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. 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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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

Requests for comment

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 82 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 80 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 63 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 58 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 55 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 55 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 50 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 39 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that at least two of the accounts active on the Talk:Yasuke page in an oppositional role, myself and @Green Caffeine, are not at all SPAs, and we have brought up serious issues with various sources claimed as "reliable". These issues remain unaddressed, and mostly ignored by various editors (unfortunately, including Loki here), who continue to call references "reliable" even after it has been shown that the works have been academically reviewed and described as "historical fiction", and even contain outright fabrication. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 30 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	0	21	21
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	20	20
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 57 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors, I drafted a closure at WP:DfD which can be drawn from, Tom B (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 33 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 25 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Together_(coalition)#Requested_move_16_June_2024_2

(Initiated 13 days ago on 16 June 2024) A move/rename discussion has taken place here alongside a merge discussion, the merge discussion has reached consensus, and I believe there's a case to be made that there is consensus on the name change, but a third party is required to determine if the discussion should be closed or not. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (51 out of 7971 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Empire of Japan 2024-06-29 23:23 2024-07-29 23:23 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik File talk:Yes check.svg 2024-06-29 20:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni 2024-06-29 19:03 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector Template:Onesource 2024-06-29 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2601 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Saraswat Brahmin 2024-06-29 14:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Kalki 2898 AD 2024-06-29 14:41 2024-10-11 05:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing ToBeFree Talk:Maheshwari Flag 2024-06-29 08:13 2024-07-02 08:13 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Cristiano Ronaldo Jr 2024-06-29 05:41 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz S-500 missile system 2024-06-29 00:05 indefinite edit extending protection indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement per CTOPS) Swatjester Karhade Brahmin 2024-06-28 23:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Generation Beta 2024-06-28 19:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; regular attempts to restore article from redirect Daniel Case Chavda dynasty 2024-06-28 16:41 indefinite edit,move Sock puppetry resumed after previous protection expired Abecedare Chavda (Rajput clan) 2024-06-28 16:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; battling sock armies; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Draft:Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD António Costa 2024-06-28 14:51 2025-06-28 14:51 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Moruf Oseni 2024-06-28 13:26 indefinite edit,move for AfD improvement by established editors Star Mississippi Battle of Tel Hai 2024-06-28 12:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Amana (organization) 2024-06-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Bağanıs Ayrım 2024-06-28 12:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Stuart Brotman 2024-06-27 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart N. Brotman. Should go through AfC Star Mississippi Puri (surname) 2024-06-27 20:24 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather Anfal campaign 2024-06-27 20:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Russo-Circassian War 2024-06-27 19:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Ideology of Palestinian Islamic Jihad 2024-06-27 19:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Template:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Bania (caste) 2024-06-27 17:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Vikidia 2024-06-27 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Filippo Berto 2024-06-27 09:06 2024-12-24 08:42 edit,move upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Bay of Pigs 2024-06-27 08:39 indefinite move Move warring Lectonar Rajputs in Gujarat 2024-06-27 05:12 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Agri (caste) 2024-06-27 05:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Other Backward Class 2024-06-27 05:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Monashee Spirits 2024-06-27 04:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Robertsky Thakor 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Thakur (title) 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Chhokar 2024-06-27 00:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; potentially several sockfarms including Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Chokar Kalan 2024-06-27 00:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Mehr people 2024-06-27 00:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Domaal Rajputs 2024-06-27 00:31 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; multiple sockfarms Abecedare Laur (clan) 2024-06-27 00:07 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Makwana Kolis 2024-06-26 23:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Chauhan (Clan) 2024-06-26 22:33 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Chauhan Kolis 2024-06-26 22:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Abecedare Hezbollah armed strength 2024-06-26 19:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA; in addition to existing community sanctions Daniel Case Module:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler/RedirectType 2024-06-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Module:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Proposed states and union territories of India 2024-06-26 13:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIND; upgrade to WP:ECP, maybe not indefinitely, but for a considerable time El C Khanpur, Gujarat 2024-06-26 05:04 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Punjabi Muslims 2024-06-26 03:12 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Punjabis 2024-06-26 02:25 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE and recent disruption Daniel Case

Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo

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

---

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[1], 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)

For what it's worth, I didn't see the above comment about my block as anything more than just a statement of fact. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 16 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 Oppose unblock - 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 (my opinion has changed, see subsequent comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC) - 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[2]. 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)

Addendum: I should clarify that I think the user should be unblocked (and not community banned) as they have not to my knowledge proved themselves a net-negative in any area other than American politics. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 20 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)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 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)

• This again shows no insight at all. The implication of impropriety by MastCell is completely meritless. Multiple editors (Drmies and MrX among them) have produced multiple diffs. Take diff 1 - do you think this is acceptable? Or diff 2 - do you understand why others (like MrX and me) think that this was an abuse of BLP? Saying "oh, I violated 3RR" does not show acceptance of responsibility. You've acknowledged no problems with the substance of the edits. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs pre-2016 TBAN. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits after the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the post-TBAN diffs that show the post-TBAN problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.

  I understand that you have a different interpretation of WP:BLPREMOVE than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): "[I] made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion.","I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur","While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so [per WP:BLPREMOVE"],"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.". So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 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)
• Oppose any unblock 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 pretending not to know that was wrong, 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); edited 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC); revised !vote 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I did not "lie" about it.[3][4] An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I misspoke; what I meant to say or refer to is what Floquenbeam noted on HT's talkpage (User talk:Hidden Tempo#Thoughts that might break the block review logjam):"HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong": [5] (bolding in original). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock without indefinite topic ban - To me, the clearest indication of the problematic nature of this user is what happened the last time they were topic-banned. On 2 December 2016, Bishonen imposed an AP2 topic ban. Between that date and 2 July 2017, the length of the topic ban, Hidden Tempo made a grand total of 63 article-space edits, along with a ban-evading sockpuppet. That is not indicative of a user who has, or who intends to, learn anything and improve their behavior during a topic ban by constructively and substantially contributing in other, non-problematic topic areas. Indeed, immediately upon the ban's time-limited expiration, they returned to tendentious, combative editing in the same topic area. There are several million other topics on Wikipedia to contribute to besides ones related to American politics after 1932, and if this user is truly interested in contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to pushing a single political POV, they should take a year or so to edit those other topics, learn how to work constructively with other users and then ask for the restrictions to be lifted based on that new track record. If they have no interest in other topics, then they are not really here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, but if unblocked must be with indefinite topic ban - per NorthBySouthBaranof. I find the explication of the editor's behavior while under a TB a convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've altered my vote above based on HT's comments in this thread. I don't think this is an editor we really need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served – This block was justified by edit-warring on a content dispute regarding Stephen Miller, wherein the blocked editor asserted WP:BLPVIO to repeatedly remove some phrasing, while others disagreed. Meanwhile the disputed text at that article has been removed/reworked into a neutral statement, so that the warring is moot. An indef block is unnecessarily WP:PUNITIVE. Arguments for indeffing rely heavily on past sanctions and do not take into consideration the numerous positive contributions by the blocked editor and his consensus-seeking attitude demonstrated in talk page conversations. Given that a month has elapsed, I suggest an immediate unblock for time served, with no strings attached. Naturally, future editor behaviour will remain under scrutiny, especially in the AP2 domain. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocks are not a prison sentence. Time served indicates that the block has served its purpose. HT, as numerous people have pointed out, has given no indication he will not continue to be disruptive in the AP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - This user has given no indication that they are here to improve the encyclopedia and conduct themselves collegially. I am familiar with their reprehensible history of talk page participation[6][7][8][9] but was not familiar with the sockpuppetry. That, and the well-documented personal attacks, BLP violations[10], single purpose POV pushing, edit warring[11], tendentiousness[12], and dishonest abuse of policies[13] convince me that Hidden Tempo should be limited to read-only status on this project.- MrX 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question/Comment - Would someone be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that indicates that a 10 month editing history in a topic area (in this case - post-1932 American politics) is some how not relevant? I can't find anything. What I do see in this unblock request is a single administrator, out of the close to a dozen who have commented, suggest the pattern of editing just prior to the 7 month Tban is "stale". If there is no policy/guideline indicating a 10 month history (which seems to be continuing within 30 day of a 7 month topic ban being lifted) is too long, then it seems a whole lot of text in this appeal seems to be devoted to a false narrative. CBS527^Talk 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Previous behavior is relevant when it shows a continued pattern. I don't see that. I see an editor who was blocked for referring to a politician's trustworthiness ratings as "feeble" on a talk page, for BLP, because that precise wording wasn't in the source, learning from that that text not directly supported by the source is a BLP vio. And that's exactly how we hope a block will work, the editor will learn what's allowed and what's not allowed.

Then I see them taking that lesson and applying it to Stephen Miller, where they removed text not directly supported by the source from the article page, and getting blocked for that. So, add BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked; remove BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked - I don't know what we hope the editor will learn from that. D.Creish (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cbs527: I don't think that anyone is saying that 10-month-old edits can never be considered when weighing sanctions. The issue is this: several editors have pointed to Hidden Tempo's behavior 7+ months ago as justification for the recent block that HT received, but HT was already blocked for that past behavior. Unless HT did something after returning from their block/TBAN to justify a new sanction, then the new sanction is unjustified. If MastCell would care to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that justifies new sanctions, then HT's block history could be taken into account when deciding what sanction is appropriate. But a user can't be blocked once for some particular conduct, serve their time, and then upon returning to editing, be blocked again for the very same previous conduct. They have to do something new to justify a new sanction. To me, the amazing thing is that MastCell has refused to provide diffs justifying the new sanction, and that it's taken this long for an evidence-free sanction to come under review. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the sixth time you’ve posted this here in a touch over a day. The best result of repetition here is that other editors will ignore you. Further, your claims that MastCell did not provide evidence is simply false. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but Thuc disregards the fact that sanctions escalate with repeated violations, as they indicate that previous prophylaxis was not preventive. To be candid, I find this kind of self-serving, since Thuc himself has more than one American Politics sanction under his belt and has a kind of vested interest in obscuring the escalating blocks thing. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite a bit SPECIFICO, coming from someone with their own prodigious block history, and edit warring using BLP as a pretext - the same thing HT was just blocked for - only with far more dubious pretext [14][15]. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet:Of all the dumb places to launch an irrelevant and false ad hominem, this takes the cake. I don't know who else you've smeared here but you need to remove your gratuitous (and false and off-topic) references to me here and now. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you leave yet another note on yourmy talk page? -Darouet (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's a very interesting point, User:Cbs527. The single admin I presume you allude to, User:FT2, also doesn't seem to think Hidden Tempo's actions during the 7-month topic ban December 2016—July 2017 matter very much. I'll quote FT2's summary above for you: "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.". FT2 passes rather hastily over Hidden Tempo's sock puppetry during the topic ban, when he used both an account and an IP, and FT2 may not even be aware of Hidden Tempo's pushing at the limits of his topic ban on 25—26 May 2017 ("Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc."), which I and others discussed with HT here. I'm not sure whether FT2 is suggesting only disruption after the topic ban had ended in July ought to "count" towards a block. Probably not, though Hidden Tempo himself is insisting it should, with much bolding: "This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window.". For my part, I think HT ought to have seen himself as on probation when the topic ban ended in July, especially because of his conduct during the topic ban (socking; editing logged out; using his userpage for ban-violating editing, and then, after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me, as so often; and blaming Doug Weller, of all people, for the whole thing, per my link to the discussion above). Instead he continued his tendentious editing after the ban, with CRYBLP wikilawyering like this. Incidentally that link, from 5 August 2017, is one of the links MRX posted above, and a link to the edit warring history in August is another, which hasn't stopped HT from claiming MRX's links are all "pre-topic ban", i.e. from 2016. And now, not to my surprise, HT is bludgeoning this discussion, giving everybody who can't face reading his endless talkpage a useful window into his style of argument. I agree with the block. But if the community decides to convert the block into a topic ban, as was originally suggested by myself, I hope they also take on the specific features I suggested: an indefinite topic ban with an appeal allowed after one year at the earliest. We shouldn't have to look forward to this kind of energy-draining circus once every six months. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Thank you User:Bishonen, User: SPECIFICO, User:Thucydides411 and User:D.Creish for your response to my question. The responses have help clarify my concern. CBS527^Talk 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a WP:CRYBLP issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too, Bishonen. That is helpful. As before this is mainly to explain and clear up any confusion. I saw the May diffs you mention but they didn't seem to show a real issue: you directed HT about his block, he replied that he would follow what you directed. The rest of that thread seems to just reflect HT's anxiety about being punished (regrettable but inappropriate fear of being wrongly blocked or targeted isn't itself blockable). I saw the points you refer to, but they only showed AGF/CIV issues and the one BLP dispute in August: - socking; editing logged out (time served for both or he wouldn't have been back in March); using his userpage for ban-violating editing (links above: warned once, agreed to desist and did so, seems responsive/resolved); after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me and blaming Doug Weller (at worst the former is poor judgment in good faith: even blanked/deleted comments can be linked, and we do like users to provide related links for onlookers and as evidence in a dispute. The rest is user-to-user CIV/AGF).

