited Legacy's user or user talk page, he hasn't replied to Legacypac in any discussion, he has made some low level references to his IBAN with Legacypac, he hasn't used the revert function, and it does not appear that he has used the "thanks" extension to send thanks to Legacypac. So what exactly does a full IBAN change that the already existing IBAN doesn't have (aside from resetting the counter)? I'm not seeing any change here that does anything. It's important to note, that Xaoslux exception, isn't actually an exception; Additionally, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote. Umm... there is nothing written on WP:IBAN that prevents this anyway. You'd technically be carving in an additional sanction, not carving out an exception. So unless there's an added sanction, this proposal, at least to me, seems to be moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Can you TLDR that TLDR? I got a few points out of it, so I wanted to mention that I would consider voting on something that the other has nominated to be a violation of the IBAN as it essentially is a reply to them. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC) TL:DR, TL:DR; The current IBAN is a full IBAN because the exception carved out isn't an exception. You need a new sanction altogether, not just an updated IBAN. An updated IBAN doesn't ban Godsy from MfD nor does it ban them from Legacypac nominations. I think I get what you are saying, if Legacy makes an MfD nom and Godsy places a comment on the MfD nom that could be considered a reply, but, you could make that argument for any comment that Godsy places anywhere where Legacypac has already been. E.g. in a comment thread started by Legacypac. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Future wikilawyering from Godsy is most unlikely to wash. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) An over-analysis is not needed. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes looking at Special:Contributions/Godsy that everything Godsy has done since the IBAN (and before!) has concerned a pursuit of Legacypac. Yes, there have been a very small number of exceptions, but the 99% motivation is to pursue Legacypac. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Johnuniq, I agree. Too much thought. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Shortening my over-analysis to a few simple sentences. I am not absolutely sure that an IBAN would cover noms from Legacypac. If it is covered, then no harm no foul. If it isn't covered, then you know, extend the terms to carve in a sanction. The thing that does it for me is that it's impossible to explain away the fact that even the small amount of editing that Godsy is doing is almost exclusively forcing some interaction with Legacypac. 12 MfD votes, 11 of which are Legacypac noms themselves. Jimbo's talk to the same section that Legacypac had been invited to hours earlier. The IBAN references on both the talk and user page of Godsy. It's clear that this pattern isn't going to change without a solid, bolded, instruction to stay away. I'm sorry Godsy, you satisfied my concerns last time by pointing to the fact that many of your interactions with Legacypac are unavoidable due to MfD. This time, however, all I see in your contribs is Legacypac. I looked at your contribs as a whole, 23k edits in 3 years. That's a lot more than I'm going to have at the same mark. Prior to the IBAN your contribs covered MfD, AfD, RfD, Article space, Draft space, etc. Some of it overlapped with Legacy, but, there was something other than just Legacy there. Now, it's almost all tied to Legacy. Either a full IBAN is going to push you somewhere else, or, you'll just leave the encyclopaedia. Hopefully, it pushes you into other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ouch! I was counting Godsy's comment at Jimbo's talk as one of the handful not concerning Legacypac. How naive I am! Kudpung invited Legacypac to comment in the section at Jimbo's talk at 02:57, 16 July 2017. Before Legacypac responded, Godsy opposed what would have been Legacypac's position at 08:47, 16 July 2017. QED. @Godsy: Sorry, but you have to let it go, permanently. Life is not fair, and Wikipedia cannot provide satisfaction to all parties. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Mr rnddude: I read your full analysis. Since receiving the interaction ban, I generally only check into Wikipedia once a week and for only a few minutes; some weeks I don't even make any edits. I only edit in places that I feel are most important (e.g. doing my part to prevent a user who seemingly didn't break any policies or guidelines from receiving an editing restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata because others don't like their seemingly reasonable actions). I have some free time in the morning two days a week, so I thought I might ease back into participating at miscellany for deletion. Would it matter if I had made a couple thousand edits over the past few months with the edits in question sprinkled in? It should not; they are either appropriate or not. The reason the individual on the other side of this interaction ban is so eager to accept it and all new conditions, is because it really doesn't effect their editing practices. They can continue seeking the deletion of things, a lot of which clearly should not be deleted. If it were "miscellany for keeping" or "criteria for speedy keeping", and nominations were made to keep things, it would affect them and not me. I'd be happy to accept, instead of the interaction ban, e.g. a 2 year ban from nominating drafts (i.e. userspace or draftspace henceforth) at miscellany for deletion, nominating drafts for speedy deletion, redirecting drafts to the mainspace, and moving pages from the draftspace to the userspace, if the individual I'm banned from interacting with is also given this restriction because it would affect their editing practices and not me. That would prevent any further disruption, and eliminate the cause of interactions the community has deemed disruptive and that have caused all this drama. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This apparent obsession of Godsy's with Legacypac has to stop, and as he won't willingly stop it, it has to be forcibly stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, and as for "the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use)" - how pathetically childish is that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: I originally had something else written instead of that which was not civil, and perhaps even bordered on a personal attack, and I apologize if my avoiding engaging in incivility came off as childish to you. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  And you think that makes you sound better?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Johnuniq Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Suppport I had actually been wondering the other day if Godsy was active again (in a good way), then I went to their user talk and became alerted to this mess. Please let's stop this disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know if Godsy has some sort of "thing" for LP or what but regardless this whole thing is beyond pathetic and childish and FWIW I would support banning Godsy from this place altogether - An IBAN isn't hard to follow but anywho if BANEX is violated then indef blocking should be next on the menu. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Godsy needs to take a wikibreak; I said that I felt at the last AN discussion that he would find a way to wikilawyer out of the iban and it appears he has. Bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory, frankly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's time for this fiasco to stop and if Godsy won't stop it, it has to be stopped for him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support regretfully. Legacypac's handling of the situation back when this first became an issue, coupled with the original unwarranted block of Godsy, both contributed to the problem and I can understand why Godsy has had a hard time letting it go. Legacypac is a problematic and overly sensitive editor, but Godsy does not seem to understand where the line is and he keeps stepping across it. Lepricavark (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Lepricavark it appears your assessment refers to how I handled this situation in June 2017, however the harassment I've been receiving dates back at least a year before that. Your post illustrates the unreasonable amount of damage this war against me has done to my editing reputation, which leads to my Additional Proposal below Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. My viewpoint is that Godsy saw various problems in some of your editing and sought to rectify those problems. He probably should have done more to treat you as a good faith editor (and the same applies to your treatment of him), but I do believe his objective was to address issues with your editing, not merely to hound and harass you. Your June complaint led to a premature block that unfortunately escalated the problem, as Godsy now felt that you were trying to silence him. Your proposal below further reinforces that perception. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The block was not premature (you are echoing Godsy's exact and consistent phrasing by the way) but long overdue. His harassment sunk his RfA long before that block was imposed. His hounding already drove me off wikipedia for months before his failed RfA, so who is trying to silence who exactly? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. I have felt strongly ever since the block was handed down that it was completely premature (and if you have some point to make about my phrasing, then come right out and say it instead of dropping hints), and I disagree with your insistence on labeling his pre-iBan edits as hounding and harassment. I'm less than thrilled that we have likely lost Godsy as a valuable contributor, but he's done nothing to help his cause in the past few months and frankly he has brought this on himself. I get that you two don't like each other and I'm not surprised that you have consistently refused to assume good faith on his part, but I don't share your perspective. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone engaged in the kind of war he has engaged in but against you, you would he screaming about it. Why are you defending his WP:STALKing exactly? Godsy has not been "lost" and definately his behavior is not a result of anything I've done or any block. He quit being a productive contributor some months ago completely of his own accord. I don't know him, so I can't dislike him. In fact I wish him the very best, doing anything anywhere not involving harassing me. His long term pattern of behaviour is beyond acceptable and there is no reason the entire community needs to put up with it anymore. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I hope at some point the community reviews the "although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other" part of WP:IBAN, and has a discussion at WT:Banning policy. Though the policy states that, at least the community participating in this discussion does not seem to agree with it. I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent; no editor deserves an editing restriction unless they can be shown to have broken a guideline or policy (i.e. actually done something wrong). Two-way interaction bans should only be used if there is dual-fault. That aside, if a deletionist and inclusionist (not quite accurate, but works as a generalization) are banned from interacting with one another, if the inclusionist isn't the one creating the pages which caused the disagreement themself, the deletionist walks away unhindered and perhaps even empowered. I also find complaints that I commented on thing(s) that the individual I'm banned from interacting with was notified about ridiculous. To avoid that, I would have to check their talk page before commenting anywhere. I also find the notion that if I had made many other edits, and these were just sprinkled in, they would be okay. Contributions are either appropriate or not, they should stand on their own merit. The sentiment expressed by some here regarding the "spirit" of the interaction ban would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion (where the individual I'm banned from interacting with probably makes 30% of the nominations and participates in others), and discussions about drafts (an area in which the individual I'm banned from interacting with likes to propose new ways to delete them) among other crazy extra-broad non-enumerated restrictions. I regularly participated in those areas before the interaction ban. I concur with Power~enwiki and would like to thank Mr rnddude for their in-depth look at the matter. I think I will take a wikibreak until the Christmas holiday, if not longer. Many things to consider. Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inregards to would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion and discussions about drafts - Well you'll have to find other places to edit then, Not to rub it in but you had plenty of oppertunity to stop this but you carried it on so it's only your fault it's lead to this, –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we need to review the policy. AFAICT, very few people here seem to think people are, or should be, forbidden from ever commenting on XfDs someone they're ibanned with is also involved in. Such co-participation may happen on occasion and provided both parties act resonably, there's no reason to forbid it. The specific issue here for me, and I think most others, is we don't think you should be concentrating on participating in XfDs with someone you've been ibanned from especially when that iban largely came about because you just wouldn't leave LegacyPac alone. Yes LegacyPac opens a lot of MfDs but it's very difficult to argue it was just an accident you came to those they were heavily involved in (mostly opened), and I'm not even sure you're claiming that. In other words, we don't mind and have no reason to forbid incidental indirect interactions and the policy and guidelines reflect that. But we do mind, and do forbid intentionally continuing to pursue another editor using whatever means you think are technically allowed when you've be told, repeatedly, to stop it. And the evidence shows that even putting aside the MFDs, nearly all you've done since the iban came into effect has somehow involved your dispute with LegacyPac. The fact you don't seem to understand all this, is of course good evidence we're right to restrict you. Per WP:NOTBURO it's unlikely we need to clarify policy or guidelines to tell people that when they've been told to leave another editor alone, they need to do so, not find whatever ways are technically allowed and continue their campaign simply because we also say we not going to punish incidental indirect interactions. As Davey2010 also said, if you've earned community sanction which prevent you editing in your preferred area, you'll have to find somewhere else to edit. P.S. I'm AGFing that you really don't appreciate all this rather than just trying to be difficult, but it's getting harder. P.P.S. I'm saying all this in the hope it will finally get through to you since I have a nasty feeling if it doesn't, the next time I read your name it's going to be a case of "OMFG, not again" when it comes to a full community ban of you from en.wikipedia, although I suspect this won't happen since an indef block which I hopefully won't have to hear about is more likely. As also indicated before, even without a block or ban, unless you understand all this, it will be a case of OMFG when you appeal your i-ban and I suspect just reading you appeal will be enough to tell me it's doomed to fail as I see with appeals way too often. It sounds like you were a good contributor once, my ultimate hope is you can somehow get back to being that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The community's time is being wasted with this stuff; we could currently be writing featured articles. In fact, why don't you try and write one yourself, Godsy? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per basically everyone above. Davey2010's comment just above this post is especially on-point. There would be no IBAN, and no discussion to expand on the IBAN, if Godsy hadn't nickel and dimed this issue to the absolute limit of credulity over the past few months (including arguing that he had an intrinsic right to indent Legacypac's comments after being explicitly told to stop, because indentation is that important). He has had every opportunity to put down the stick and he chooses instead to find new ways to poke the bear with it and then acts surprised when the bear snarls at him. Go do something else here, Godsy. Anything. Pick a pet backlog and clear it out. Take RileyBugz' suggestion and write a FA. Go work with AfC or NPP and help new editors get their drafts published and kept, if you're so dead set on the staggering importance of keeping stuff in draftspace. Anything. Just drop the damn stick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blatant harassment despite having an interaction ban. People have been indeffed for less. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Godsy seems to delight in pushing the envelope ever further- too much so for my liking. — fortunavelut luna 10:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Wow, how wrong was I here?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Clear instance of NOTHERE; many other users have been blocked for much, much less. -FASTILY 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Simply per all this silly quarrelling also stopping by indef'ing Legacypac, and per estimating Godsy to bring more encyclopedic value to WP than Legacypac does. In my view it would be better for WP to silence Legacypac, rather than Godsy. I value highly all the opinions about troubles that would stop, if only Godsy were silenced, it's just that I think they would stop equally well by silencing Legacypac, but leave more net value for WP. Please, also consider the other wars in which Legacypac was and is involved, and his self-assessment wrt the community, stated alongside his additional proposals. Purgy (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional Proposal