I wonder if it's actually more about the civility/AGF/NPA issues and tendentiousness in user disputes that he is being blocked for, rather than warring? That might be the point of confusion.

So the basis of my comment was that having blocked a user for poor conduct, we don't reblock them for the exact same episode of conduct, unless the conduct continued. I asked more than once for evidence of continuation of his previous conduct; none was given to me. His BLP dispute was uncivil but validly raised and should probably have been addressed once raised, even if the final consensus supported the original text. HT had served his block/TBAN (eventually) both for his actions in 2016 and his evasion in early 2017; unless there was additional behavior since then to show the lessons weren't learned, those are stale. That's why I asked for any evidence that he hadn't learned them - because I could find none. He does lapse far too quickly into CIV/AGF (and said he may well get blocked in future for those, if he doesn't get a grip on them); while CIV/AGF can also be part of TE/EW it isn't the basis of the block. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served Hidden Tempo was indefinitely blocked for edit warring to remove a questionable interpretation of an opinion article from a BLP and behaving mildly uncivilly in an uncivil environment. He's been blocked for a month which is more than enough. D.Creish (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, D.Creish, but there was nothing questionable about that interpretation, it wasn't a BLP violation, and besides the "mild" incivility ("bud") there was a whooooole bunch of wikilawyering to the nth degree of exasperation. I can't accept your summary. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with 1 year appeal, oppose unblock without restrictions - After having the misfortune of following this thread over the past couple days, and many things that I don't need to rehash in detail, it's pretty uncontroversial that HT has been an overall time sink, and there's probably been more characters spilled by other talking about HT than he has actually productively contributed to mainspace. But apparently a TBAN is a de facto block anyway, since they have little or no current interest in editing on much else. If that's the case, then fine, an unblock and a TBAN effectively change nothing, and nothing will change in a year upon appeal. But if they can find themselves interested in literally anything else in the world, and find a way to be productive, then they can try it, with hopefully a widespread understanding that the community should be reprimanded if another block comes around, and we set ourselves to this obscene level of debate over someone who, as far as I can tell, has given us no indication that they deserve it. TJW^talk 21:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock is my first choice, but my second choice is unblock with indef TBAN on American politics. I was asked to look through the discussion on HT's talk page a while back and I did; I read the whole thing as it was then, and I checked all the diffs provided (the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit; MC has pointed repeatedly to plenty of evidence and anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it). I'm convinced that the block was justified, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that the behavior which caused it will not resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered this without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: "the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit". There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hidden Tempo - "yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision." You certainly can't be suggesting that MjolnirPants does not have a right to express their opinion. In case you missed User:Boing! said Zebedee explanation "here"., WP:AN is open to all editors who are not currently blocked to support any solution they wish. Neither you not anyone else can dictate who comments here. You are not helping your cause by continuing to repeat ad nauseam that Mastcell has not provided an explanation to the block or that Mastcell needs to provide post TBan differences. So far you have contributed over 12,000 bytes of text to this AN discussion alone, the large majority of it devoted this point. We all get it, anybody who reads this certainly gets it - You and some other editors think that Mastcell's justification is not enough. Other editors think that it is more than enough for a TBan. Mastcell has clearly provided his justification for the block whether you agree with it or not. I'm certain editors who read this AN will take both opinions into consideration and form their own conclusion. CBS527^Talk 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: I'm sure you are offended and irked by a great many opinions with which you don't agree; this is part of the reason that led to your block in the first place. As to your reading of my editing history: you're cherry picking edits that support your preferred narrative. As to the specific diff of mine that you provided: if you disagree with it, or (god forbid) think it ridiculous in any way, then I'm quite sure that's evidence of a very different reason to indefinitely ban you from editing. Also, stop responding to everyone who doesn't !vote your way. It's not very helpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated per Only In Death and a few others. Indef is overkill. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock without conditions - it's remarkable that a single instance of edit warring after months of good behaviour from an editor with a poor history could justify an indefinite ban, and it's dismaying that the ban has stayed in place for this long. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - This is a user who would better serve Wikipedia as a reader -- their time as a beneficial contributor has passed. They have fought the process every step of the way: Bishonen offered an incredibly reasonable topic ban/unblock proposal which, remarkably, was denied. Hidden Tempo has not outright taken responsibility for all the reasons he found himself blocked nor has he presented their post-unblock plans to the community. For those reasons, I cannot even support an unblock with a tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright [take] responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and whether or not they've noticed that MC has not provided the specific blockable post-TBAN diffs that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you want to argue at such length to avoid a, in comparison to the scope of the project very narrow, topic ban makes me consider whether you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, or here to argue politics. TJW^talk 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "Trial by Water" doctrine of jurisprudence. "The fact that you're protesting your innocence proves you're guilty." Or we could use its closely related cousin: "By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 60,000 articles within the scope of US politics, many of which are not covered under the proposed TBAN. There are currently well more than five million articles. Do the WP:CALC. I don't care about innocence; I care much more about any indication that they're actually here to build an encyclopedia. TJW^talk 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't care about innocence." Then what are you doing posting here? We aren't pondering whether HT's interests are sufficiently broad. We're discussing whether the evidence warrants sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is a noticeboard a courtroom. No one has a right to edit here, we are allowed to contribute on the sufferance of the WMF and its designees, the en.wiki community, which can set up whatever standards it wants to weed out undesirable editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard, when used for this purpose, has testimony, requires evidence, and produces findings of guilt or innocence. It is (or should be) grounded in longstanding principles of fairness and justice. That's close enough to a courtroom to make "this is not a courtroom" a very dubious statement, especially when made without any policy or even good reasoning to back it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above about Trial by Water. This is an appeal of not only the sentence but the finding of guilt. Since it was opened by an admin I assume it's a legitimate appeal. Therefore it cannot presume guilt, and degree of remorse cannot be a factor. Making it so unfairly ties the defendant's hands. I'm not taking a position in this case, only voicing a narrow objection to comments like those of Timothyjosephwood above. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It can presume whatever it wants, as it's not the application of Anglo-American jurisprudence, it's a Wikipedian determination of consensus, a very different thing. There's no "defendant", not "prosecutor", no "judge" and no "trial", and as long as people keep thinking of it using that analogy, they're going to be confused about what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll continue thinking of it that way. It's worked fairly well for many centuries of Western civilization. Beats hell out of mob rule, fancy words for it notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your choice, of course, but perhaps you should bear in mind that the Anglo-American Common Law system is not the only one, nor is it the oldest -- and I'm not talking about Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. Other cultures see value in their systems as well. Here, we too have a different system, the communal determination of consensus, and although it may superficially appear to be similar to Common Law, it really is a different animal, and it is vary decidedly not "mob rule" – which is, by the way, the very same canard applied to direct democracy by the vested interests who felt threatened by it. So, if you find yourself making these same kinds of objections to consensus discussions in the future, you might consider that your view of the system could be part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideas of fairness, rules of evidence and a concern for innocence or guilt in judicial proceedings aren't some quirk of the Anglo-American Common Law system. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law? Or that concepts of what is and isn't "fair" are the same? Or that some systems aren't much more concerned with the safety and well-being of the community than they are with what happens to an individual? I'm not promoting these things, or disagreeing that the Anglo-American system is a good one, but you really should disabuse yourself of the notion that its concerns are universally shared.

Here on Wikipedia, while we're obviously concerned about being fair to an editor under scrutiny, there have been plenty of times where "the patience of the community has been exhausted" and editors have been banned even when by a strictly legal standard, the evidence presented may not have been sufficient for some an outcome -- and that's because the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the "rights" of the individual editor ("rights" in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here). You can certainly say that you disagree with the way things are being handled in this discussion, but when you draw a comparison with Common Law to make your complaint, you're almost always going to be disappointed, because that system is simply not our system. It's not set up that way, it's not meant to approximate that system, it's something else entirely, with only superficial similarities to Angle-American law (which is understandable considering that we're English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of us live under Common Law).

Anyway, no more on this from me, you're obviously set in what you think and I'm clearly not going to convince you otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law?" Nowhere did I say that. You're attacking a straw man. The precise rules of evidence vary, but every decent judicial system has rules of evidence. In this thread, I see a total mess. What's the evidence? What are the rules governing what evidence is admissible? Is the fact that the accused tries to rebut accusations itself allowed to be used as evidence against the accused? Apparently it is, in more than a few people's thinking. This process is a total joke.

You're trying to argue, essentially, that we don't need any standards when dealing with HT. We can have a completely arbitrary process and that's fine, because we're not implementing Common Law. Nobody said we have to implement Common Law here - just that we need some basic standards of fair process. In practice, your view is bound to lead to sanctions becoming a tool to ban editors who are unwanted - perhaps for political reasons, perhaps for petty personal reasons - rather than editors who actually damage the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your synopsis of my argument is totally and completely wrong, which means you've wound up putting words in my mouth that I never said, never meant, and that cannot possibly be squeezed out of any of my statements. I have never written or even thought that Wikipedia consensus discussions "don't need any standards" -- who could possibly think such a patently absurd thing? What I have said, repeatedly, is that you are trying to apply the standards of our legal system to a discussion which is something else entirely, something which has its own, quite different, standards of process, fairness, and judgment. You don't like those standards, and you think the system is broken, I get that, and I disagree almost entirely. So we can agree to disagree, but I'll thank you not to repeat such a gross mischaracterization of my argument again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment This thread, and all the WP:BLUDGEON replies copied from HT's talk page, and all the personal remarks on his talk page -- I was stunned to see two bits about me, since I don't even recall having interacted with this user. But HT's BATTLEGROUND approach and discourse laden with personal- rather than content- focused comments [16] [17] and many others, confirm that as others have stated, HT is NOTHERE. Sadly, HT's conduct in this matter has cemented his place in the annals of WP. He should begone, but not forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. HT, who has only the barest of interactions with me in the past, has suggested in his reply to my !vote that my !vote shouldn't count because I made basic, factual statements about communism and Antifa, that just so happen to contradict views commonly held by individuals of HT's political affiliation. That is personalizing things to a -frankly- ludicrous degree. There were further personal comments made about me by HT on their talk page, but fortunately(?), they felt it would be more prudent to erase then than to allow them to be read by the wider community, here. And that's just me. I've not read through this entire thread, but I shudder at the thought of the sorts of things HT has probably said about users who've been in conflict with them more regularly in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• oppose unblock HT was given the gracious offer of TBAN with unblock, and went for "all or nothing". So nothing it is. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I'm as uninvolved in this as it is possible to be. I have read the entire discussion on the talk page, and the linked material, and I support the block. The partisan, ad hominem argumentation and the relentless, copious, endless wikilawyering are astonishing. Implying that editors with disparate opinions should not have their opinions "counted" is brazen, I'll grant you, but utterly unacceptable. The bludgeoning replies to commenters here are just continuation of a seemingly insatiable need to argue and "refute" every single point over and over again. Sanctions short of an indef block have been tried, and are followed by instant recidivism (or evaded). This kind of tendentious editing is what can make some areas of wikipedia such unpleasant places at times, and we would be far better off without it. -- Begoon 02:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Byte count: In case you were wondering, as of this writing there are now 220,000 bytes of text devoted to this on HT's talkpage, and 140,000 bytes of text devoted to this here on AN. Mostly, in my opinion, due to HT's endless (and endlessly wordy) bludgeoning and wikilawyering and refusal to drop the stick and observe the first law of holes. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• If we're doing byte counts, the more relevant counts are number of bytes by HT and number of bytes by others. People can't comment in large numbers and at length in these threads and then use the length of the resulting threads against the defendant; it defies both logic and principle. I counseled HT against BLUDGEON in this thread, but that was more realpolitik pragmatism than principle. In this situation, dropping the stick means walking away from Wikipedia editing; we are not discussing a trivial content issue. As far as I can tell, HT would accept the indefinite topic ban, so the best way to stop the growth of this thread is to close this appeal ASAP with that result. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The discussions on both pages are only as large as they are because of HT's continued disruptiveness and lack of cooperation, so there's no point in dissecting how much participation is uniquely his. Additionally, nowhere else on AN or ANI, in my immediate recollection, have I seen comments/rebuttals from the blocked editor being replicated on the AN unblock discussion. Lastly, it is not your place to either speak for HT or try to direct the outcome of this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Under the current rules or lack thereof, one man's disruptiveness is another man's vigorous self-defense. Indef me for reasons that I perceive to be unfair and see how much cooperation you receive from me. I assume the same is true for you. I see no consensus here that HT's behavior in this appeal has been disruptive, so nobody can fairly state that as anything more than their opinion, clearly identified as such. In fact, doing so could reasonably be called disruptive. Lastly, I speak for no one but myself, and I tend to respond negatively to lectures about my "place". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close ASAP because HT would accept an indefinite topic ban? Surely not, Mandruss. I did propose such a topic ban to him on my single admin authority, as a commutation of the indefinite block; HT had two weeks to accept that offer, and did not. This AN review should run an appropriate length of time, whether or not people like the amount of bytes it's generating. If it doesn't, HT could reasonably complain forever more (and vigorously) of frontier justice. A weekend is not an appropriate length of time IMO, as it's pretty common from what I've seen that people don't edit during the weekend. Please keep this open for at least the full Monday in all timezones. Stopping the growth of the thread can't be our foremost goal here. That it's open doesn't mean everybody has to keep talking, but people who haven't been heard from should have a little more time. That said, I don't think Mandruss was trying to direct the outcome of this discussion — merely giving their opinion, like everybody else. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

• In case it isn't obvious, my summation of the byte counts was not in order to request, or even imply a request, to close this thread anytime soon. It was to quantitatively portray how much time and attention the community has spent on this one user these past six weeks. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: If the comment wasn't meant as a another criticism of HT's degree of participation in his own appeal, my apologies for misinterpreting it.
  Bish: Fair enough. So we'll stop with the talk about byte counts and about a quick close. Although you didn't address it, I still think we should refrain from accusations of BLUDGEON when an indef block is at stake. I think your last sentence should go without saying; I lack the authority to direct the outcomes of discussions, and Softlavender knows that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock, support TBAN of 1-6 months. I've been reading this thread for some time and hadn't made up my mind until recently. HT was blocked after repeatedly reverting at Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor) and invoking BLP to justify the reverts. I don't think HT should have edit warred while invoking BLP - something they acknowledged above. However some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above - have themselves invoked BLP in recent memory to edit war with far more dubious justifications ([18],[19],[20],[21],[22]). In HT's case, they opposed an addition [23] that links Miller's comments to the far right. I tend to agree with Marek that the content should (or at least could) be added, though other editors have pointed out that the BLP concern isn't simply nonsense. For instance in that discussion, HT recommended that if the content be added, Miller's response be included. That's totally reasonable. Otherwise, HT has been generally civil (given the toxic environment on these pages), and has repeatedly and productively contributed to compromises, for instance at Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey. The reason I think HT should be topic banned for some defined period is that they should have some experiences editing outside of American politics, which is a not a healthy place to learn how to edit. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Based on Darwinian Ape's comment below, I'm withdrawing my suggestion that HT should be topic banned. I don't think a single person has attempted to demonstrate that HT's BLP concerns were invalid, and given the total absence of comment on that question - which is the center of this whole discussion - every vote to block or topic ban looks like mob vengeance over HT's political views. I'm not going to support that.-Darouet (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, removing one sentence which wasnt in the source as quoted and which alleged criminal activity on the part of a living person is 'dubious justification'? I believe you can take that argument and stuff it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ha." If by "stuffing it" you mean linking the source, sure, I can do that [24]. Note that the wording and sense of the source were conveyed exactly in the content you removed, yet then, and now still, you erroneously claim they don't. You edit warred over this and are now asking HT to be TBANed for something you've done yourself. -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

1. The quoted text was not in the source period. 'the wording and paragraph sense are conveyed exactly' is not sufficient. 2. The text was in itself, false. It stated he 'admitted giving false testinmony', which is a crime, not the actual situation, which was Clapper admitted giving information that later turned out to be erroneous. That you (and the person who inserted the material) cannnot see why that is a problem in relation to the BLP policy is your issue, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, I think your inability to grasp this simple point - that you don't even read a source, edit war while erroneously claiming a BLP vio, and then ask to ban HT for edit warring over somewhat more legitimate BLP concerns - reflects very poorly upon your arguments here generally.

1. The source [25]: "Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans..."

The content you removed: They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and...

Do you not see the exact correlation between those words in the source, and what is quoted in the content you removed? As to 2-3., calling BLPvio on content attributed to Binney and McGovern about Clapper admitting to false testimony, when Clapper stated "my response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize,"[26] is as thin as it gets. Again, you pulled this worse than HT did, and now you'd like to ban them, but are not suggesting anything similar for yourself. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, I am glad we have clarified you do not understand the difference between giving false testimony and giving testimony which turns out to be erroneous. I have explained twice now. You do not get a third time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol, what happened to "The quoted text was not in the source period."? -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Darouet:, when you say "...some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above...", you seem to have dragged VM's name through the mud without taking the time to check. "An accusation without any diffs", one might be tempted to say. VM has not posted "above" anywhere in this thread. As far as I can tell, VM has not commented on HT's block and (potential) topic ban anywhere at all. Why would you assume that he had commented here? Or worse, why would you say he had, knowing that he hadn't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Was wondering if anyone would notice. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for that important correction. I was thinking of Marek because they were involved in two of the discussions HT was heavily involved in before getting blocked (here and here), one of which led to HT's block. @Volunteer Marek: I'm sorry for wrongly dragging your name in here and hope you'll accept my apology. I've struck your name in my comment (showing that I made the comment but was incorrect to do so). -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action - User has not demonstrated anything to suggest they are anything but WP:NOTHERE. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock entirely - to be clear, my opinion is that Hidden Tempo should remain indefinitely blocked. I mentioned in an earlier comment that WP:NOTTHEM was in play here, but at that time HT had not commented in this thread and I had not taken much time to review the situation. Although HT made a very elegant unblock request appearing to explain the reasons for the block and how they would avoid those behaviours if unblocked, all of their commentary since then has been wikilawyering about how MastCell's block had no justification and was improper. As Awilley pointed out in a comment above, MastCell explained the block at the time of blocking, and has explained further in incredible detail the justification for their action. Repeating the disruption that led you to a long block and topic ban so soon after that ban is lifted does show a pattern of recidivism, and if HT's belief is not that their behaviour needs to change but that the block is simply improper, then they don't understand what this block is about and they shouldn't be editing here until they get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand an indefinite block, it can be lifted at any time, should the party provide assurance that what led to the block will no longer be an issue going forward. This user does not appear to acknowledge wrongdoing and instead blames the blocking administrator for a wrongful action, which is plainly an accusation without merit. The removal o this one user from the politics articles has reduced the tension dramatically, in my opinion. Things are still testy at times, even heated, but the sustained rancor has gone down a few notches. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - and support topic ban in the event that they are unblocked. Enough editor time wasted on someone trying to wikilawyer their way out of what was obviously a reasonable block. I endorse what others (especially softlavender, jytdog, and Valarian) have already written above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment edit:Support unblock I have reviewed the whole discussion in HP's talk page, and read through the comments here, and it is unfortunate that I have to conclude this proceeding is not being governed by logic, reason or evidence, but by -conscious or unconscious- partisanship. It is no surprise that most who support sanctions fall on the opposite side of political spectrum as HT, while most who support "no sanctions" are on HT's political camp. I see above me, lots of comments on how HT is NOTHERE and he is disruptive and such, what I don't see is someone providing answers to the only impartial and detailed review of the block by FT2 I will copy the most prominent part of their review here:

;As an uninvolved admin:

I feel at present the evidence I could see doesn't support the block. But there may be much more I didn't see. We need to know these things from the blocking admin or others who know the situation:

1. Is there more to this or other evidence claimed to suggest bad editing, apart from his involvement during 2 - 6 August on Steve Miller's page? (meaning since March 2017 when his block ended)
2. Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
3. Has the BLP issue he was concerned about ever been calmly looked at (to determine if better solutions exist or if the BLP claim is an obvious bad-faith game), or is it basically "the loudest voice determines Wikipedia's view"?

And FT2 continues that we "need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago." (emphasis mine)None of the editors above has provided anything to answer the questions posed by FT2, instead they continued with the same vague statements, and when HT tried to respond to these comments and condemnations, they complained that it was WP:BLUDGEON without a shred of empathy towards HT and how frustrating this must be to him. My conclusion of this is unless someone bring clear evidence that this user was being tendentious after his block ended, he should walk free, so to speak. I don't think that will happen though, I think in these forums, you live if you have enough friends and HT doesn't have that. And the sheer size of the discussion will deter anyone who is willing to impartially review it. I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)I didn't !vote, because I don't believe it will make any difference, but here's to nailing colors to the mast. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The last block I supported was for an outspokenly liberal editor who is as close to an "enemy" as HT could have here, so you can take your bad-faith speculation about my ulterior motives (and those of everyone else who's supported the block) and shove it. I find it beyond reprehensible that you would sit here and accuse an entire group of people of gaming this noticeboard for the purpose of pushing their political views into WP just because you couldn't check off a box on a list that pretty much every other admin involved says doesn't need to be checked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't read that as an outright accusation of gaming, which is a conscious and deliberate act. In fact it includes the words "or unconscious". Possible or probable straw man (which can also be unconscious, so I'm not accusing you of bad faith either.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss: When someone is accused of working to ban an editor simply due to that editor's political views, that is -in my opinion and I would suspect in the opinion of a large number of other editors- the same thing as an accusation of gaming and POV pushing. It's gaming because the accused is supposedly using WP behavioral-addressing systems to further a large-scale content dispute (the dominance of right-wing vs left-wing editors, and thus edits), and it's POV pushing because said content dispute (right-wing vs left-wing politics) is clearly a POV issue; regardless of one's political affiliations, any reasonable editor must acknowledge that both liberalism and conservatism are defensible political views; there's no "correct" answer. Such an accusation, without a shred of evidence, is also unambiguously a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Darwinian Ape - Did you read through the this discussion and check the links provided? Probable not, or you would have notice that FT2's (not TF2) questions have been answered (and links provided) and FT2 is the only administrator out of roughly a dozen who has this opinion.