1. Godsy and his two alternative accounts be INDEF'd for WP:HARASSMENT
2. convert the two way IBAN into a one way Standard IBAN in favor of Legacypac

Proposer's Rational: All the stuff above.

Extended content

Proposer's additional detailed rational for anyone that really needs it: Since multiple new sanctions against me have been proposed by Godsy in this thread, it seems ok for me to propose a solution. Godsy continues to claim he has never harassed me and insists the community never found he has harassed me a clear statement is required. Since he is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has turned a thread about his harrassment into a forum to make additional outrageous inflammatory statements, he needs to be stopped. Since he has twice lied here about how he ended up at Jimbo's talk page, and told other fanciful stories here about his MfD participation, why should we believe he plans to take a wikibreak? There is no agreement from him to find something productive to do, only complaints he'll be unable to continue his crusade. As for the IBAN mod, Godsy says above I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent so we should take away his reason to be "abhorred" by making it a one way. This way my account can be cleared of this mess, and in case he ever gets editing privileges back he'll still have to find an editing interest unrelated to harrassing me. Believe me - I've got zero interest in interacting with him and will meticulously be staying away voluntarily, but I would hate to be tripped up in some technicality or accidental interaction.

Respectfully Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to oppose a one-way iban on the usual philosophical and practical grounds. I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block, so long as the text included that any uninvolved admin could unblock on presentation of a reasonable plan of editing that avoids the problems described here. I think Godsy has been a productive editor in the past and should be given a decent opportunity to return to it. GoldenRing (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• One way i-bans are almost always a disaster. I would oppose that. Let the above remedy work. Take the high road. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• I am not opposed to one-way IBans per se - I see many fewer problems with them than some other editors do, but I think this particular situation really does call for a two-way IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Ok, with three respected editors opposing changing the IBAN its pretty clear I need to WITHDRAW the modification to the IBAN part of the proposal. After the ANi beating I took in June plus the comments above defending WP:STALKING as OK, its pretty clear the community feels my contributions are so worthless that there is no value in protecting me unless I'm equally restricted as well - confirming to Godsy the unfairness of the "no fault" IBAN and confirming that he has done nothing wrong and is the bigger victim. I get wikipedia is not fair, but I've tried very hard to avoid Godsy for over a year and a half already. My reward is I'm even worse off than the aggressor because I got a Move restriction in June based on the outright lies Godsy told at ANi and lost NPP rights for a few days. Thanks for the feedback though, at least I know where I stand. I do appreciate those that voted to expand the IBAN as it's easy for me to continue my long self imposed avoidance program. Now, can someone SNOW close the IBAN modification above to shut down Godsy's latest forum for attacking me? Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• For the record: just another evidence that User:Legacypac is only interested in silencing anyone opposing them. It's too bad Wikipedia lacks an effective tool to deal with problematic users like them. -- Taku (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Go work on your all important drafts and stop trolling Taku. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: While you are clearly emotionally involved, I honestly think you would be well advised to walk away from this and leave it to the rest of the community to deal with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no need for escalating personal tit-for-tat, and Legacypac needs to do some stick-dropping too - I think the 2-way IBAN needs to remain. The main IBAN extension proposed above should be sufficient, and other things should only be considered if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Undeletion and userfication

REFUNDed by ... I can't tell who, there doesn't seem to be a log entry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, could someone undelete and userfy Markovian parallax denigrate for me? It was deleted several years ago by Cirt, who has been inactive since 2016. The deletion discussion is here [26] with the deletion rationale being that there were no reliable sources covering the event, however I've found three (more recent than the AfD) with a simple Google search [27], [28], [29]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Handled at WP:REFUND, thanks. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Out of process deletion - Medha Khole

This article was recently tagged {{db-person}} by 91.207.57.43 (talk · contribs). I declined the speedy because a search for sources show it is possible to write an article on this subject; however I have deleted the article anyway per WP:BLPDELETE as the two sources given do not verify any claims in the article. I would rather somebody rewrote the article from scratch. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• A short-term news scandal over the past 24 hours, should subside soon. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• She's not notable for anything else, so an obvious BLP1E anyway, and even the 1E doesn't appear as if it'll be that notable or lasting. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• It has been recreated - the content created was a copy paste copyright violation from the Hindu. Medha Khole . Perhaps a good idea to block Medha Khole from being created. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Current practice is to do that after the second re-creation, i.e. third creation. Samsara 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking policy and IPv6 ranges

I am usually an idiot about this, treating IPv6 addresses as though they are IP addresses and only blocking the one. Once in a blue moon I remember. We don't seem to say anything about this in our blocking policy. We'd also need to spell out how to identify the appropriate range, etc. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Should we include advice to block an IPv6 range, not a single address? and then realised people don't seem to read that page. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses also needs updating. Credit to Bish for this by the way who reminded me about it recently. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if a technical change would be feasible (and a good idea), to automatically offer the /64 range as an option when blocking an IPv6 address? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A technical change (as suggested by Boing) or at the very least some wording changes would be greatly appreciated. I think it's fair to say the number of IPv6s editing has increased year on year (75% of all percentages are made up on the spot), so this is probably more of an exposure thing -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is more complicated than people make it out to be. Generally, blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the WP:IPB page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): Special:Contributions/2600:387:*. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you could pick Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:802:* , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Any subnet except that lone example. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Phabricator tasks of interest: RFC: IPv6 contributions and talk pages, Should block IPv6 addresses at /64 instead of /128, and Have one aggregated talk page for ipv6 /64. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think we're seeing more and more IPv6 addresses editing the 'pedia and, yes, it would be helpful to incorporate some advice in the blocking guidance. mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 has some useful information. Typically, an IPv6 /64 subnet is allocated to a household or a location and we would block a /64 subnet as we would a single IPv4 address but only after checking the range, satisfying ourself that it is stable and that a single user is using that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Any admin worried about blocking /64 subnets should not be overtly worried: it's roughly equivalent to blocking a single static IPv4 address. If you look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 at The Internet Engineering Task Force it quite clearly explains the reasons why:

Using a subnet prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6, including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971], privacy extensions [RFC4941], parts of Mobile IPv6 [RFC4866], Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) with Embedded-RP [RFC3956], and Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (SHIM6) [SHIM6], among others. A number of other features currently in development, or being proposed, also rely on /64 subnet prefixes.

Nevertheless, many IPv6 implementations do not prevent the administrator from configuring a subnet prefix length shorter or longer than 64 bits. Using subnet prefixes shorter than /64 would rarely be useful; see Appendix B.1 for discussion.

However, some network administrators have used prefixes longer than /64 for links connecting routers, usually just two routers on a point-to-point link. On links where all the addresses are assigned by manual configuration, and all nodes on the link are routers (not end hosts) that are known by the network, administrators do not need any of the IPv6 features that rely on /64 subnet prefixes, this can work. Using subnet prefixes longer than /64 is not recommended for general use, and using them for links containing end hosts would be an especially bad idea, as it is difficult to predict what IPv6 features the hosts will use in the future.

So any ISPs worth their salt are going to allocate /64 subnets for connections, as allocating any larger subnet could cause all sorts of end-user problems. Of course this doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be blocking a single user, but neither did blocking a single static IPv4 address necessarily imply this either. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by this definition of "worth their salt", many ISP's, especially in Asia and Africa, are not. I've seen IP-hopping throughout much greater ranges (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar). One of our incentives for enabling IPv6 was to allow more granular targeting of a single user not possible with IPv4 - we shouldn't impose IPv4's limitation here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but can you explain how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things should work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Looking at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, these less than /64 (i.e. wider) ranges seem to be for wireless broadband. Now wireless broadband suppliers can use many /64 connections for the supply: the end result is that the range is far greater (or/<64). The reason for this is because in these circumstances radio towers (or combination of radio towers) will have access to many /64 connections; just like a wireless radio tower IPv4 would use a large variety of dynamic IPv4 addresses. Basically this is analogous to using several dynamic IPv4 connections, it implies nothing about connection subnets.

I see no particular evidence that ranges with a greater than /64 subnet are active; but even these can be explained by router alllocations giving a bigger than /64 (or narrower range) which is well within protocols; routers have no compulsion to use entire /64 ranges when allocating /128 addresses, only the connection itself must be at least /64. All this gives the impression of non-/64 connections which is simply not true.

Another way of looking at this: let's say I had a router with a /64 connection which allocated the same IPv6 address each time to my laptop. Now as far as my editing goes it would look like I was using a /128 subnet (i.e. a single IPv6 connection). While this would be true, nevertheless my connection to the ISP would be /64. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles in practice, which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's true in theory but in practice Wikipedia has to be defended from brain-numbing nonsense that will eventually wear down the most dedicated editors. My suggestion would be to block IPv6 /64 when that is shown to be needed after blocking one or two individual IPs. Anyone adversely affected would have to make their case. Or, any concerned registered editor could point to a case where blocking a /64 resulted in a loss of encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If I may try to summarise the above - would most people agree that if after directly blocking a single disruptive IPv6, another IPv6 from the /64 continues being disruptive, a /64 rangeblock would be the next step (as opposed to how we deal with IPv4s)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Imo the best practice would be:

1. Check for collateral as a /64 block could definitely cause this (e.g. a corporation). Use the Gadget-contribsrange.js gadget to do so, and other whois services.
2. Check it's not a public mobile wireless connection: blocking these is like blocking dynamic IPv4 addresses, a bit pointless with the capability of causing collateral.

If you do these two steps then it should be OK to use /64 rangeblocks; appeals can be made on talkpages if users suffer significant collateral, just like Ipv4 blocks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI native support for range contributions (phab:T163562) is going out on this week's MediaWiki train. It is already on mediawiki.org (example). If all goes well, later this week you'll be able to query for IP ranges at Special:Contribs here on the English Wikipedia without the need for a gadget or wildcards. It will take a while for the data to backfill, so don't count on it working at Thursday's normal deploy time. I'll make a proper announcement once it finishes :) See also phab:T145912 which is like a power user range contributions tool. It's a long ways away but feel free to follow that task for progress updates — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

IP's edits at Sorted magazine article

At Sorted magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. See here and here. In the version before the IP's edits, the text states that Russell Church launched the magazine and that "the title was geared to the lads' mag market." In the IP's version, it states that Steve Legg launched the magazine and that it "has been voted the world’s most wholesome men’s magazine with 100,000 readers in 21 countries." I warned the IP twice. I then reported the matter at WP:AIV, but, when no administrator picked up the case, I decided to bring it here instead. If I request page protection at this time, I'd likely be declined because there is not enough disruption and it's just one IP. Furthermore, editors might confuse this as a content dispute since the IP claims to be "removing incorrect data." I don't particularly care about the article; I came across it via WP:STiki. I do care about inaccurate information being added to it. I'm not sure if two different magazines are being confused or what. For reference, this is the source the IP keeps using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see they're actually both correct. The original magazine was published by Church and was indeed aimed at the "lad's" market. However it appears it was taken over by Legg's publishing company later on and repositioned as a Christian men's magazine. So the "wholesome" cite is correct as well (although it's a primary source). Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Black Kite. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that Viewmont Viking has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --VViking_TalkEdits 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, if it continues, we can obviously list the matter at WP:Requests for page protection. I think it would get declined for protection right now. But if the IP strikes again, a case can be made, with this thread cited as part of the argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Note: Primefac apparently hid copyright violations made by the IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the violations were the promotional content added by the IP. I am conversing with them off-wiki and didn't realize this thread existed. If it comes to it, I will point them in this direction and hopefully can get them to explain their actions (somewhere). Primefac (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. I did point the IP to this thread on their talk page. As for this, it didn't seem like the main issue to me. It seemed to me that the IP didn't want any mention of the magazine's previous history included, especially the "lads' mag market" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My conversation off-wiki was mostly centred around the removed content, but yes, the "history" of the magazine is also of concern. Given that former wasn't necessary and the latter is still up for debate, I only changed the former. I'll probably post some more on the talk page of the article if I get more details regarding how "they want it fixed". Primefac (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As an update, I've completely rewritten the article and am now (somewhat) under the impression that this isn't a notable magazine. However, I think the "AN" portion of the discussion is likely to be over, so I am going to suggest closing this. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I can't state that I agree with the complete removal of the magazine's history. A relaunch should not mean that the magazine's previous history should not be covered. And per WP:COI, we don't edit articles the way that a company wants it edited anyway. But I'll address this on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

G13 eligible Sandboxes

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

---

There are 140+ sandboxes that were AfC rejected. Can someone use a tool to bulk delete or blank these pages? I already processed all the non-sandboxes there. [30] Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Checking some sockpuppet cats

I am checking the accuracy of the following cats:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

I don't see any evidence for them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sockpuppets are often blocked without an SPI if evidence is compiled off-wiki or the admin doing the blocking is the one who discovered the sock. SPIs are a place to submit evidence if it needs admin review or warrants a CheckUser, but it's not the only way to get a block for sockpuppetry. If you think any of the blocks may not be correct, talk to the blocking admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking User:Δ: [31] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What good would that do? If Betacommand denies that a particular account was a sock, are you going to believe him and remove that account from the category? Don't you think that any puppetmaster has a vested interest in being blamed for fewer sockpuppets? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Betacommand has admitted to violating various policies in the past, and is arguing that nine years is enough punishment for a violation made in 2008. So he/she may very well admit to some of the older ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he's arguing that his last violation is in 2008, he'd be unlikely to admit to anything after that. In any case, I think you'll find that for many editors, the Betacommand/Delta crisis is still quite fresh in their minds. It put the community through a lot of stuff, and went on for years, so if you're working with Betacommand, I would tell him not to get his hopes up. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jay Kristopher

There are some issue regarding a recent created article Jay Kristopher as I have tagged it for deletion the author has written a note on the article stating if you need anymore sources ill give you more sources this is my sons wikipedia page that i created and these things are all true he's everywhere else but here he likes wikipedia and September 12th is his birthday don't delete his page he always likes to see himself on wikipedia refreshing the page his birthday is in 1 day wikipedia administrators don't break my sons heart. Admins take note of this as per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:ONEDAY. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection backlogged again + some comments

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection was heavily backlogged in the morning (30+ items, some of them being there for 24h). I cleared most of it, but now I will not have time to do it anymore, and any help will be appreciated.

While I am at it, may I please suggest that all of you (not only administrators) occasionally take an effort to send public thanks for (uncontroversial) administrative actions. That used to happen a lot when I started to work at RFPP a couple of years ago, and it hardly happens anymore. Very few of us (possibly none of us) enjoy routine administrative work, but we are doing it because we feel responsibility for the project and find the janitorial work important. It is thankless, takes time, and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles). There is not much what can be done about it, but public thanks are cheap and kind of give us that little motivation which we may be missing by doing this day by day without any feedback. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be de-backlogged now. Plus I completely endorse the comment above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear admins, on behalf of the community, please accept this vacuum cleaner. It's more efficient than a mop, and really helps you clean those hard-to-reach corners, like RFPP. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per policy, no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, Samsara 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: thanking Admins for page protection and other noticeable routine tasks is a really good idea. I will be doing this from now on. Thanks very much for the suggestion - because these efforts are really appreciated. And thanks Ymblanter and Ritchie333 for clearing out page protection today. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that if it was a non-admin making a similar statement about backlogs, they'd be shot-down by other admins saying they're complaining too much, or start an RfA themselves. Usually this comes from the psedo-admins, who only edit once a week, and don't really do anything else. If it's "and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles)" then resign, so you don't feel the guilt of not helping and you can get involved in writing articles. And for the record, I thank every editor, admin or not, who does something to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to respond but then decided that we have too much drama anyway, so I just let it go.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. Complaining about not being thanked for a thankless task that YOU wanted to do in the first place. Well I never. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You have zero chances to ever become an admin, so whether you want it or not is highly irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear editors, admin or not, on behalf of the community, please accept this broom. It can't clean up everything, but it's especially good at sweeping the dirt into a big pile for people with vacuums. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Possibly compromised account

Reported at WP:AIV, the account of User:Zawl has been blocked indef by me as a possibly compromised account. This has been questioned at User talk:Zawl. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: there was quite a bit of activity. The AIV cited "bad redirects" but those I checked out didn't seem bad, although a few didn't seem necessary (but I'm not an expert on the subjects presented). Why do you believe the account is compromised? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked the report above. Do you suggest I unblock with an apology? — Maile (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not yet! . Why do you think the account is compromised? The AIV report didn't list any diffs, the redirects don't seem out of charachter, and I don't see any attempt to communicate with Zawl (but please note I'm slow and still looking). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It was that whole slew of redirects over the past few days that made me think this is possibly compromised. But I'm open to be proven wrong. If this user was blocked in error, I'm sure they would like to be unblocked as soon as possible. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: which edits do you think are vandalism? Since I'm seeing so many recent edits (which is not out of character from this editor who has recently re-named their account), they are between obviously "constructive" edits, and Zawl may be unaware of them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Aspro also posted at WP:VP regarding one of the redirects that went to a deleted article. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Maile66, Zawl did not make a redirect to a deleted article. Zawl created Bhad Bhabie at 10:49, 11 September 2017. Zawl then changed the target of the redirect Danielle Bregoli at 10:50, 11 September 2017 to point to Bhad Bhabie. Then Magnolia677 stated at the village pump they weren't sure what to do about the change to the redirect at 11:20, 11 September 2017. Aspro then complained village pump about the edit at 17:18, 11 September 2017 and again at 17:22, 11 September 2017 and for a third time at 17:33, 11 September 2017 without ever stating what is wrong with that or any other edit Zawl had made. I think Floquenbeam is spot on about Aspro and their reports. ~ GB fan 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything that indicates the account has been compromised. The edits seem to be in character. The redirects do not look "bad" as originally reported. If there are all these "bad" redirects why has no one nominated them for deletion? Zawl should be unblocked. ~ GB fan 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::What is a little disconcerting is that it does not appear anyone attempted to talk with Zawl. I have found him to be the epitome of WP:BOLD, but also willing to discuss things. Regarding the VP, Zawl recreated an article, with many more sources than the version that was deleted, and he believes it to pass the notability threshold. Maybe it does or doesn't, but I'm not sure the edit history was checked. I'm definitely leaning towards immediate unblock absent further evidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I unblocked the account. If it later turns out to be compromised, there will be evidence of such. But in the meantime, I believe I acted too hastily. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ummm, for everyone's future use: please do not take any admin action based on accusations by User:Aspro. Longtime lurkers at the Village Pump and Reference Desks will tell you ... how can I put this without getting blocked? ... his judgement is questionable quite a bit of the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. Not my best action, but it was a lesson for me. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ User:Floquenbeam.Where did I make accusations against this editor ? I said 'Possibly compromised account' and expressed straight from the start that he was an experienced editor. Which means I had his best interest at heart incase his account had been compromised. Pity you didn't way-in earlier and sort this out yourself instead of coming back 'after' the conclusion with what amounts to: Avec le recul, je pense que nous nous y serions pris autrement.. I know how to reply to you without getting blocked – by leaving it to other editors who have come to know me over the years - to make their own judgments. Aspro (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

original reply: My time machine is in the shop; I expect to be able to sort out things that happen before I see them sometime next week, when I get it back. And it's "weigh in".