In almost every response HT has made in this WP:AN discussion HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken. There is no time limit on when previous infractions can be used both by precedence and guidelines. Remarkably, the WP:APPEAL is one of them. "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." (my bold). See "Abuse of the unblocking process".. With no disrespect to the editors who feel that there has not been a continuing problem with HT's edits (and who, for the most part, understand the guidelines), the large majority of editors feel that there is sufficient evidence for a block or TBan, not because of your rather insulting statement, "I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible." but because they actually took the time to read and understand this process. CBS527^Talk 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, screw you I got mild dyslexia.^^ And secondly, yes I did read the whole discussion on HT's talk. What I see here is an editor who has violated policy in his past, granted a second chance, then went months presumably without any policy violations -which is where we need evidence because if it's not the case and HT was tendentious/disruptive after his ban expired, I wouldn't be objecting to his indef- and what we have is an edit war over a content which HT believed to be a BLP violation after months of, again presumably, good behavior. On top of that, whether the BLP concern was valid or not, we have HT acknowledging his mistake and his promise not to engage in edit wars even if there is a BLP violation, which is the wise thing to do regardless. In light of the evidence provided to us, I don't believe HT needed to be indeffed. Of course a block of some length would be understandable, I would go with a harsh TROUT/admonishment but an indeff block is way too harsh, it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As for people who take offense at my comments, I am not accusing anyone of GAMEing, merely suggesting that perhaps you should pause a bit and reflect when you find yourself on the side of the majority, because confirmation bias is a plague to all of us and we all need to keep it in check from time to time.(Note that I'd be shouting with them if the same kind of block happened to any one of them.)Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC))
Cbs527 - I'll only address this remark: "HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken." I'm not sure if I've been unclear with the point that many of us have been making, or if our wires were crossed somehow, but that's not at all what I have been trying to communicate. The point is that MastCell claims the indef is for "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," and tacks on the "edit-warring" at the end (note that the editors I edit warred with, who were reinstating the contentious material without consensus received no warnings or sanctions). MastCell stated that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," indicating that this editing pattern has continued after the TBAN expired. So it's either a) MC is blocking me for something I've already done time for, b) MC is indef blocking me exclusively for an alleged first-time 3RR offense, or c) MC is indeffing me for post-TBAN edits, for which he is withholding diffs. In all three cases, the block is invalid and should have long-expired for a first-time alleged 3RR offense in the process of abiding by WP:BLPREMOVE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Cbs527. HT didn't make the "insinuation" and you have misquoted it anyway. That was my review observation, and the omitted part is the condition: we need evidence that the behavior is current/continuing without which old conduct issues from many months ago are stale. I have no prior knowledge of the editor or situation and reviewed when pinged as a completely uninvolved admin. This has been a Wikipedia norm for a long time - we reblock for continuing behavior (emphasis on evidence needed that it is continuing), because blocks exist to protect the project not to punish. So I asked for evidence of the claimed conduct. When I'm shown a diff that shows "hyper partisan" editing since his last block/TBAN lapsed and he returned to editing (and I don't mean his poor civility/AGF issues or the BLP matter on Steve Miller), then things will be different. Right now I see nothing like that, and no diffs showing it in any replies. The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far). If evidence exists that doesn't just refer to his past 2016 issues and evasion (both served) but shows he is acting as a "hyper partisan warrior" then I'm open to it, but so far - no diffs. No evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• FT2, you say "The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far)." The legitimacy or otherwise of the BLP issue doesn't need addressing further by me, I've said what I think of it. But I believe you have misunderstood what happened here in late May, and what HT quite insistently tried to do at that point. Your description of the May episode as "a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation" is... I'm biting my tongue here... misleading. The subject of the thread is HT's userpage. Since you're an admin, please take a look at the deleted history of the userpage. If you still don't think these edits were topic ban evasion, which was compounded by an attempt to get round my blanking and my edit summary here, or that this statement by HT was misleading, or that this attack on me was unwarranted, or that HT's claim to only be doing what Doug Weller had told him to do was disingenuous, then fine, I'm done. Apologies to non-admin readers who can't see the deleted userpage diffs. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen - thank you, and thank you also for "biting tongue". This was the sort of thing I was hoping someone would post when I asked for diffs. Indeed I hadn't seen those as I didn't check deleted diffs and nobody else said they existed. I figured anything improper he did, requiring admin deletion, would be reflected more clearly in formal t/p posts that weren't admin deleted, or in logs, t/p posts by others, hinted by his contribs, or in t/p text he himself removed. There were no links in the discussion. If I'd seen them I might still not have seen their significance in the absence of comments by the blocking admin or someone else. The comment that remained didn't convey the issue fully to me, probably because it was directed at HT not page newcomers, and wasn't disputed, I guess. I agree this was clearly in breach of the TBAN and correctly handled, and that HT should have understood (and possibly did understand?) that it was problematic and/or that he was in breach.

That said, I'm still finding myself looking at the aftermath and what we learn of his behavior and likely future conduct if unblocked. He got a warning, he agreed not to do it, and it didn't happen again. Despite being blocked again, and for 5 or 6 weeks now, it still never repeated. What does this show? To me, that he learned when warned, didn't repeat, and changed. I ask myself what that says about the need to protect the project from this user, and what it says about him trying to do better. (He seems responsive if he feels he had a fair hearing, perhaps?)

That sort of responsiveness is what really comes over to me, again and again. For example, see his multiple edits to fix posts that might come across badly, once he understood they could have that effect. Here are the kinds of diffs I saw, that show why I felt he was trying harder to listen and work collaboratively (and therefore not incorrigible): clarifying a perception of standards and that he isn't arguing "others do it" or sanctions on others, frank and reasonable admission of mistakes, correcting old edit to remove possible perception of attack/civ, explaining concerns about another editor when asked. Hopefully this goes some way to explaining why we might have reached different perspectives when we looked, and again thank you for the time in looking up those diffs - I know it was a pain to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:FT2, with all due respect, I don't recall ever quoting you in this discussion so I don't think I misquoted you. I hesitate to link sections where HT insinuated that only post-TBan differences can justify this block , because HT has already responded that is not what he wanted to communicate and I accept his word on that. If you need, I'll grab one and link to it, but I don't think it is necessary at this point. I was responding to Darwinian Ape's rather uncivil comments, who actual did quote parts of your review. I suspect that was what you were referring to.

Quite frankly, FT2, I, and many others owe you a BIG debt of gratitude for time (and aggravation!) you took to do the review of a rather complex situation. CBS527^Talk 13:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't intend to say much here, because this block had already been reviewed and discussed to death before it was brought to this venue; I've already said my piece, repeatedly, and I'm not a big believer in repeating myself endlessly. That said, HT and his supporters/enablers have taken this discussion on a frankly bizarre detour from reality. They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. [27]). It should be obvious that, lacking any evidentiary support, a block would not have stood for a month through review at WP:AN/I (the single most public projectspace venue, where I placed and announced the block) and by numerous admins on HT's talkpage, but here we are.

  HT was blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR on a political article. There is no actual dispute about this; HT has admitted to the edit-warring, so I find the repeated demands for diffs a bit dishonest. You see the game he's playing? He's admitting the edit-warring and asking for leniency points for remorse, but at the same time aggressively disputing the evidence for the block. It's sort of like saying: "Go easy on me: I stole the TV and I know it was wrong—but also, you haven't proven I stole the TV!"

  But I digress. The point is that HT was edit-warring, which is grounds for a block. The question then becomes: a block for how long? This is where admins typically take context into account. HT was blocked in December for a BLP violation; he was then topic-banned from American Politics for 6 months for further disruptive and tendentious editing; he then evaded his topic ban using an IP and a sockpuppet account and got caught; and once his topic ban expired, he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area. That pattern of behavior is typically more than sufficient to justify an indefinite block. (In fact, HT has been treated unusually leniently; in many cases, the deceptive sockpuppetry and ban evasion would have resulted in an indefinite block, especially given the absence of any mitigating positive contributions to Wikipedia). He was given a last, last, last chance which he promptly abused. Hence, an indefinite block.

  All of this is clearly supported by appropriate links. All of it is easily verifiable by anyone. And all of it has been detailed, repeatedly, in response to claims by HT and his enablers that the block lacked supporting evidence. Now, one could argue that this evidence does, or does not, justify an indefinite block. But one cannot simply pretend that no evidence exists. Yet that's exactly what HT and his enablers keep doing, here and elsewhere. It is absolutely dishonest, and reflects very poorly on them.

  In terms of an unblock, it's hard to look at HT's postings and see any evidence of real insight, or any reason to think he'll behave differently if unblocked. Read through his talkpage. There's a bit of perfunctory stuff about how he realizes now that edit-warring is wrong, etc. But his real passion is reserved for attacks on me, and secondarily on anyone else who's supported his block. Just looking at today's output, I'm "vile", "elitist", "tone-deaf", etc. I'm bemused that we're seriously considering an unblock request that consists of one part dishonesty (the repeated falsehoods about lack of evidence) and two parts personal abuse against the blocking admin and anyone else who gets in the way.

  Finally, to leave you with a flavor of what we're dealing with, take a look at HT's response when he got caught socking to evade his topic ban: [28]. Somehow, he tries to turn the fact that he was caught socking into an indictment of the person who reported him. I'm not sure what else you need to know. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. 50)." I'm sorry, but you're the one repeating the falsehood. In your original statement about the indefinite block for HT, you accused HT of "edit-warring to repeatedly remove properly-sourced material, using a variety of dubious, WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, or outright specious rationales" but cited exactly one diff. You didn't address why the WP:BLP claims that HT raised were "dubious" or "specious." Afterwards, when asked for diffs to show that HT's editing pattern since returning from the prior topic ban was problematic, you repeatedly stated that you had already provided diffs (which is false), and refused to link to diffs.

This case shows that we need a complete overhaul of how sanctions are handed down. The whole process above makes a mockery of any basic principles of fair judicial process:

1. The evidence has not been presented clearly, and the blocking admin, MastCell, instead of just linking evidence, only links to diffs of themselves claiming to have presented diffs. Normally, the accused has the right to know the evidence being used against them.
2. When HT tries to rebut the accusations made against them, they're accused of WP:BLUDGEONING the conversation. The accused normally has the right to respond to accusations.
3. Many of the people commenting, including admins, are hopelessly involved in this dispute. We need impartial adjudicators who not only have no conflicts of interest, but also no appearance of any conflicts of interest.

I personally resent the idea that this sort of kangaroo court has jurisdiction over disputes on Wikipedia. It's a joke, and we need something better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged? In any case, I agree with you about one thing: this case does show that we need to overhaul how sanctions are handled. If it takes this much time and effort to deal with one obviously unfit editor—who's pretty much standing on a rooftop waving a red flag that says "I'm unsuited to edit a collaborative encyclopedia"—and his handful of enablers, then we're pretty much doomed. Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment; there seems to be wide-ranging acknowledgement that HT's behavior is inappropriate, including from many editors and admins whom I don't know from Adam. I don't think conspiracy theories are what we need right now. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There are larger and more important issues at play here than one editor's editing behavior. As has always been the case since I've been around, the focus is in the wrong place. If the system is acknowledged to be seriously flawed, the appropriate thing to do is to stop and work to improve the system, but nobody has the time to do that because of the seriously flawed system. That qualifies as group insanity in my book. (If you want others to refrain from mischaracterizing your position, please don't refer to those who hold a different view from yours as "enablers".) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged?" You're aware that WP:BLP calls for immediate removal of offending material, and for it not to be added back in until it's clear that there is no BLP issue. HT has said that they shouldn't have chosen to remove the material after it was added back in, but their BLP concern wasn't obviously wrong. They had a reasonable concern that defamatory text from an opinion piece was being restated in Wikipedia's voice. Here's how FT2 summarized the issue:

"Right now this thread has a lot more "heat" than "light", not much focus on the core points of conduct and BLP. The main evidence of poor conduct seems to be a finger pointed at a set of blocks 8 months ago that were evaded 6 months ago plus an unsupported claim of continuing tendentiousness without recent diffs, a single 3RR that's been apologized for, and a disputed removal that may or may not have been aiming to fix a BLP vio and may or may not have been in good faith."
— [29]

FT2 specifically asked you for diffs showing that HT's editing has been problematic since returning from a TBAN ("We need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago. That would allow a more fair and considered discussion which isn't dominated by 'heat'."), and in your response, you argued that you didn't need to provide diffs ("Saying that he had a 'clean record' since March is like looking at someone who's spent the past 2 years in jail for theft and then stolen a TV the minute he was released, and concluding: 'Hey, he went 2 years without stealing anything!'").