more on-point reply: My comment wasn't meant to solve this problem after the fact; it was meant to lessen the likelihood of future problems, by trying to get admins who see this to realize that you can almost always be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Aspro, you are aware that we're capable of reading, right? ‑ Iridescent 07:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for helping to sort this out. Glad to be unblocked. I created the Bhad Bhabie page as I noticed her song, which charted on the Billboard Hot 100 at 77th, in the news and realized there wasn't an article about her, thus decided to create one as there was significant coverage from reliable sources like Maxim and The Sun. I figured that since Bhad Bhabie is the official stage name of Danielle Bregoli, it would be a more appropriate title, as most musicians use their stage names instead of real name (e.g. Snoop Dogg, Eminem). I'm just surprised and disappointed that Magnolia677 and Aspro chose not to discuss with me before reporting/making accusations, and that action was taken against me without evidence and thorough examination, causing an extra unnecessary entry to my block log. — Zawl 10:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Request Admin close AfD

The discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) has a reasonably good turnout and it seems merge is and probably will be the consensus decision. I am the article's creator and I also just Ivoted for "merge". Rather than continuing to extend the discussion in time and attract attention to a discussion that may not need this attention or more editor's time, I am requesting an Admin close this AfD per the perceived consensus. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems a little unnecessary to me to close this early. I also think in general that AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for early close on this AfD. Please let the AfD run its course. This AfD happened way too early, in my opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the AfDs that are happening too early, it's the article creation. WP:NOTNEWS and the like. "AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature." is just wrong. Apart from clearly notable events (Hurricane Irma, erecurring major sporting events, ...), most articles on breaking news should be sent to draftspace for a while and only released into mainspace when the enduring notability seems to be clear. E.g. not every wildfire needs an article asap. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it still is premature. That the article creation was premature as well does not negate that NOTNEWS issues cannot be properly handled when the event is fairly recent. I've seen a fair amount of editors with concerns that articles on "Breaking news" events are started too quickly. And that many if not most such articles are kept when brought to AfD, mostly on the basis of recent coverage. I don't think everybody accepts this state of affairs but meeting an arguably premature article creation with an arguably premature AfD nomination is not by default the best answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:REFUND could do with some attention

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

---

There are about a dozen unanswered undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, with the oldest dating back to 8 September. Looking at the archives, prior to this week they were generally answered within a day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Exemption from WP:BURDEN at WP:DAYS

I'd like some additional eyes on a discussion at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding preserving the arbitrary exemption to WP:Burden that the project has granted themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1:--Why was this posted at AN? Wouldn't it be better to launch a RFC? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question. There are already at least two admins involved in the discussion. Deb (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lack of coffee. Good point, @Godric on Leave:. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on a heated AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of gaming platforms could use just a bit of watching for a few days. While nothing drastic outside of external canvassing so far has occurred, the article in question and this AFD discussion has been a focus of a large reddit forum, got to the site's front page, and could bring a bit of hostility here. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfies

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

---

I presume this means that the images that have (both in normal editing and utterly gratuitously) been used here as free images are now copyrighted? I would tag them all as copyvios at Commons except that the article is a little unclear about what the copyright status actually now is. It looks like the copyright has reverted to Slater but it's not obvious. Can anyone shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We're discussing this at Monkey selfie copyright dispute. It currently seems that the images are still PD within the US, since the court has affirmatively ruled animals can't claim copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my confusion - since the copyright has to belong to someone, presumably it reverts to Slater (especially as the article talks about any money made from the pictures, which again suggests copyright). Also, to be PD in the USA, the image has to be PD in the country of origin, which the article suggests it now isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The copyright does not have to belong to someone. Did the court rule about the human photographer's copyright claims? If no that does not tell us anything. That news article is not precise enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's my point. It refers to money being made from the sale of the images with 25% going to PETA, which suggests that Slater now has the copyright (otherwise anyone could do it). As you say, we'd need to see the actual judgement. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can sell something that is PD. Slater (or rather his company) does so (via gettyimages for instance). And to get rid of PETA he will now donate 25% of his sales of that image. So basically PETA has successfully extorted him. None of that influences the state of that image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Commons:File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg#No longer Public Domain? Probably has to be settled on Commons in the end. Maybe the most conservative thing to do would be to open a DR. No point in wasting extended discussion here, when it would just all have to be rehashed at the DR anyway. TJW^talk 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's this (Chapter 300, page 22, section 313.12) Copyright Office publication that says "A photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. That section has no relevance to whether he holds the copyright or not. These should be deleted from Commons, and should have been years ago. Wikipedia, Commons, WMF and Wikimania in particular, should be ashamed of their actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. No one said he was. Whatever your opinion of relevance, what's relevant for that sentence is "a photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen folks, this has apparently already been sent to DR and shut down only today. If you have a problem with it, take it up at Commons:AN or Commons:VPC, or start a new DR if you think you have something new to add. Those are the correct venues. TJW^talk 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of us are about to go ape shit crazy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more expansive description of the ruling, the judge found that a monkey has no "standing" to sue, so dismissed the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothy makes a valid point, which is that image usage on this project is subject to approval by whoever is in charge at Wikimedia Commons. If Wikimedia Commons decides that a particular image is OK, then that image will automatically be permissible here on English Wikipedia, regardless of any mere local consensus that it is not. That being the case, why complain? MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That does not sound right. Just because it is hosted there does not mean we have to use it, we can decide not to, as we do with most Commons images, most of which we do not use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's been vetted, then yes. But don't anyone go assuming that that screen shot of Batman is cool because it's on Commons. There are things on commons that have never been seen by beast nor man. TJW^talk 22:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that I assume if something is on Commons then I can use it in my article on English Wikipedia without worrying about anything at all -- NFCC, but also any other worries. That may be naive of me, but in reality many editors on many different language Wikipedias are probably doing the same. If Commons is wrong, then it needs to be fixed, if necessary by some wider body than whatever clique is in action at Commons at the time. MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any control over Commons here, but we do have control over what we do, and to revisit and revise what we do with any content. So, saying 'it's on commons so you relied', does not matter, nor is saying Commons decided, they decided to host it there, and we can decide not to use it. If those starting these discussions seriously want to revisit this, it should not be here at AN, but it should be someone who is motivated to really gather the RS, the history, and lay-out a cogent argument that's not ad hominem and conclusion. It should also probably be a WP:centralized discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why three parallel discussions?

Why are we discussing this here, at Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute, and at File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg? Could someone please step in and shut down two of those discussion, directing the reader to the remaining one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I... No. Shut them all down. None of them matter. Please direct people to the correct venues. TJW^talk 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So what is the "correct venue"? The files are protected on Commons so a deletion request can't even be filed. A DR was filed today on a derivative image Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2014 crossword final.png and was summarily closed after such obvious falsehoods as "We have court decision, that the photo is in public domain," (no, we have neither a court decision (it was an out of court settlement, so not binding on anyone outside that settlement), nor a court decision that it is PD) and " Not this again. Already discussed to death.", which is just another of the claims that both WP/Commons are incapable of error and that the external situation can't change.

As happens far too often, the Wikimedia response to external challenge is to circle the wagons and defend the establishment cabal. We should not do this, we should act correctly, even when that means admitting that Wikimedia has got it wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:VPC or Commons:AN. No conversation here will affect anything that happens there. You may as well be trying to reach consensus on an article on es.wiki or a page on Wikiquote. TJW^talk 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies. I expect it to be closed imminently. I expect every likelihood of being blocked for even raising this. I don't care - WP has to admit that it has behaved very badly over this and that its actions have ruined an innocent photographer. I can leave WP more easily than I can move house. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. We do not go there to decide what we do on English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:en:WP isn't hosting these, Commons is. If :en:WP wants to make a fair-use case for them, then that's probably justifiable, but then they'd be smaller images, and they wouldn't be offered under a claim of being freely licensed, such that they're widely re-used elsewhere, from a belief in WP's imprimatur. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Because these images are not copyrightable in the USA, no fair-use justification is needed; even if they're copyrighted in the source country (an allegation that's consistently been rejected), they could be hosted here under the same terms as File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg, which is PD-US but copyrighted in the source country. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"these images are not copyrightable in the USA"

Why not? Why can they not be Slater's copyright, as he claims? There is no ruling on that, either specific from a case related to this situation, or from a general principle.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if they're not copyrighted in the US, if they are copyrighted in their country of origin. Commons requires them to be PD in both in order for Commons to host them, see Commons:COM:L. That might be enough to permit them to continue on en:WP (and at full size, unlike for fair-use), but they'd still need to go from Commons, and they wouldn't be advertised as worldwide PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy, please start defending my claim to a copyright on those pictures. After all, you are defending Slater's copyright claim despite the fact that Slater did not take the pictures, and I also did not take the pictures, so to be consistent, you should defend my claim as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As a word of advice to Andy, I think the only place to even get traction on this is through the WMF since they "sanctioned" commons to keep them as PD after refusing to delete them and later stating that there cannot be copyright on the photos. And I doubt the WMF will change their mind given that the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014 to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sanctioned Commons to"? I've not seen a WMF statement on this, other than a verbal one that was mis-reported by the BBC [32] (the BBC text doesn't match the WMF audio).

" the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014" Nor have I seen this. The "no animal copyright" rules I've seen have pre-dated this, and were based on elephant paintings (there is a motion to dismiss the PETA case on the basis of this, and also on the principle that the mcaque has no standing in the court - but this was not a new ruling on copyright, based on the macaque case). Yet again though, I simply do not believe, "to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright" (I have made the same statement over and over today). There is a clear statement that "animals can't hold a US copyright", but that is too narrow to imply that these images are PD - it does not exclude the claim that Slater holds the copyright. I am unaware of any ruling on that, and without such a ruling, the situation still remains in significant doubt. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

[33] , Section 313.2. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oh Christ almighty. Commons is not the precipitous edge of the universe. Most people there speak English to a manageable level. We happen to use Commons for 90+ percent of our images. If anyone has an actual copyright problem then fix it at the source. If anyone isn't fluent in Commons then go get it, because a good measure of what you do here is dependent on it. Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies is where to take this conversation, and if you think this is a real copyright issue and this is going to expose WMF to litigation, then burying your head in the sand and saying "en.wiki will just ignore it" isn't really an option. TJW^talk 00:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Anti-harassment tools team's Administrator confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in mid September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Semi-Annual_Admin_Survey_Privacy_Statement

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a survey form.