If you'd addressed the BLP issue at the outset, rather than ignoring it, then we might all have been spared these proceedings. Instead, you've come back again and again to tell everyone you provided diffs (which you haven't), instead of just addressing the core point: whether the removals were justified by BLP, or could be reasonably considered to be good-faith attempts to comply with BLP, and whether they are part of a pattern of hyper-partisan, tendentious edit warring since returning from the TBAN.

"Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment." When an admin is arguing, with a straight face, that "bud" is uncivil, but "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't, then I can't, with a straight face, pretend they're impartial. My capacity for cognitive dissonance runs out somewhere before there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you should take away from this, MastCell. I've often read admin comments that they're under pressure from all sides when they make executive decisions, and I'm sorry about that. But when you first blocked HT at AN/I, you would have done better to slow down, explain your reasoning, and link more than just one diff [30]. In doing so you might have also explained why this article HT objected to - linking Miller to antisemitism - really presented no legitimate BLP concern. Yes, HT has admitted to edit warring over the content. But really demonstrating HT was CRYBLPing was crucial, because all your subsequent posts about HT's past behavior ([31]) are irrelevant if you shouldn't have blocked them for this edit.

Given all this, you don't help things by calling people who disagree with you "enablers" or "supporters" of HT... you come off looking exactly like the "BATTLEGROUNDy" editor that you say you were correct to block. Is anyone who disagrees with you guilty of being "BATTLEGROUNDy"? Should they expect the same kind of summary justice? Lastly, partisanship is as old as "dim Eden," since you referenced Adam. Maintain you are impartial - if you are sincere that does come across - but to claim that a reference to partiality (in the midst of a massive AN pile-on) amounts "conspiracy theories" is itself ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MastCell please do not cast aspersions against those of us who voted to unblock. I'm not an "enabler" or "supporter" of HT. A major complaint in this ordeal is that you make characterizations against editors without providing diffs. In fact, you've done it again in your statement above - "he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area." You need to provide diffs when you make accusations like that. The most troubling point to me is that roughly 30 minutes after you returned from a 1.5 month break you dropped this indef ban and then didn't respond adequately to editors questioning your actions, especially the points raised by uninvolved admin FT2. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I mean by enabling: HT's response, when caught doing something wrong, is to avoid any meaningful acceptance of personal responsibility and instead to attack others. When he was topic-banned, it was the banning admin's fault. When he got caught socking to evade his topic ban, it was someone else's fault. When he got blocked for edit-warring, it was my fault. When a disparate bunch of uninvolved admins affirm that HT's block was reasonable, then it's their fault because they all must be biased and lacking impartiality. And when this process doesn't yield the desired result, it's an indictment of Wikipedia's entire dispute-resolution structure ([32]). HT has found a small handful of people willing to help him avoid taking responsibility and instead to blame anyone and everyone else for the consequences of his actions.

I don't think you're really taking part in that. But frankly, if you're more invested in criticizing how I choose to spend my free time than you are in addressing HT's disruptive editing, then I think it's fair to question your sense of perspective. As for FT2, I did respond, at length, to his concerns, as best I could understand them; see here. More generally, I've tried to stay out of this unblock discussion because HT's strategy is clear: to personalize the discussion by attacking me. If there was any question of how he would respond when a diverse group of uninvolved admins agreed that his block was legitimate, I think the answer is now depressingly clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MastCell thanks for the response. I can see better now what you meant. I actually tried to advise HT to let this discussion run its course without responding to all the points, but it went unheeded. OTOH I can understand how they feel, since they feel the premise of the block was unfair to begin with. However at some point the law of holes applies. I didn't mean for my comment about your break to be a criticism of how you spend your free time. For that I apologize. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC))
MastCell continues to make the same mistakes and utter the same falsehoods. Following the same exact flowchart template he's been using for a month: 1) he says I'm not accepting responsibility for the editing behavior for which he refuses to provide diffs, despite my UBR and repeated acceptances of responsibility for the 3RR 2) attempt the "Look at this over here, instead!" sleight-of-diff (linking pre-TBAN/mid-TBAN editing, rather than the "repeated instances" of problematic editing for which I was blocked) to distract from the absence of diffs, 3) utter damaging and demonstrably false claims, and hope nobody notices (never once did I assign fault of the socking to "someone else"[33]), and I also never called into question the AP2 edits of any other admin - just yours. Then, you cite somebody else's diff as part of your strategy to lend credence to what you are saying. Pinging Thucydides411 so he is aware of the egregious dishonesty of this act. Then, you finish with the tired old falsehood that you keep repeating, that YOU are being attacked. And for the nth time, you are not being attacked. Your sanction within the context of your agenda-driven abortion/AP2 editing pattern is what I, and others, have called into question. I explained the difference to you in detail here, which was never moved to the AN board (too long, but the takeaway is that you never provided diffs for what you call "repeated instances [of problematic behavior] despite prior blocks and topic ban") and I addressed your slur of "enablers" for those with whom you disagree. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that MastCell cited my post as an example of HT's behavior. MastCell should strike that from the above.

My objection to this process isn't that it doesn't yield the result I'd like. My objection is that it lacks any of the basic characteristics of a fair process. Evidence hasn't been presented clearly (that's mainly on MastCell and their "enablers," to borrow a term, who haven't taken MastCell to task for refusing to provide evidence), the accusations are presented so vaguely as to be impossible to refute, the accused is told they're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion when they respond to accusations, and respected members of the community are chiming in to say that guilt or innocence - or even fair process - don't matter. The sanctions process needs a complete overhaul. It needs clear rules that provide for a fair process, and it needs impartial arbiters, which rules out a large fraction of people involved here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I have some unsolicited free advice for you. There is a chance that my advice is worth more than you're paying for it. Here is my advice: Before you object to the lack of diffs for approximately the 16th time (I lost count), please go to WP:BLOCK and look for a line in there that says you are entitled to receive a diff. If – as I believe you will – you find that the policy does not actually require anybody to provide any diffs before (or after) blocking someone, then please think about whether it's in anyone's best interest to keep insisting that the absence of diffs is a violation of some bureaucratic process.

The intensity and persistence of your efforts to demand procedural justice for a supposedly unrelated account strike my cynical eyes as unusual, and by this point, I doubt that I'm the only cynical editor involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

1. The intensity and persistence on one side of this issue is no greater than on the other side. 2. Taking a stand in a situation where one does not have a personal stake is in fact very unusual, and that's an unfortunate reflection on human nature. Add: Oh, on second look I guess that's a suggestion of possible socking or some other bad faith. I'd suggest you strike that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't see any good advice in your post. I do, however, see an implied threat in your post. I also see an apology for not providing evidence for blocks (who needs standards or fair procedure when we don't like the blocked editor, right?). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good advice. I said that it was free. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There's really no point in attempting to get Thucydides411 or Mandruss to re-evaluate their position. They are solidly convinced that this process is "unfair", that the "system is broken", that this is a "kangaroo court" and an example of "mob rule". They adamantly believe that Hidden Tempo is being railroaded because nobody likes him. (I didn't even know who frigging guy was!) These are the kinds of things that are said by died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it. They really haven't said anything new since their first few comments in this discussion, but have repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.

At this point, they're really not much better then trolls in regard to this discussion, and the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore them, as there's no point in trying to change the mind of someone whose mind is set on not being changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting something like that, but I was surprised it hadn't come. Not even close to worthy of the point-by-point rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my point has been precisely that evidence should be presented. You're the one who's been arguing that evidence isn't necessary, and that basic principles that make judicial proceedings fair aren't relevant here. If you'd spend half the time you spend attacking me to gather and post diffs, we might actually make some progress. But throughout this enormous thread, the two basic things you'd think would be addressed - evidence showing that HT has continued to edit war in a hyperpartisan way since returning from their TBAN, and an explanation of why HT's BLP concerns were completely unreasonable - haven't been addressed. So yes, I'm convinced that either everyone is too lazy to actually gather evidence, or they've tried to look for it and haven't come up with anything convincing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tell you what, you post one diff, one single diff, in which I wrote that "evidence isn't necessary", and I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If you can't post one, then you stop posting on this thread. Deal? (If I were you, I wouldn't take the deal, since I never said that, just like I never said that "we don't need any standards", the last absurd thing you accused me of espousing. You really need to stop making such easily fact-checked statements about other editors in a medium in which everything is visible to everybody.)

As for looking for evidence, I've already seen more than enough to make my !vote, so there's really no point in my expending energy in an attempt to convince you, since I don't think you would be convinced by a signed confession. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@BMK, It's not fair to lump Mandruss in with Thucydides like that. Mandruss's few comments here have been logical as far as I have seen...their opinion just differs from yours on some points and happens to align with Thucydides on some points. (Your criticism of Thucydides is on target AFAICT.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thucydides' and Mandruss' point is straightforward: processes here should be professionalized, evidence should be required and clearly presented, and the accused should have a right to respond to each point. Not everyone's obliged to agree with that, and many don't (I'm not even sure what that would entail). With no prejudice to their position on evidence or procedure, BMK's response above is not only wrong, but one of the most uncivil and overblown I've ever seen from a regular contributor. In that context, your endorsement of it does more to convince me that Thucydides and Mandruss are right about procedure than any argument they've made. -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your definition of "uncivil" is odd, to say the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I was just kidding, what you wrote wasn't uncivil. But even if it was, there's really no point in attempting to get [you] to re-evaluate [your] position.[34] After all, what you write is typical of died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it.[35] Most of your comments above repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.[36] Since you're really not much better then [a] troll in regard to this discussion[37] (sic), it's clear the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore[38] you.

I would tend not to believe any of that about you, BMK. But if you truly believed that kind of exchange was civil in an editorial room or professional environment, perhaps I would be correct to label you using your own words. At least, as you suggest above, I wouldn't have been uncivil. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So... you weren't kidding?

Look, this argument – that the system is broken and in need of a complete overhaul – gets trotted out in consensus discussions in which the conclusion is heading to a result that is not approved of by the person presenting the argument; I've yet to see it expressed at a time when the editor agrees with the probable consensus. That means it's primarily a rhetorical device, the essential purpose of which is to sway the discussion in the preferred direction.

I'm not saying that our system is perfect, or can't be improved, all I've said is that its standards and procedures are not those of the legal system, and shouldn't be expected to be. In return, my argument have been consistently mischaracterized, words I've never said have been put into my mouth, and absurd ideas I've never espoused have been ascribed to me. I think I have every right to be annoyed by that and get a bit snarky in return. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You began your foray into the discussion about fairness in these proceedings by saying that guilt can be presumed at the outset: "It can presume whatever it wants" (in response to Mandruss' comment that "it cannot presume guilt"). This was in the context of a discussion about whether or not we can use the very fact that an accused editor speaks in their own defense as an argument that they should be blocked. In response to the argument that basic principles of judicial process and fairness require that we not presume guilt and that we allow the accused to respond to accusations, you went into a lecture about how we were being Anglo-centric, and bringing in legal principles which are just special features of Anglo-American Common Law. And in response to the argument that there hasn't been clear evidence presented, you expounded on your belief that the idea of "rights" in these proceedings are irrelevant (in this case, specifically, you were talking about the right of an editor who's being sanctioned to have evidence presented against them): "the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the 'rights' of the individual editor ('rights' in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here)." This was the thrust of your digression into a discussion of Common Law - your objection to the idea that basic ideas of procedural fairness that exist in Common Law (and in the Civil Law, by the way) are relevant here.