If you have questions or want to share your opinions about the survey, you can contact the Anti-harassment tool team at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey or privately by email

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): do you mean September of this year ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and fixed. Thanks :-) SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My user name and password from en.wiki does not work at WMF? Tiderolls 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Foundation wiki is read only except for people that need access to add "official" content. So, you can't log in there. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Backlog

If a sysop has a moment to spare, could you swing by AIV and UAA and clean up the pending accounts, numerous waiting for blocks. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

C'mon @Ymblanter: - one for you, mate. And don't forget to thank him for his troubles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like stalking, no? (For the record, I worked a bit at AIV in the morning).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What, checking a noticeboard once a day and asking you to pull your weight? Wrong again. How many thanks did you get? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be snotty, Lugnuts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding template protection

What is the current thinking regarding the use of full protection vs. template protection on extremely high risk templates? PROTECT is not very explicit, but absent actual vandalism / edit warring, it seems to always prefer template protection. Broadly speaking, I think that makes sense, since letting more trusted users edit is generally a good thing. However, is there any threshold above which one wants to remain even more cautious than template protection? I got a request to downgrade the protection level on a template with millions of uses, so I wanted to double check. Also, is it worth proactively switching templates from full-prot to template-prot even if no one has made a request? I can think of a variety of templates that have had full protection since before the template-prot option was created. Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would say we should always go for a template protection. Template editors are not expected to produce damage visible in many articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Ymblanter. The template editors know what they're doing. That said, unless I get or see a request for downgrade, I leave the fully protected ones well enough alone. Katie^talk 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Dragons flight, on your last point (should we mass lower protection in the absence of need/requests), we had a discussion at WT:RFPP within the last year and decided, as Katie also suggested, to leave existing protection alone for the time being (unless there's a reasonable request, obviously). HTH, Samsara 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As someone who regularly patrols TPE requests, I can say that we hold our TE's up to very high standards. Subsequently, I don't know of anyone who has seriously broken a TE template nor had their right removed (at least since I got the mop). Granted, most used-by-millions-of-pages templates are (more or less) in their "final" form and never need to be updated, so echoing the above sentiments I don't think we really need to downgrade any existing protection just because it happened to be employed before the TE right existed. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to leave the biggest, most-visible alone (navbox, infobox, and CS1, not all-inclusive) given their visibility and their (intended) stability (CS1 changes but also has an involved user base). There are a few others in the millions that might reasonably be downgraded (wikiproject) given their somewhat-lesser visibility. Perhaps this should be a full RFC on WP:VPPRO or WT:Protection policy given the current lack of guidance. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• I did a while ago lower protection on some fully protected templates from full to template, using a rough cutoff of one million transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additionally, for templates that have millions of impressions due to being part mediawiki transclusions, full protection is often warranted. I find User:AnomieBOT/PERTable to be a good temperature gauge for this need - it rarely has template based backlogs in it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Cascade protected

I realized belatedly that the requested template is also subject to full cascade protection via Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. So downgrading it would also mean removing if from that page. That page is interesting as there does not appear to be a clear threshold for what is or is not included other than a subjective declaration that something is very high risk. Dragons flight (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

bears watching

User:NWO Globalist Slayer has an incredibly obnoxious user page. I don't know that it is against any Wikipedia rules, but it is certainly against Wikipedia traditions. It could just be viewed as "these are the 3 politicians I support." But it could also be viewed as threatening to many editors, especially those in the Philippines.

For the record, I'm one of the Wikipedia editors who occasionally expresses political opinions on my user page and sometimes on others talk pages, e.g. I have a "Register and Vote" poster on my user page. But I see a huge difference between that and User:NWO Globalist Slayer's user page.

My only request for action is that admins keep an eye on this user. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And their only edit is to ask that anti-Semitic nonsense about George Soros be added to his biography. Pretty clear case of someone not here to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What I wanted to add to the Soros article is not 'anti-Semitic nonsense'. I happen to be Jewish myself. I just want to add content related to what is an official White House petition that has now generated enough citizen signatures to require a presidential response. Please do not attempt to classify all Soros opponents as anti-Semitic. That's a red herring. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The user page has been tagged and deleted. The next edit from this user would probably result in the hammer. Alex Shih^Talk 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bears watching? I better keep an eye on my pic-a-nic basket then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) In all seriousness, I saw the user at UAA, and seeing their edits was considering a block for WP:NOTHERE to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, my user page was indeed just 3 politicians I support. Duterte and Putin are often portrayed as bogymen in the Western press. However, the truth is that they are populist leaders with widespread popular support in their respective countries-- probably the 2 most popular elected leaders of major states. As you mention, you have your political opinions expressed on your user page. It should not be any different from me as a new contributor. Please restore my user page. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef, a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, and likely a sock anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

110.77.210.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))  Proxy blocked. GAB^gab 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist

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

---

I've asked admin Materialscientist a question about a block he made, and did not get a response. I asked a few more times and still haven't received even an acknowledgement that he is aware of my request. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this thread. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Didn't see the previous notification. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You should probably be rather more specific about what block you're inquiring about, and directly link it. As best I can tell, you're asking about this block from March, which was for "Persistent addition of unsourced content," which is, indeed, quite worthy of a block. Competence is required, and if a user ignores repeated requests to provide sourcing for their additions, a block is merited. I see a number of talk page posts to that user providing advice, caution and warnings, and no evidence that the user had any interest in responding to those posts and addressing their behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A) I put the notification template on his talk page. B) Whether or not the block and length was valid, there is an issue with the lack of notification by MS which is why I asked for clarification and C) the lack of response to my queries does not conform to WP:ADMIN. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're even trying to get at. The notice was placed on the page of the user he blocked, 24.178.2.82 (talk). 24.178.29.47 (talk) was blocked by Berean Hunter. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Pretty basic admin stuff. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Maybe something else is afoot. Regardless, this discussion should be happening where this discussion was started. And even if everything is aboveboard with the block and notices (which is why I started the discussion in the first place) why is MS failing to respond to my questions? I'm afraid none of you can answer that with any degree of certainty.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not reading the responses you received here, thatMan? MS didn't make the block. Are you trout fishing? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Appears not? Have you even looked at the talk page that is littered with previous blocks and warnings? Questions about the template {{anonblock}} Should be taken up there and not with the admin who is using it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading them just fine. There are at least two ip addresses involved here. [34] is where this discussion should be taking place. At issue here is MS not responding whatsoever to my questions. Please stay on topicThat man from Nantucket (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you trolling? I find it hard to take this seriously. That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Already shown why. It has nothing to do with the administrator, and he did add the anonblock template. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. All you have to do is check the IP's edits and they will show you why it was blocked. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Yes. Directly on the talk page. Maybe something else is afoot. No, you literally have no argument and are confusing IPs.

If you have a question about the block for 24.178.29.47 (talk), then you need to speak with Berean Hunter, as they are the only person to block it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll kindly ask you to stay out of this if you won't even bother to take the discussion about the various blocks to the correct location. At present issue is MS not responding as his duties per WP:ADMINACCT. Nothing anyone here can say except MS can answer this. Perhaps he didn't see it, I've no idea. I asked a reasonable question about a block which is related to multiple ip addresses. He should take the time to at least respond. I'm willing to assume AGF, you should do the same. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Take the discussion to the correct location? Really? I'll look to see who opened the discussion here shall I. Oh, wait. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. And no, I won't stay out of it. Multiple users now have explained the rationale for the block as it is obvious. Your insistence that he "answer for his actions" is disruptive considering no one else is wondering why the block was made. WP:ADMINACCT only goes so far. Your complete insistence that everything be explained to you multiple times is disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And you, an admitted drama watcher is creating drama where there should be none. Wikipedia. I ain't asking you or anyone else to explain a damned thing. Because none of you even have the sequence of events down correctly, which is precisely why I don't want to "relitigate" the blocks with the denizens of the peanut gallery. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To the complaint that MS has not responded per WP:ADMINACCT, they haven't edited in 7 hours. It's very possible they aren't even AWARE this issue was brought up yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I've asked multiple times on his talk page over the past few days because I was told his pings are off, and I should post my query there. It's not like I rushed here to file a grievance. I'd still just be happy if he engaged, which is ironic because that is what these ips involved were blocked for.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist may have seen you pointed to a block by Berean Hunter, and figured BH accurately answered your questions for both questions. We are all volunteers, so while MS is required to explain his actions to those he blocked (which he did), he probably feels your questions were answered appropriately. I would recommend this thread be closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) modified 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a waste of time and has adequately been explained on all fronts. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: If you wandering, I made report on this IP early this month, and you can see why That man from Nantucket making a big deal about about the blocks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring too. Is it elsewhere? One could speculate about "perhaps" until the cows come home. Admins have an obligation to respond to reasonable inquiries. If they can't, they should resign their adminship. Peanuts, please don't. No one is seriously considering unblocking that ip. Your articles are safe for now.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your articles are safe for now. What is that supposed to mean? And if you're going to make suggestions about MS resigning over this isolated case, what do you propose should be done about the massive workload he bears? Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Mr Peanut has some ownership issues over some rap (music) relates articles. From what I gather it's mostly MOS related things that he doesn't want touched. Since both the ips are now blocked, it can't edit those articles. I think Peanut is concerned about the ip being unblocked, and I wanted to assuage him that wasn't going to happen. Regarding Materialscientist: No one at Wikipedia is irreplaceable. That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• On the one hand, although I hold Materialscientist in high regard, ADMINACCT seems clear that you have to explain your admin actions to anyone who asks in good faith, not just the person you blocked. On the other hand, because I hold MS in high regard, <wild ass assumption of what's going on> I can empathize with the frustration of someone demanding an explanation for a block that (a) expired months ago, (b) seems to be widely agreed to have been reasonable, (c) has essentially already been explained by others, and (d) is one of dozens (hundreds?) of blocks that MS has made this year, which uniformly help the encyclopedia, and I can imagine all bleed into one another after a while. </wild ass assumption of what's going on>

I think the best solution would be for TMFN to understand that ultimately everyone seems to agree that MS's block (and the subsequent BH blocks) was legit, and not force someone who might be frustrated to answer, even though he is entitled to one. That seems unlikely. The next best solution would be for MS, when he logs back on, to provide a short 2-3 sentence explanation, and if everyone except TMFN thinks it's an adequate response, then this can be closed. But empathy or not, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest closing the thread before MS responds, if TMFN insists. ADMINACCT is a pretty big deal to non-admins, and closing this unresolved just widens the divide between admin and mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it should be noted that TMFN's lack of clarity in this thread has made it difficult to determine exactly what questions he is asking and what answers he is seeking. There's something about multiple IPs and blocks without the admin's name in the template, but he's been vague and difficult to fully understand. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, the problem here is the ne'er do wells who took all of 5 minutes to decide, when they couldn't have understood the progression. That's ok, because it's what I expect of noticeboards. I didn't want to come here to argue about the block itself, but simply because I want a response from MS. I looked at his logs and MS makes a lot of blocks. If I had to bet, most of them are probably good. People shouldn't get their panties in a twist because I'm insisting he explain an administrative action he made. If someone points out a dubious block, MS might learn something and be a better admin for it. However, I've never seen an admin just not respond whatsoever to a question before, which is why I came here. I've left open the possibility that MS didn't see my question, or saw it and he meant to get to it later, etc. If that's the case, then no problem. I'm hoping that's the case. If he felt that another person explained it adequately, he should say so. But if he feels like he is not obligated to give a response he should be desysoped. Any admin that fails to follow policy should not be allowed to enforce it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  Are you upset because you've not received adequate information about the block, or are you upset because you haven't gotten the exact satisfaction you need by getting someone to follow your orders? If it is the former, please indicate what information you seek. If the latter, I suggest you drop the matter, because you're probably not going to get such satisfaction. Near as I can tell, the block has been fully explained above, MS is under no obligation to elaborate if all he is going to do is repeat what others have already said. Hearing him repeat what others have said already serves no purpose. I too, would have liked him to explain better in his own words, but the block itself has been adequately justified. I don't see that there is anything to be gained by demanding desysopping because he doesn't follow your orders. --Jayron32 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog at UAA

Hello, just wanted to let the admins know that there is a backlog at WP:UAA, going back to 13:00 UTC. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange Korean links being added by anonymous editors

Over the past few hours, I've been noticing the occasional IP like 210.105.148.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Each one adds links in the format

http://[domain].kr/cloud/[domain]_[word]_[number]/[number]

and then vanishes for a little while. All of these links lead to pages with the text "홈페이지 수정작업 중입니다.", apparently meaning "The homepage is being edited" or something of the sort in Korean. I'm not sure if the intention is to improve these sites' search engine rankings, replace the content with (e.g.) malware at a later date, or something else. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely up to no good. Add 210.105.150.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as 211.216.79.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and there's probably some range blocks to be had. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There may not be enough of them just yet to formulate one properly, not without being heavy-handed anyway. 210.105.0.0/16 and 61.75.205.0/24 seem deserving of attention for now. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've seen plenty. From what I've seen these are the relevant ranges so far; everything from these ranges for the last month has been this spam, and there's been no other edits for a long time:

61.75.205.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

210.105.144.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

211.216.79.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added \.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+ to the spam blacklist. This should catch all the variants I saw, but I'm somewhat concerned about collateral damage. MER-C 10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Independence Cup

Hi Admins! I don't know why there is a little fight between me and a user is going on for the edits on this page. I tried to message the user too, but the response I got wasn't helpful. Can anyone please help what to do to resolve the fight? Thanks! M. Billoo 07:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: This board is mainly for conduct issues, and that seems like a content dispute. Please see WP:DISPUTE for more information. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

HostBot malfunctioning

Sorry to do this, but I've just blocked HostBot as I noticed it placing welcome notices on the talk pages of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets, which seems highly inappropriate to me. I am about to be away from the computer for a bit, but if some admins review this and find it inappropriate then please feel free to unblock and reactivate the bot. Pinging Jtmorgan as a courtesy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

From a quick pick around on github, it would seem that this line could be passing the user's ID instead of username into a function that checks for blocks based on username. However, I'm not too sure how the db queries and invitee variable work, but it's a place to start. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Ivanvector. Can you provide an example of a particular user that HostBot invited, but shouldn't have? I'll need at least one false-positive to debug. @The Voidwalker: I'll start by reviewing that function--thanks to you too J-Mo 23:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Muchglobing seems like one such. I'll go see if there is anything else. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Suva Declaration, User talk:Blarkin16, User talk:Sourav hansda, User talk:HarodsStore, and User talk:JODWA were also blocked (and sometimes templated) prior to an invitation. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Muchglobing is the one that came up in my watchlist. The bot left an invitation roughly two hours after a Checkuser blocked the account and I created its user page with the sockpuppet template. Apologies for not leaving a link to the account in my original post, I was in a rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @The Voidwalker: I've fixed the issue with block detection. An outdated Python 2 module I imported was throwing an error that caused the API call for block status not to run. I have an earlier step in the process that detects blocks that happened a while before the invite script runs, and those blocks were being detected and addressed, but more recent blocks (anything less than a few hours, depending on the current state of replication lag on the public logging table) were not being caught and those users were being invited.

In the process of addressing these issues, I've found/introduced other (unrelated) bugs with the bot that need to be addressed. I won't be able to start the bot again until I fix those bugs. So I don't know where that leaves us now: what do I have to demonstrate before the bot can be unblocked? Unfortunately, I may not have time to fully fix HostBot for several weeks. When I'm ready to test the bot again, who should I talk to about lifting the block? J-Mo 00:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I'll be mostly inaccessible for most of the next few days. In my opinion, if you believe you've fixed the bugs, then go ahead and unblock the bot yourself, or ask another admin and point to this comment as my endorsement-in-lieu. Thanks for taking care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use automated tools (regarding a community sanction imposed in July 2017)

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

---

I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to me two months ago ([35]) to use automated tools from my main account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: What tools are you referring to ? You usually do not have to ask permission here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I am under two(?) sanctions that prohibit me from using automated tools from my main account. The first was imposed to me two months ago and I am able to contest this since September 7 which I am doing here. The remedies second is from an ArbCom case. At this time it seems that both sanctions are in place while they seem to ovelap each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious now, my query is moot. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: To be honest, using tools that are provided from the Wikipedia enviroment like Hot-Cat also makes total sense. These tools do not allow any automated editing. But after all this drama I am lost in which place to post my request. Even the initial sanction was mentioning "the community". This ould be the Village pump for instance? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Less than two weeks ago, after a long ArbCom case, one of their remedies was; "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account." I'm perplexed why you would ask for WP:AN to overturn an ArbCom remedy. Too soon, wrong venue, and 0% chance of success. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam The restriction imposed by the community had a period of 1 month and has expired. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The community sanction may have been for one month, but the ArbCom sanction is indefinite. "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account" is not hard to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

A) Which is the correct venue?

B) Does th ArbCom santion mean that the previously community sanction is not valid anymore? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(A) Right now, there is no correct venue; ArbCom is not going to relax their remedies when they've been in place for less than 2 weeks. Eventually, the correct place will be WP:ARCA. But man, I really hope you don't do that any sooner than 6-12 months from now. It will make things worse for you to do it earlier, not better, I am extraordinarily confident. (B) The ArbCom sanction specifically superseded portions of the community sanction (it says which ones in the remedies). Are there any unexpired community restrictions that have not been specifically superseded? If so, I suppose those could be appealed here, but I kind of doubt they exist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee No to all automated tools? You could for example propose that some tools may be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No I think the ArbCom remedy/sanction is pretty clear. And I gotta say, asking here sure strikes me as a bad idea for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I am referring to the community sanction imposed more than 2 months ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. Frankly, this is starting to look like you're intentionally trolling ... surely, you're able to understand that the ArbCom remedy is in force, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. If you assure me that this is not valid anymore. I am OK with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. The ArbCom sanction says "Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia" and "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account". In effect, the community sanction has been confirmed by ArbCom and made stronger. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton In fact you say that the one sanction replaced the other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense or intellectual honesty could figure that out. "You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. -User:Ealdgyth". The wording of your request ("I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to [sic] me...") tells me that your were attempting an end-run around your sanction and hoping nobody noticed. --Calton | Talk 23:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton I was told to address to the community two months after the block. That's what I did. As you see there are two sanctions. You say the one is not valid anymore. Nice to hear that. Let's see what the others say. I think it's obvious that the ArbCom one should be the only activeat the moment but you never know! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth For me it's important because I had a disagreement with Headbomb whether the community saction will be valid after the ArbCom. It's good to know tthat for this matter I can't address to the AN anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to help you if you would just explain what your actual problem is up front, instead of being cryptic and/or sneaky, and link to the sanctions you're appealing, instead of expecting people to look for it themselves. Disrespectful waste of our time. So, after research, if I understand right, the community sanction against automated edits is still valid; before the ArbCom case closed, it could be appealed starting 7 Sept., but did not automatically expire. The subsequent ArbCom sanction against automated edits was probably intended to supersede the community sanction, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere (probably a small oversight), so technically they are both in force, and technically I suppose they would both need to be appealed before you can do automated editing again. In practice it makes no sense to appeal the community sanction now, because it would have no real effect, and because you're starting to piss off people who up to now might have felt bad for you, so I doubt any editor is going to support this. Deal with this if/when when you appeal the ArbCom sanction, which again, I cannot emphasize enough, you should do in no less than 6 months, and 12 months would be smarter. At that time, ask them for clarification on whether a separate appeal of the community ban is needed or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Thanks. Exactly. This is the problem. There seem to be both valid at this point. I would like to see this one go away to have only one to deal in the future. Which makes totally sense since the ArbCom one is newer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For future historians studying this (possibly for a dissertation "The Inherent Dysfunction of Wikipedia, and Why All Rational People Eventually Screamed 'Aaaaaaaagh' And Gave Up On It"), note that Magioladitis changed his initial request. it did not originally have a link to the sanction he is talking about. That's what I'm complaining about above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

True.My initial statement made nosense for the non-experts of the case and I apologise for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of bad ideas: ...I'll probably re-run for admin in the next days. -- User:Magioladitis 22:18, 14 September 2017 --Calton | Talk 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton This is off-topic though! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note This is not a request about the ArbCom sanction. It's a request regarding only thee community sanction that was imposed before the ArbCom one. Both seem to be active at this time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I'm reading the ArbCom sanction, it includes the wording This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.. This means that the ArbCom sanction has now taken the place of the community sanction, rather than both being active at the same time. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 Wow. I guess you are right. I am puzzled I did not notice that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Queries about looking for sockpuppets

• If two or more or several Wikipedia usernames are using the same IPA address, how often is it caused by?:-
  1. Sockpuppets.
  2. More than one person living at the same address are Wikipedia users.
  3. User:A leaves an address, then User:B moves in at that same address.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Would not choosing the criterion be a function of editing overlap, interests etc? Anyway, I have seen some users who have user-boxes mentioning of theirs' sharing IPs with other users.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but elsewhere a number of people share IPs because of mobile connections that run through shared IP pools. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can only generalize and speculate since I'm not a Checkuser and can't see the IP address of registered accounts, but I suspect sockpuppetry is more common than coliving in IP-in-common situations. CU can reveal more than just an IP address anyway, and two people at the same location sharing a connection but on different equipment would appear distinct. In the third case it would be somewhat unlikely that User:B would end up with the same IP as User:A, unless maybe in a landlord-provides-internet situation, and then other technical information would distinguish the two users anyway. Also, let me know where the IPA address is, it's the weekend in like 4 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 🍻

Request to administrators to look at this account

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

---

Dear Sir / Madam,

Greetings!