You added on that you think we have our own standards of fairness and procedure, but when basic standards that would actually be required for fair proceedings are raised, you complain that we're borrowing ideas that are supposedly specific to Common Law (like the right to defend oneself, or the right to see evidence, or a presumption of innocence, or even for evidence to determine the outcome). You pose a vague notion of "community consensus" as an alternative, and given that you've argued against the actual principles that make any judicial proceedings minimally fair, I would be terrified to ever have to submit myself to such a capricious system. Your system is just a recipe for whatever prejudices people harbor to have free reign.

You can donate to whatever charity you'd like. I don't enjoy these games. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, you have once again grossly mischaracterized my comments, but that's OK because anyone interested can actually read them for themselves and draw their own conclusions, which I'm certain will not be the same as yours.

I once attempted to hat this colloquy with you as a sideshow, but you undid it. Perhaps another editor might consider doing so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly support unblock, support TBAN - Ok, I've had it and I'm taking a position. Arguments by FT2, Thucydides411, and Darouet are articulate and compelling. Meanwhile I am thoroughly unimpressed by MastCell's comments about enablers and conspiracy theories, which in my mind call his or her judgment into serious question. Other comments in support of the indef appear to be mostly vague accusations of disruptiveness—remarkably, some of them referring to HT's failure to give up and submit soon enough under a system that does not require him to do so. If people want to impose such rules and restrictions, they need to get community consensus for them and get them in writing. HT has been far from the model editor, but I think he should be given some rope outside the AP2 area, with the opportunity to show tangible improvement and appeal the TBAN after a year (or two). This indef block can't be called preventative when nobody knows how HT will behave outside AP2 area. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unblock - After reviewing this cluster of a situation, I've come to the realization that it's not actually as complicated as it may initially seem. HT's behavior in response to the block quite simply smacks of typical bludgeoning behavior, in which a blocked user unleashes unending torrents upon torrents of paragraphs that somehow always manage to dodge any attempts at justifying the block, while ultimately never adding up to anything other than, "I'm a victim of biased admin abuse". It's certainly no more than 1% of blocked users who actually resort to this behavior, but I've been around long enough to recognize it as a distinct tactic attempted by some. It's, at best, an attempt to use rhetoric to circumvent normal unblock process, but more realistically, it's more akin to throwing a tantrum until you get what you want. We should not reward this behavior, in fact we should not even be humoring it like this. The block has been extensively and repeatedly justified; this user's manipulative behavior well documented. I'd be appalled to see the community actually bend to it at this point. Any support of an unblock in favor of a TBAN is seriously flawed—for one, this user rejected the proposal themselves, instead demanding a complete exoneration. Why would we reduce the sanction if the user themselves continues to refuse to admit wrongdoing? Secondly, a review of this user's contributions makes it obvious that this user doesn't want to offer anything outside of this subject area. Their account is solely dedicated to this subject area. So, what benefit to the project are we purporting to restore by unblocking them with such a TBAN? They've never shown us they're capable or interested in contributing to this project outside of this one problematic area. I half expect this user to continue their bludgeoning with another lengthy paragraph in response to me, citing worn-out and empty rhetorical talking points about "bias" or "lack of evidence" or some other sort of "misconduct". Enough. Let's cut the crap. This user is not worth the effort they're currently expending from the community. Let's deny the unblock request and move forward without this user's drama. Swarm ♠ 06:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Swarm has summarized this well. In fact, given the accuracy of his statement, I would fully support a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. At this point, I'm not seeing that HT has learned anything from this block and has taken on the lessons they need to learn. I might have been fine with an unblock and a TBAN, but at this point, the IDHT behavior has gotten so bad I can't support an unblock at this time. Yes, I've read most of the various threads and comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block (comments on length follow) -- having reviewed the talk page, diffs and this discussion, I endorse the block as within discretion -- when coming off a topic ban, don't return to edit warring -- it is within discretion to block (even if another admin would not, such as FT2 might not), it is further in discretion to make it indef - but indef is often subject to later change -- not infinite. FT2 apparently sees it differently, but that does not make the block unreasonable (nor does it necessarily make FT2 view unreasonable, just different - others disagree, reasonably so, as his analysis hinges on what degree of weight you put on edit-warring and problematic history). As an aside, whatever FT2, might have done, he did not actually grant the appeal -- which also may have been in discretion -- he shared his thoughts - and it is now out of FT2's hands and others' individual hands, as it is now here at AN, in collective hands. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker - It never was in my hands. I chose not to take it, to ensure a clear perception to HT that I trust the community to decide, reviewed neutrally, could speak neutrally, and remained neutral afterwards. I felt that trust mattered in this case, and I also didn't feel it right to claim to know more than many others with much longer experience who might have seen things I didn't. A bit like NPOV - state the evidence and issues raised, let others see if they agree or not. So I deferred from the start. My concerns such as they are, are mainly about the quality of the blocking admin's adminship and basis of the decision. Although of course I gained a view on HT's conduct it would be just one view of many. I posted a reply to Bishonen above with a few links, that's relevant to the points you mention (diff link for ease), and which may help explain my perspective and what I also saw. No reply needed as the thread's long enough, this is more just to clarify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock This timesink needs to end. HT has shown a complete unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his actions, and they are wiki-lawyering more than any editor I can really recall in some time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I had forgotten about the now-deleted edits. This entire process is the definition of "timesink", and I agree with comments made by a few others (including RickinBaltimore and Swarm, just above). If someone wants to get unblocked, and if the block and the events leading up to the block (and here we should take the long view, going back to January at least and stopping for a while in May) are clear (or clear to most admins/editors, anyway), then such a discussion waged in this way is proof of unproductivity. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock The current indefinite block started at 7 August 2017. Hidden Tempo and supporters appear to be basing their opposition to the block on a claim of a lack of justification, but that rather misses the point of Wikipedia which is that many eyes are available to investigate this kind of issue. Many admins would have reviewed the appeals at User talk:Hidden Tempo in the last six weeks and none have chosen to unblock. If Wikipedia is run by lizards who block righteous editors, HT will have to find another website. Diffs have been provided, but the timesink factor is sufficient reason to oppose an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC))
  Comment - I think everybody's about had enough of this thread and said their piece. Bishonen suggested that this thread remain open through last weekend, and it has stayed open much longer than that now. This is going around in circles and just as I predicted[39], the thread has now degenerated into aspersions[40], personal attacks[41], and false accusations/half-truths[42][43][44]. Let's simplify what's been learned so far from this Rorschach test of an unblock appeal, and I think I've summarized most major points of view and facts:

The facts thus far

Many believe my appeal to be nothing more than a "time sink," "time suck," and a waste of time for the "good" editors. This same group also believes my manner of speaking is merely wikilawyering and/or "gaming the system." Additionally, arguing my case in my own appeal has been called WP:BLUDGEON'ing, many times. A large group of editors feel that MastCell has adequately explained his indefinite block[45], which was for a 3RR violation after "repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior." This same group also claims that diffs have been provided of this behavior on pages I've edited since my TBAN, such as Sean Spicer, Linda Sarsour, Mitt Romney dog incident, Fake news, Jean Lake, James Comey, Game Change (film), Dave Gettleman, Dunkirk (2017 film), A.B. Stoddard, Lucky Whitehead, and New England Patriots, and anyone who says otherwise is simply exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior. Another group, of which I am included, has not been able to find these diffs anywhere and feel that WP:EXPLAINBLOCK has not been satisfied. We maintain that we have not seen the evidence that MastCell says was enough for an indefinite block. This point has been one of the primary points of contention, and I have contended that the other group is in fact exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior. After an editor noted that diffs still have not been provided, an administrator who previously claimed there ARE in fact diffs[46], simply says "I don't care about the diffs"[47] after being asked for a diff of the diffs being provided, and accuses anyone who cannot find them of being "blind to them." One "support block" voting administrator complained that I was "uncollegial"[48] at Stephen Miller by calling another user "bud," several times. This same administrator feels that this is an appropriate way to speak to other Wikipedians. In my unblock request, I addressed each reason for my block one by one. I could not cite specific diffs given by MastCell of "repeated instances" of the problematic edits, as he did not provide any. However, I did the best I could to assure MastCell that such behavior would not be a problem for me, and provided multiple diffs showing that my editing at large was being mischaracterized.[49] Several administrators have noted that I did not follow WP:GAB, while I and others have pointed out that I did in fact follow WP:GAB,[50], and itemized each of the three main instructions one by one. Many administrators and editors have criticized me for not "taking responsibility" for my block. However, there is an orgy of diffs indicating the contrary.[51][52][53][54][55][56] I have been repeatedly attacked as being WP:NOTHERE and exhibiting WP:TEND. These criticisms come despite diffs showing creation of a film-related article and hyper-collegial behavior, while also attempting to resolve content disputes at the noticeboards instead of edit warring.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. This edit was made about 1 week prior to my block, during a content dispute, in which I say: "I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, please don't view me as an obstruction to progress being made in the article or from establishing consensus!" and "I feel I've made my case. I'm ready to move on...Thanks for all the discussion regarding this." The editors, including myself, have been asking for diffs of the "repeated instances" of the problematic behavior of my TBAN since this is what allegedly led to the indefinite block. The reason why we have emphasized the importance of these diffs to such an enormous degree is because a sanction without evidence is invalid, and thus my appeal should be granted. Additionally, specific diffs of the problematic edits would be of invaluable help so that I may address the specific edits with specific language, and specifically explain to the community why those specific problematic edits would not occur. Alas, this opportunity was never available to me, as we never received any specific edits. The closest we got is MastCell pointing to problematic editing leading to a TBAN and poor behavior during the TBAN.

So the facts have been established, and important milestones and key points of debate are within the collapsed section. I, and it seems the vast majority of participants, are more than ready to have this report closed. I made my case, and many others have made their case as well. Please let's not spend any more of our time arguing the same points again and again. If an uninvolved administrator could close this, I think we would all be very grateful. While there is a good amount of "unblock without restrictions" !votes, it seems the !vote tally is not in my favor. Nonetheless, this has run its course. Thanks to !Boing for taking action and moving this appeal along, and thank you to all the editors who saw what I saw and voted accordingly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. There's clearly a pattern here that justifies an indef block/ban. Even when the earlier tban was evaded with a sock, we got this response (I got this diff from one of Hidden Tempo's posts above) which is just a tirade against others for their own disruptive behavior. I'm far removed from this, in terms of interaction with the editors, topic area and geographically, and what I've seen about the behavior here is very very concerning. In my opinion, it isn't why an indefinite block was imposed, but why it wasn't done earlier. When there's a pattern of behavior like this, you can't just say that "oh that was before the previous block", the block is there to improve the editing environment and it is serving that purpose. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. The block was fully justified. I am not convinced that Hidden Tempo accepts the basis for the block nor that they will not repeat the conduct that led to the block. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional consideration

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

---

Given that HT is currently not currently under a topic ban, but is under an indef block, which can theoretically be lifted at any time - taking into account the replies to the above section, I am suggesting that regardless of the discussion above regarding unblocking, HT is placed under a community topic ban, not appealable before 6/12 months (state preference) after their return to editing - whenever that may be. Because given the discussion above, its entirely possible they wont be unblocked at all (or no-consensus) and we will be having the same argument in 6 months time. This way at least the topic ban gets taken out of the picture and simplifies the discussion. If anyone has a better idea feel free.

• Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef Tban. Minimum 12 months to appeal after Tban commences. Tban to commence immediately upon any unblock. (I do not, however, support unblock, per my comments above.) -- Begoon 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months. Everyone who runs afoul in one area should be given a chance to edit in another topic area to see if they can still be of benefit to the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months - A good idea to make this clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any topic ban should be supported by evidence. The fundamental problem in this case remains that evidence has not been presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously needed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although the longer this stays open, the more likely the block will remain. Objective3000 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal (indef topic ban, appealable after 12 months). Neutrality^talk 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a failsafe of sorts. On the off chance that this user is unfortunately unblocked, at least they would remain banned from their primary area of involvement. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from American politics broadly construed, appealable after 12 months, in case there is consensus to unblock.- MrX 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm an optimist, and I think this user is capable of bringing net benefits to the encyclopedia. Their actions will be closely watched, and per WP:ROPE there will be no more chances after this one. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I can't decide whether it's better to have the TBAN expire in time for the US primaries in six months, so that he can end up re-blocked or re-banned in plenty of time before the mid-term elections, or shortly before those elections, so that we can have more peace in the interim (but then a bigger mess 12 months from now). I'd be happiest with December 2018 or an indef. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having read through all of this (yes all of this thread and the voluminous talk page) I'm still undecided on the block but would support a topic ban per Neutrality. Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support review of reverts that led to block. If it is decided that HT was falsely crying BLP, I'd support the block and topic ban. If not, I wouldn't. I would not envisage myself participating in that discussion. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at those previously, and I agree with the way MastCell and Drmies characterized them. So there's one regular user and two admins who've reviewed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: thanks for your note. What Drmies did - actually address the BLP issue here - is what I wish the community would have done here overall. From most comments, including from most of MastCell's, you would have no idea what specific thing HT was blocked for. One reason is that Mastcell didn't go into the CRYBLP issue in their block [66]. That's surprising, since the whole thread [67] was about BLP violations (you were there too so you must remember). In that sense, I agree with Thucydides and Mandruss that this whole procedure has been problematic. And it's actually my primary concern. As an aside, personally, I think that even if HT was sincere in his BLP objection, the content wasn't objectionable enough by any standard to warrant HT's edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that one can't use most of MastCell's comments at HT's talk to find a specific incident which led to the block. However, the reason given for the block by MastCell was not "this incident led to this block" but "a long pattern of behavior has led to this block", and MC repeatedly explained their rationale and provided links to an ANI thread in which a great deal of links were provided to show that HT has engaged in POV pushing and battleground behavior. MC also provided an explanation for the oft-repeated claim that HT had been editing with good behavior for some time prior to their block; HT was subject to a topic ban during that time. Finally, MC also noted the frequency with which HT has been sanctioned and then had those sanctions lifted; by repeatedly expressing remorse and understanding that their behavior was wrong. Now, one can debate MC's interpretation that HT is simply good at gaming the unblock/sanction removal system, but one cannot argue in good faith that HT had not returned to that same behavior upon returning from a topic ban, and as such, one cannot escape the conclusion that HT continued to behave in a manner which HT knew was unacceptable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting at this point that a "review" is needed? Surely this is some cruel, bureaucratic jest? You yourself state that even if the user actually was sincere in their BLP argument, we shouldn't take it seriously. And yet you're seriously suggesting that we, after all this time, need to review the situation. Wow. Just wow. Swarm ♠ 00:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, Swarm: thanks for your comments. I assume that HT's prior blocks were deserved. But I read a number of threads HT was involved in immediately prior to MastCell's block, and they were civil, even if others (even me) might have disagreed with them. So I disagree with Mastcell's invocation of partisanship, etc., to justify their August 7th block. I don't think anybody's enjoyed this whole process, but, possibly because of structural problems in the way these decisions are made, I think people's efforts (and good intentions) have been misdirected. I'm not going to go into this further. You can read my earlier posts in this long thread, and everyone will say/do as they please. -Darouet (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CRUSH; civility and POV pushing aren't mutually exclusive. And to be honest, you are one of our more politically conservative editors, so it's not surprising that HT would treat you with a bit more respect than they would treat someone who is one of our more politically liberal editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

She is also one of the editors on this page who seems unable to discuss issues without personalizing them and ignoring the underlying evidence and policies. And don't forget, this is an appeal of a block. In an appeal, the appellant's culpability is indeed stipulated. So all the crocodile tears and garbled reference to the Magna Carta or whatnot/whatever are really de trop. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

seems unable to discuss issues without personalizing them ... she says, personalizing the issue. It is bloody amazing that intelligent people can be so quick to find fault in others while in the same breath exhibiting the very same behavior they are criticizing. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and SPECIFICO: I hope both of you realize that both of you are critiquing another person, and that it's both completely understandable and not worth getting riled up over at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. 12 months. Broadly construed. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Close request

This has been going on for 8 days, and it's gotten to the point where there is 24 hours or more between !votes. There's a pretty clear consensus here not to unblock, and another overwhelming consensus to impose a topic ban on top of that. Even Hidden Tempo has indicated that they can see which way the wind is blowing with their last comment (which I might point out, was once again full of falsehoods and wikilawyering). I don't see how letting this sit another week is going to change that, considering that, as best I can see, every single one of the "only gotten involved as a result of this particular discussion" !votes have been to oppose the unblock. Even Darouets condition under which they said they would change their opposition to the topic ban to support has been fulfilled. (I can't say it's been fulfilled to Darout's satisfaction, but said review has certainly been done by now). I think it's time to close this and impose the topic ban. Pinging some admins who haven't !voted. @Ritchie333, Oshwah, NeilN, and Boing! said Zebedee:. @Bishonen: has only been involved in her capacity as an admin, as well (except for a single clarifying comment here). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I just made a related comment in the wrong place, which I have now removed! I opened this saying I will not judge the consensus, but I will reflect the consensus in my pending unblock review. Whoever evaluates the consensus, please be clear over whether there is a consensus to unblock, whether there is a consensus to impose a topic ban (and what that should be - is it Bishonen's original suggestion?), whether the two are conditionally related, and whether there is any consensus over when a new appeal (for any block or ban, whetever is decided) can be heard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Tally of options

Option	Tally	% of !votes
Decline unblock	25	60%
Unblock w/TBAN	9	21%
Accept unblock	8	19%

Taller of !voters

Option	Tally	% of !votes
Decline unblock	25	64%
Unblock w/TBAN	6	15%
Accept unblock	8	21%

Well, as far as the numbers go (I know consensus is not a tally of votes, but anyone who thinks that a tally of !votes isn't a part of a consensus has some 'splainin' to do), I count 25 !votes to decline the unblock, 9 !votes to unblock with TBAN, and 8 !votes to unblock without condition. I also counted 14 !votes to impose a TBAN regardless of outcome, and only 3 !votes opposing it. Now, the methodology I used was to tally each proposed solution independently regardless of editor, so for example, I've counted myself in both "decline unblock" and "unblock with TBAN" tallies, as well as Beyond My Ken and at least one other. All of the editors who gave multiple options gave "oppose unblock" and "unblock with TBAN". If I were to focus entirely upon the rationales given and the arguments made by those who offered two options, that would only reduce the number of !votes for unblocking with a TBAN, so I'm being generous to those opposed to this block in counting this way. The way I counted, 3 !votes can be removed from the "unblock with TBAN" category if you only want to count 1 option per editor. I've broken that down to the right.

As far as the arguments go, I've laid them out below:

Arguments for unblock w/o condition

1. HT hasn't engaged in any sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell never presented any evidence of sanctionable behavior.
3. An indef block is too harsh/unwarranted.

Arguments for declining unblock request

1. HT has engaged in sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell presented compelling evidence of sanctionable behavior since the block.
3. An indef block is appropriate given the amount of disruption this editor has caused.
4. HT has a history of engaging in sanctionable behavior.
5. HT has a history of dishonesty.
6. HT's has made successful unblock requests by promising not to engage in the same behavior again, yet has ended up sanctioned for the same behavior again.
7. The amount of disruption caused by HT and their supporters during this discussion is indicative of what we can expect the next time HT is sanctioned, should we unblock.

Note how each of the "unblock" arguments are directly contradicted by the first three "keep blocked" arguments. Each of those has an element of judgement to it, so I can't say they've been effectively countered. So it's up to each editor to decide which opposing assertion is true (or more true). Personally, I agree 100% with the three "keep blocked" assertions. In strict terms, the first "unblock" argument is completely false, HT and FT2 have both admitted that HT engaged in an edit war right before this block, even though both have made this argument. But I would still consider it a judgement call, because the argument that the edit warring was done over BLP concerns was made, and is not without weight (I don't really buy the CRYBLP counterargument, myself. I think HT legitimately thought this was a BLP issue, but it also seems apparent that an editor without a battleground mentality would not have felt the same way as HT.)

There's also another factor: How many admins have looked into this and declined to unblock? I count at least 3. Bishonen offered a compromise which was rejected, FT2 offered a counter-argument, but declined to unblock and you have also declined to unblock, instead asking the community what they thought. I know you wanted broader input, but that fact that you felt that you needed broader input indicates that this is not a simple matter of a bad block.

So that's my summary. I admit, I !voted (and HT has criticized me for doing so, as well as criticism me for defending my !vote and for calling for a close after HT, themselves had called for a close), and I'm not "unbiased" as it were. But I don't think that my opinion (or "bias" if you disagree with it) is invalid. Indeed, I first read about this block with the preconception that it was a bad block, based on FT2's summary on HT's talk page, and upon my interactions with Nfitz, the other editor involved in the dispute that resulted in the ANI thread that got HT blocked. (Those interactions took place in that ANI thread, and they left me with a very bad impression of HT's "opposition" in that discussion.) But it was MastCell's response at HT's talk page, in which they contradicted literally every assertion FT2 and HT's supporters made, made additional accusations against HT (namely, that they have a history of "weaseling" out of sanctions) and then provided evidence to support all of those claims (contrary to the abject bullshit that keeps getting repeated here) that changed my mind.

Anyways, that's what I've seen in this. I think it's very clear that the community doesn't want this unblock request to be granted. I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. So in my opinion, the consensus is clear on both fronts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Section is replete with mudslinging, NPA's, ABF, and generally poor conduct. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course you think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak. That's both the cause of and the result of your position on the issue. Likewise, I feel that the arguments in opposition to this unblock are weak(er), and that's both the cause of and the result of my position on the issue. dishonest at worst is an evidence-free AGF violation and should be stricken like all the others in this thread. I hope and assume that the closer will completely ignore this completely subjective analysis, which would give undue and improper weight to one side of the question, not that ignoring it will affect the outcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC) That's both the cause of and the result of your position on the issue. Oh, I wasn't aware you were capable of reading my mind. Can you tell me what I did with the spare key to my shed? I know I had it last week, but for the life of me, I can't recall where I left it... Or... Bear with me here... Or... You could try to make a case that the consensus in this thread is to unblock without restriction. Go ahead. But let me know before you start, so I can get some popcorn and cotton candy. I always love popcorn and cotton candy when I'm watching gymnastics. Even the logical kind. Alternatively, you could stop assuming bad faith, considering that I've already explained that my first impression was quite the opposite of my current conclusion. I even explained why, but I suppose it's too much to ask that you actually read that part... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Your summary contains a number of significant distortions. The two most important are as follows: "Bishonen offered a compromise which was rejected." HT thanked Bishonen for their offer, but said that they preferred to have their unblock request reviewed. It wasn't that HT rejected the content of what Bishonen was proposing (converting the indefinite block to a topic ban), but rather that HT wanted someone to actually review the original indefinite block. "But it was MastCell's response at HT's talk page, in which they contradicted literally every assertion FT2 and HT's supporters made, made additional accusations against HT (namely, that they have a history of 'weaseling' out of sanctions) and then provided evidence to support all of those claims (contrary to the abject bullshit that keeps getting repeated here) that changed my mind." The problem that I and several others have with this block is precisely that MastCell has chosen not to give evidence for their claims. Pointing that out isn't "abject bullshit." It's a simple fact, and I feel like I'm witnessing entering into an alternate reality whenever I read these claims that MastCell provided evidence. If they did provide evidence, please just link to the diff where they did so, and also link the diff they gave as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC) HT thanked Bishonen for their offer, but said that they preferred to have their unblock request reviewed. So in other words HT rejected Bish's offer. The problem that I and several others have with this block is precisely that MastCell has chosen not to give evidence for their claims. Bullshit. I don't believe for one second that you actually believe this, given the countless times MastCell (and many others, including a number of admins) has addressed this. To be perfectly clear: I am saying in unambiguous terms and without reservation: You are lying. And with that, I have nothing more to say. I will not engage with a liar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC) You could have just linked to the diff where MastCell gave evidence, and linked the diffs that MastCell gave as evidence. But instead of actually substantiating your assertion that MastCell has provided evidence, you chose, again, to insult me. Others can make of that what they will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Why would I bother? Did you already forget that whole "you're lying" thing? You don't correct a liar, you ignore them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Thuc? Changing the story again? I thought the problem was Napoleonic Justice? Now what? Marek's ass? I must say, in all your interactions I've never seen MPants "insult" you or anyone else on WP. A forthright statement of condemnation is about as good as it gets at AN, land of drama and subterfuge, and I admire Pants for disclosing his view without a trace of personal animus. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) I think everything has been said. No point in making the closer’s job more difficult. Objective3000 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pants, I'm really surprised that you need this explained to you. It took me about 15 seconds to find flaws in your analysis, and I didn't bother to continue because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here. This community has just spent 8 or 9 days debating Hidden Tempo's block, and we are not going to spend another 8 or 9 days debating the consensus of that debate. A closer doesn't need help assessing consensus from anybody, certainly not from an editor who !voted and commented in the discussion and couldn't possibly claim to be neutral. I'm struggling to AGF and see this as nothing more than really bad judgment, and if I didn't think the close would go your way anyway I would be making a much bigger issue of it. Please don't do it again in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't point out any flaws: You insinuated that you knew my underlying motivations for coming to the conclusions I did, I made fun of that insinuation because it's a little ridiculous to suggest that you know someone's private thoughts. You also suggested that the passage "dishonest at worst" was an aspersion, when it's clearly given as but one of a range of possibilities (though I will state clearly that I absolutely believe it applies to at least one editor here, and the evidence is right here in the fifth comment of this discussion). That's it. That's all you had. A subjective interpretation of what constitutes an accusation and a rather ridiculous insinuation that you are somehow in a position to contradict me as to what my own thought process was. That's not finding flaws, that's just complaining.