It is my request to administrators to look at the edits happening from this account and take appropriate actions. I am compelled to do so specially after seeing this edit where an organization has received a BLP tag. This person is not ready to read that the article itself says that it is an organization. I do not know much about roll-baking but I would even request to rollback all the edits done by this user if found needed by administrators. Thanks in advance. I have tried to behave in civil manner with this person but he is not ready to listen. He was blocked once as per the block log. Kindly let me know if I should change any of my behavior / editing style. Thanks a lot for your time and efforts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, are you sure that this does not need a boomerang. And your in gen. behaviour seems to say so! Also, it may be prudential for you to know that semi-trolling and casting personal attacks of the sort you indulged in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashok Vaidya could quickly land you with a block.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To avoid that Sir / Madam, I will refrain from any communication with him. Direct or indirect. Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya is the person who has highest contributions in the filed of research in Ayurveda in my opinion. I am an expert on this topic. I do not care if that article remains or is deleted from Wikipedia. His respect is far more important to me than the article itself. Comparing him to a food item because of similarity in his name is surely an attempt to ridicule him. He surely does not deserve this. Especially after knowing the huge work done by him. Kindly let me know if any of things are wrong. Thank you. I am very happy that finally someone has started seeing at the account and the edits. I believe in judgement of administrators at Wikipedia and till date I have not found any wrong judgments by them. Thanking you, Yours sincerely -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He was prob. not ridiculing him and if even he has that does not authorise your actions. For a note, there exists a a quite popular vada-pao vendor with the same name and gathers (prob.) more hits than the subject.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure exactly what is being requested here, or why. Rolling back thousands of edits probably isn't going to happen here, especially not without giving a reason. Κσυπ Cyp   11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand if it is needed here. I am very happy that finally great people like administrators are taking a look the accounts and edits being made by the account. Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is being said that "He was prob. not ridiculing him". I am happy and at peace if that is really true. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As for your original complaint reg the BLP sources tag, that's very likely just a Twinkle misclick, but I'm more concerned about that article, sourced just to a primary source and nothing else and Godric's example of your posts is even more concerning. And as you've asked above, you do have to change, if you think a subject is notable then show the sources, not post screeds like you did at the afd . —SpacemanSpiff 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues to show the references. I have always put more and more references when needed. In a case I have put more references than needed to start with because I know the importance of references. But here the particular person is putting speedy deletion tags on many articles and many are asking him to slow down on his talk page but it seems that he is not ready to listen. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that there can be 'Twinkle misclick' if it is happening at one place. I am not sure how many damages this person / account is doing to Wikipedia itself. You all are big people with great experience of editing and administrating. If you feel that no action needs to be taken on this account, not even a suggestion, then you must be right. I mean I do believe the judgement of Wikipedia Admins more than mine in cases like these. I am happy that I have brought it to the notice of admins and you will take appropriate action if needed. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep taking about damage etc but haven't provided any diffs, in fact the only diff that you provided shows you in bad light, and add to that what Godric dug and it's worse. So, cut this "you people" crap, you brought in a complaint and haven't substantiated it, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will need some time to study this account in detail. But if you want me to do that, I will do that. I am an investigator in scientific experiments and I do love investigations. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo

There has been an unblock request open at User talk:Hidden Tempo for a month, with no admin apparently willing to review it so far. I won't review it myself, partly because my name already appears in Hidden Tempo's block log.

The block was made by User:MastCell with a reason of "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring; repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban".

User:Bishonen offered to convert the block to a topic ban from post-1932 American politics, but that was not accepted and has now expired.

I now think the only realistic way out of the stalemate is to turn it over to the ultimate authority, the Wikipedia community, to decide. The discussion at the user talk page is lengthy, and I doubt I could summarize it fairly to the satisfaction of all parties - so with my apologies, anyone wanting to help will need to see what's been happening for themselves.

Current options include unblock, decline unblock, and convert the block to Bishonen's suggested topic ban - but obviously, anyone here is free to make other proposals. I will not offer any opinions in this discussion myself, and I'll leave it to someone else to close and implement whatever is decided. Whatever the outcome, those who contribute will certainly have my gratitude (and, I suspect, the gratitude of other admins too).

So it's over to you, folks... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am bothered by the following paragraph that they (Hidden Tempo) posted in the discussion on their talk page: Since such diffs do not exist, especially in non-AP2 articles, this poses a dilemma for a potential declining admin. I also suspect that your reluctance to dissent from highly influential and powerful admin heavyweights like Bishonen and MastCell is a common sentiment in the admin community. This sounds like FUD to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that MastCell has not provided diffs is true. Sanctions are supposed to be grounded in evidence, and if serious sanctions like indefinite editing bans are to be handed out, there should surely be solid evidence to back up them up. I find it troubling that after so much time, the original blocking admin has not provided diffs, and that it's viewed as somehow wrong for Hidden Tempo to point this out. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether MastCell did or did not provide diffs does not invalidate my concern. Besides, not everybody relies on diffs some people prefer to read a page history to get to conclusions as it provides more context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely false to suggest that I didn't provide evidence for the block. I've addressed this falsehood repeatedly, including here. I'm disappointed that some people continue to repeat it, and would ask that others don't accept this falsehood uncritically. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In the post you linked, you did not provide any diffs showing what was supposedly problematic about Hidden Tempo's behavior since his return to editing on 2 July 17 March. If it really is a falsehood to say that you have not provided diffs, then please correct the record and link to a post where you did, in fact, provide diffs detailing Hidden Tempo's behavior since 2 July 17 March. You've spent a lot of time calling this a falsehood, during which time you could have actually linked to such a post, or provided diffs. I've looked through the history of this sanction, trying to find where you posted diffs, and I haven't been able to find it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

MastCell pointed to the "Trump-hater" comment, which goes back to this edit (or maybe an earlier one), and the edit-warring that followed it, and the entire godforsaken thread on the Stephen Miller talk page where Hidden Tempo is just digging a hole. "Cosmopolitan bias" is indeed what Miller said, that's indisputable, in this ridiculous exchange, so this has no merit (Politico's "It’s a way of branding people or movements that are unmoored to the traditions and beliefs of a nation, and identify more with like-minded people regardless of their nationality" was well paraphrased as "deficit of nationalism"), and merely leaving Miller's insult to Acosta, without much context, is indeed undue if not an outright BLP violation. So that entire talk page thread is based on a false assumption, plus it shows what others have noted and what I will call (sorry HT) an uncollegial tone ("bud", and the rather patronizing pointing at some diagram). Muboshgu gives an insightful analysis, albeit brief, on the problem with HT's edit (look for "It's Miller's POV/spin"), and TheValeyard, early in the thread, makes an IMO correct observation: "You aren't being attacked; you're being called out for making poor-quality editing choices, and attempting to edit-war to keep your poor-quality edits in". Rjensen reverted HT too, and I've not seen Rjensen at the weekly dispersal of Soros checks. It seems to me that any admin who looks over that discussion sees what led to the block. (BTW I'm glad the Colbert nonsense was removed from the article--thanks HT.) Drmies (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Drmies - it appears that you are now addressing the content dispute itself, rather than discussing the validity of MastCell's diff-less block. You will probably not be surprised that I entirely disagree with your view that the Politico op-ed was sufficient for the material. You may remember that I was once blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for referring to an 11% trustworthiness rating as a "feeble" number[36], since the RS I used (not an op-ed, by the way) did not also use the word "feeble." This is why I believed the imaginative and very loose interpretation of the op-ed to be a BLPVIO, and required its removal (see FT2's explanation below). Additionally, even if the material passed mustard, that page is a BLP and therefore editors must not reinstate contested material that had been removed, without building consensus on the talk page. I have no clue what Rjensen's views are on the activities of one George Soros, and fail to see how they're relevant to WP:BLPREMOVE policy, which really couldn't be more clear. But this AN report is not a forum to debate the content. This is about my diff-less, evidence-free block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. RexxS is a pretty straight shooter, and this edit summary indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. User:Boing! said Zebedee, of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is only about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You're now starting to make the case that MastCell has refused to spell out for the past month. If that case justifies a topic ban or an indefinite ban on editing altogether, then it should be made after this situation is cleared up. The problem here is that we are dealing with a month-old ban in which the blocking admin has very conspicuously not provided evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: Less than a week ago you dismissed the following commentsfrom another participant in the Miller thread (made elsewhere): "You pulled that out of your ass", "for fuck's sake", "Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake" as merely "feisty". Here you identify HT's use of "bud" as a problem. Can you understand why some may think different standards are applied to different editors?

The content HT removed has since been removed by consensus. That should tell us what we need to know about who was on the right side of the edit even if they were not on the right side of policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, I don't know why others think what they do. "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't demeaning to the person. "You made a mistake" is an attempt at a factual statement; it can be right or it can be wrong--similar with "bullshit excuse". "For fuck's sake" is an expression of exasperation for which one often cannot blame the speaker. Or one can--it doesn't matter. None of these three are attacks on a person, though one may well say they're not really polite in all circumstances. (If I had to take issue with anything it's with the imperative...) Are you with me so far? Drmies (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: This is getting comical. Without a hint of irony, you're trying to argue that "bud" is more "uncollegial" than "you pulled that out of your ass." Your attempt to even argue this point seriously calls your impartiality into question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As the real Thucydides said, with age comes wisdom. I hadn't gotten to "bud" yet. You are welcome to actually read my words, and then our policy, which has the keyword "personal" in it. Besides, I'm more interested in James's response, though I'll gladly entertain you while I'm waiting. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, don't get so hung up on ass. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Jo-Jo_Eumerus - I and others welcomed the blocking administrator multiple times to provide the diffs showing the behavior for which I am blocked. He declined each and every time. They were never produced by MastCell, or any of the other administrators who took a passing glance at the UBR. If you believe my quote: to be an example of FUD, my invitation to supply diffs showing this pattern of WP:TEND-behavior since my TBAN remains open. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock per time served. I read the entire history, I see the past bad behavior, but per WP:ROPE I think we can safely say that anything, and I mean anything, resembling poor behavior will lead to an immediate indef block with nary a chance for appeal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Accept TBAN, oppose unblock without restrictions - The mere fact that no admin is willing to close this request is an indication of the time-drain presented by this editor. The editor appears to believe that disagreement with their positions is clear evidence of bias, or worse. There exist numerous examples of the editor’s tendentious editing, snarks, condescension, edit-warring, POV-pushing, rejection of reliable sources, and unwarranted accusations of bias. Indeed, WP:CIR is suggested by the striking claim that a block didn’t mean you couldn’t register a sock. Like MastCell, I do not want to provide diffs as I have a life and don’t want to be sucked into unending arguments. After all that has occurred, HT still appears to think this is about the actions of other editors/admins, instead of the editor’s own actions. I don’t see how an unblock is warranted even as the editor continues to strike out at admins. IMO, Bishonen’s offer of a TBan was not only generous, but could have been beneficial to the editor. Should the prevailing view of the community suggest a TBan, I would probably not argue against it. Although, I think we’d probably be back here or elsewhere at a later date continuing discussions of their behavior yet again. Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page are so convoluted is because lots of editors have time to make comments but few have the time to provide diffs. Let's try to avoid duplicating that problem here. D.Creish (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

More than adequate rational was provided for the block. Objective3000 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've already chimed in on the talk page, so I'm not sure whether a bold vote here in this section too is appropriate, but in general Jo-Jo Eumerus has it right, I think. They say FUD, I'd say Chewbacca defense, but it amounts to the same thing. I don't understand the desire to give sockpuppeting political POV pushers endless final chances in the topic area; 3 chances (or 4, depending on how you count) should have been enough. Serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  Floquenbeam (only pinging for courtesy) - Again, I am not "sockpuppeting." I made 10 edits to two talk pages with a sockpuppet in February. It was a mistake, I admitted it, and it's done with. Still no diffs for the "POV-pushers" aspersion. Your qualifier "final chances in the topic area" is the lead, here. The unblock is a no-brainer. The real question is to TBAN or not to TBAN, which is an AE issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mandruss and Boing! said Zebedee: could you guys decide on just one way to transfer comments here? As it is, I've now been pinged 3 times for the same comment. The original ping on HT's talk page, this inline copy/paste, and the bottom section copy/paste. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't spotted that Mandruss was copying the comments across, so I've reverted my copy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Very sorry for the inconvenience. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN but oppose unblock without restrictions - I haven't time to review that entire page, I doubt most editors would. I reviewed the latest unblock request and on its face it seems sensible; Hidden Tempo has addressed the issues leading to the block much more rationally than the vast majority of unblock requests I've ever seen and so I trust they understand why they were blocked. However, I'm also reading some quite recent WP:NOTTHEM and so I'm wary of letting them go straight back into the topics where their edits led to a block. Thus I endorse Bishonen's topic ban proposal - even though it's "expired" there are many administrators already suggesting HT take the offer (add me to that list) but I cannot support unblocking without restrictions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock without conditions. This is very simple: MastCell did not provide diffs to back up their characterization of Hidden Tempo. Indefinite bans cannot be handed out without evidence. The argument that Hidden Tempo is a time-drain on the community is especially troubling. Banning an editor without evidence, and then accusing them of wasting time when they defend themselves is just Kafkaesque. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The total amount of discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page is overwhelming. FT2's summary of the situation in this section (User_talk:Hidden_Tempo#Review_of_block) is concise and covers the relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock without conditions. I agree with Thucydides411. The blocking admin continues to fail to provide the diffs, all while accusing another editor of failing to answer one of their questions. We already have one admin currently hauled before ArbCom for repeated failure to provide evidence. Add to that the fact that MastCell returned from a 1.5 month hiatus right before handing down an indef block, and I get the strong impression that Hidden Tempo has not been treated fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question[37]. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. Hidden Tempo (talk) 11:24, Today (UTC−5)
• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated. Mastcell has provided a sufficient rationale at the time of the block, and subsequently to explain the block, and its clear from HT's editing history the topic ban prior to the block served its purpose in preventing disruption. Regardless of if HT accepts a topic ban or not, he can be unblocked and have one imposed upon him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• A couple of points:
  1. It isn't fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs or rationale for the block. MastCell blocked from an open thread at ANI and provided a rationale there (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Sanity_break) and then when challenged, MastCell gave more detailed rationale here and here and here.
  2. "Indefinite" block does not mean forever. The block lasts only as long as it takes for the user to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fix it. That's the reason no admin was willing to touch the unblock request. Hidden Tempo clearly doesn't recognize there's a problem, and instead spends their time attacking the blocking admin and any others they perceive as enemies.
  3. In my review of the editor's history after having been pinged to the talk page, I found what appeared to be a history of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. Part of the problem is that the user seems to categorize editors into camps based their contributions to political articles. (You can see a small sample of this by going to the user's talk page and doing a Ctrl+F for "editing pattern", or for a longer read, read the sentences where HT uses the term "AP2".)
  4. I would have been happy to unblock the user myself if I had seen anything resembling a serious commitment to fix the problem. I didn't.

Based on this, I think the best path forward would be to implement the topic ban as proposed by User:Bishonen. It would have been better if the user had accepted that themselves, or proposed a suitable alternative, but the time for that has passed I'm afraid. ~Awilley (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous diffs of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and poisons the well by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, then I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the specific edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed WP:GAB to the letter, and I did it with diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Awilley wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK YOU BOSS" or something like that? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, in certain circumstances it's quite clear. In others, not so much. If my boy gets sent home because he has pants with belt loops but is not wearing a belt (OMFG yeah we have those kinds of rules in America), I can complain because in kindergarten you are allowed pants with belt loops but without belt. And if he gets sent home for some stupid infraction I may well ask why, since his sister and I do our best every morning to make sure we're following all the pissy little rules. But if he shows up with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a ****" (I won't write this common British insult, but the shirt exists) I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't make it into the classroom. And my arguing that the shirt actually had the proper school colors is not going to help him much. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from WP:ADMINACCT and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a very polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: It is fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs. Looking through the ANI post you linked and the three subsequent explanations, the thing that strikes me is that MastCell did not provide diffs showing a pattern of problematic behavior since Hidden Tempo had returned to editing American Politics. The diffs that MastCell did provide were simply rehashes of the previous sanctions. MastCell's rationale appears to boil down to: you were sanctioned previously, so I don't need to provide evidence that your current editing is problematic - I can simply declare it to be so. MastCell has had plenty of opportunities to provide diffs showing that HT's post-sanction behavior is problematic, and they have, for whatever reason, not done so.

As far as I'm concerned, this refusal to provide evidence should render the sanction invalid. If sanctions are warranted, any administrator is free to gather evidence in the form of diffs, present it to the community, and propose new sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock while restoring the topic ban I've said it from the beginning when I was pinged by HT initially and I will repeat it again. The only way to move this forward is to enact the first step, which is to unblock the editor and restore the topic ban. Only then we can have discussions about the validity of the ban and the administrative actions – these discussions cannot happen concurrently. Therefore, I agree with Ivanvector and Awilley, endorse the offer proposed by Bishonen even though it has expired. Alex Shih^Talk 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban is a minimum. I agree with Awilley, Bish, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by reviewing admin: I was pinged by Alex Shih on 23 August and reviewed the block, so I'll not opine on the unblock request itself (I said I would defer on that to others). I would like to draw the community's attention to my summary findings. 1/ HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc. During July 2 to 1 Aug he was not on TBAN and there were again no adverse issues noted. This suggested that a full indef might not be needed to protect the project. The sole issue since was a BLP dispute in early Aug, where HT may in fact have been right per policy (the reinstater must demonstrate BLP is complied with for negative reinsertions and HT's concern was not addressed). I did see CIV/AFG issues but the user was evidently trying to improve in those areas.I asked for anything else adverse since March/July showing the behavior in the block, and none was provided. Against that, the few respected admins who did opine, such as Bishonen, felt there were concerns as evidently did the blocking admin. I remain concerned on the question of whether too much reliance is placed on stale conduct and whether it obscures a lack of recent and as-claimed conduct. Also about the blocking admin's handling (I felt the block was 'sloppy' and could have been improved by good handling). My review is on HT's talk page if wanted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock With Indef TBAN "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" is an accurate summary of his behavior. Switching from a block to a TBAN including American Politics seems reasonable. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unconditional unblock. MastCell was well within his discretion to make the block, and it was adequately explained and well supported. Agree with Awilley, Bish, Drmies, that indefinite topic ban from American politics is a minimum. I have to say that HT's reaction to the unblock is really illuminating. It would be one thing if HT took an approach along the lines of "I understand that my conduct here was not ideal for X and Y reasons, but I can be a productive editor and going forward will commit to do X, Y, Z." Instead he took a more confrontational approach: bashing the blocking admin, refusing to admit fault or error, and declining the initial, generous offer to convert the indef block into a topic ban. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen this, this, this, this and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking WP:BLPREMOVE into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: "bashing the blocking admin", when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction without the required diffs, especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says this, and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock Looking at HT's replies above and to admins on his talk page doesn't fill me with confidence that they even understand why they were blocked in the first place. Usually the first thing you have to do to get unblocked from indefinite is to explain how you handle these situations if they arise again. I don't see that happening here. Valeince (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another WP:BLPREMOVE issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock I don't see that this is a stalemate. It's not a conundrum, it's a block. Seems warranted. Standard reinstatement framework should apply. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Favor indef block; oppose any unblock without indef TBAN. Christ Almighty that was an infinitely long history to read through on his talkpage. Bottom line, the user has demonstrated multiple bad-faith behaviors, including socking to evade a TBAN, lying about that, and then endlessly wikilawyering and evading reality/facts in the discussions on his talkpage and here (why are we letting him endlessly disrupt the conversation here?). Given the discussions I read, I do not think this editor is a net positive on Wikipedia, and I personally believe they will probably continue to be a disruptive influence and timesink if they are unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with a sockfarm

The Air India article, and others related to it, are currently the target of a large sockfarm run by Modern Fire. Would it be appropriate to place the article under extended confirmed protection? Pinging admins MilborneOne who has been keeping a weather eye on the articke, KrakatoaKatie and Widr, who have been dealing with dirty socks for their opinions. Other editors opinions equally welcome. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, this is ripe for ec-protection. The sockmaster seems content to create and autoconfirm many sleeper accounts so semiprotection will be ineffective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - No telling how long this could go on for. Genuine edits can be made via the {{requested edit}} system. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've set the page to EC Protection. It's unfortunate that the page had to be set this way, but the sockfarm is persistent and not going away any time soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. As I said, that was the main article they were targeting, but others related to it may be affected. Presumably they can be dealt with in the same manner if required. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)