One thing we agree on, however, is that your comments weren't made for the purpose of mudslinging. I only moved that hat such that it would encompass your first comment because that was the only logical point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't point out any flaws because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here, as I said. Since you're clearly not interested in hearing what I'm clearly saying, I think I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a little strange to respond to an analysis with complaints, then later defend that response by saying you found flaws in the analysis, only to later turn around and claim that the merits of the analysis aren't the point of your comments. If the merits of the analysis weren't the point, then the only thing that makes sense is to presume your comments were a condemnation of me, personally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Second the request for closure. If the closer finds consensus to leave the block in place, Hidden Tempo should still be able to make future unblock requests on their talk page (hopefully this time without attacking the blocking admin) as there certainly isn't consensus here for a community ban. Also, for reference, the terms of Bishonen's suggestion were an "indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, with an appeal on WP:ANI or WP:AN allowed no sooner than a year from now" and that evasion of the topic ban via socks/IP would be grounds for an indefinite block. ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempted closure

Well I tried to close this [68] but I have been reverted [69] by user User:MPants at work as "We need an admin to impose those conditions, a regular editor should not be deciding the exact sanctions to apply." What is the consensus on this? I feel I comply with the requirements set out in WP:NAC. Also Boing! said he would adjust the unblock request to reflect the community. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As explained in my edit summary, I do not believe a non-admin has the right to impose such a sanction as you did in the close by indicating that HT was now subject to a community site ban. If the community disagrees, I will -of course- change my mind about this. But I do believe that the actual question here is a much larger one than this particular issue, and might need to be hashed out with a site-wide discussion, as it may involve a clarification of or change to policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mrjulesd, in a thread that has been so immensely wikilawyered to death as this one, there is basically no chance that an NAC is going to not get thrown back in someone's face as a reason why the outcome was invalid. It may seem silly and pointless, but them's the breaks sometimes. GMG^talk 13:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the close was not appropriate - I voiced my reasoning at User talk:MjolnirPants#Why?, so I won't repeat it here. (But I do thank User:Mrjulesd for having the courage to try to cut the knot.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, twas a courageous close, and certainly well intentioned. And I'm not convinced entirely that my interpretation of policy is correct (that a regular user cannot close a thread with the imposition of a community site ban), but as I said, that would require a much large discussion. Until then, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn after comments from Boing!. Thanks for your comment GreenMeansGo. The only question now is "what admin would want to close this discussion who does not feel they are involved"? Maybe some day. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, statistically speaking, we have enough admins that at least one or two of them are bound to be rabid masochists. Although maybe we should make a user category for them, so next time they'll be easier to find. GMG^talk 14:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And here I was, about to take a look and potentially close the discussion, but heaven forbid I reveal my true nature as a rabid masochist... Primefac (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You know the difference between a sadist and masochist? A masochist says hurt me, the sadist says no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We've got room for all types here at Wikipedia. It's just a matter of finding a place where you fit in... and where your "talents" are best used. GMG^talk 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That'd be a pretty lackadaisical sadist. I'd say "how exactly do you want me to hurt you?" then press for details until the massochist is all worked up and excited. Then I'd say "No". And smile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I never heard of a non-administrator implementing a topic ban and I seriously doubt it is permitted. Per WP:Banning policy, "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)." In this case we would be looking at a community consensus ban, and the policy about a community consensus ban (WP:CBAN) clearly states "When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made." Also, "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse." --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Go for it, User:Primefac! --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Second close

The close summary - "TL;DR: No consensus to unblock. Clear consensus on the topic ban.
I think there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action. I don't feel that MastCell has explained himself very well; trying to figure out what all this is about feels somewhat like diving down the rabbit hole and a clear explanation of what seems to have been a reasonable action might have saved some spilled bytes (hint for those who come after: this is what's it's about, which for an editor coming off an AP2 topic appears to justify some sanction). Of course explaining yourself repeatedly gets tiresome and I don't really blame him for wearying of it. Otherwise, there is certainly no consensus to unblock but I don't think that amounts to consensus to convert this to a community site ban; the subject has been raised, but not extensively discussed. Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted.
There is very clear consensus for an indefinite topic ban; one is therefore imposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)}}"

Firstly, many thanks to User:GoldenRing for attempting another close, but I'm afraid I have to revert it as it is problematic. I brought it here because the unblock request had been open for a month and no admin appeared prepared to tackle it, so we need an actual community discussion decision (wrong word, grr). "No consensus to unblock" and "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted" does not provide that decision.

We need clear answers to the following two questions

• "Unblock, yes or no?"
• "Topic ban, yes or no?"

If an admin attempting to close can not discern those answers, I think they should defer to others who might be able to. User:RickinBaltimore, User:Primefac, and I think one more were planning on producing a joint closing statement, and I think they should be allowed to try that. If between them they can not discern a consensus, we'll then have to think what to do next, but just throwing it back to those who came here for a decision is the worst possible solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: thanks for taking the initiative to close this, but I have an issue to clarify. You stated: "...there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action." I'd like to draw your attention to the "community bans and restrictions" section of the banning policy, wherein it states: "[e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." I'm only bringing this up because you then stated: "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted." This last statement of yours that I quoted appears incompatible with the banning policy, which seems to dictate that future appeals of the sanction should be presented to the community for review, and indeed we've had serious dramah in the recent past over administrators unilaterally deciding to unblock a user who was thought to have been community banned. Can I suggest you clarify your intent? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC) NOTE: I was typing this while Boing! said Zebedee was reverting the close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• User:GoldenRing, I guess it's customary to start by thanking you, but "TL;DR" — Too Long; Didn't Read — really? If that was a joke, it didn't do much for me. Perhaps that's just the famous problem that text doesn't have a tone of voice. I know the discussion is long, but that's because a lot of people have invested time and engagement in it. Please don't close it if you in your turn don't have the time or the engagement to read it, all of it. I agree with Boing and Ivan about the problems with your close. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: it was intended neither as a joke nor as you have read it; that sentence was the TL;DR Sunday of the remainder of my comments. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's revert of the close. Yes, we do need clear answers to those two questions. We appear to have at least two other Admins planning on a joint close and we should leave it to them. I also agree with Ivanvector that a community refusal to unblock means that an editor is community banned and cannot be unblocked by an Admin acting on their own. And, boring as another agreement might be, I'm with Bishonen to the TL;DR issue. A decision as important as this warrants some time put into considering the close. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• While I agree with the revert of the close for the reasons given above, to be fair, I'm pretty sure GR's "TL;DR" means "if you don't want to read my close, here's a shorter summary". TL;DR has kind of become an unfortunately confusing self-deprecating way of saying "in a nutshell". I wish people wouldn't do that, but it has become fairly widespread. think that's all that was meant here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually just typed up pretty much the same exact thing before I realized what you said. Just goes to show that I should read more than just the comments I was responding to before I edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, you're probably right, @Floquenbeam: GoldenRing probably meant it in a self-deprecating way: 'sorry my close is so long'. In my defense, though, it was a bit confusing because the close wasn't long, it was quite short. It's a big, complicated thread. You usually, and appropriately, see long and elaborate closes of those, because many points need to be clearly addressed and analysed. This was a short close, and indeed missed addressing important stuff. But I'm sorry I misread you, GoldenRing. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Floq has read my intent here correctly. To be clear, I've discussed this with B!SZ at my task page and am absolutely fine with his revert; if I'd spotted that there was a panel forming then I'd have stayed out of it, but I read this discussion through before that and then spent the intervening time reading history and pondering so didn't notice it. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I read it the wrong way first and then realized what it meant. "TL;DR version: " followed by "Full version: " probably works better. Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll stick my oar in once more before signing off for the night. In my view, in formulating a close of this discussion, there are three questions that need to be answered: Does this discussion amount to consensus for a site ban? If not, does it amount to consensus to unblock? And does the topic ban (for which consensus certainly exists) likely adequately address the disruption? Since I think the answers are no, no and yes, respectively, I arrived at the close I wrote. I will be interested to see how others answer those questions. GoldenRing (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No on the "And does the topic ban (for which consensus certainly exists) likely adequately address the disruption?" one - the job of a closer is not to evaluate whether a solution is adequate, but only to determine whether there is a consensus for it. Deciding the close based on one's own evaluation of what is sufficient is supervoting, and that is not allowed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see I was mistaken about the TL;DR bit. But I agree with Boing! about the fact that we (Admins) should only be determining whether a consensus exists, not if a solution will or will not work. But GoldenRing is both relatively new as an Admin and bold (in a good way) to take this on, and this is just part of the ever growing learning curve. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Site ban?

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

---

In reading over the two closes today I noticed that there is disagreement over whether votes against an unblock equate to support for a community-imposed site ban. This seems like too big of a logical leap to me, since some people may have been opposing the unblock thinking that Hidden Tempo could be later unblocked via normal processes if they demonstrated that they were ready to edit constructively in other areas and would no longer be a force for disruption. That was my understanding at least. In any case, if we're going to site ban someone let's at least say what we're doing while we do it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging people involved in the original discussion...please keep your comments short...this thread is too long already. @Mr Ernie: @Objective3000: @Floquenbeam: @Ivanvector: @Thucydides411: @D.Creish: @Lepricavark: @Only in death does duty end: @Alex Shih: @Drmies: @FT2: @Power~enwiki: @Neutrality: @Valeince: @SPECIFICO: @Softlavender: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @Beyond My Ken: @JFG: @MrX: @D.Creish: @MjolnirPants: @Ψλ: @Cjhard: @TheGracefulSlick: @Jytdog: @Begoon: @Darouet: @Nihlus kryik: @ValarianB: @Fyddlestix: @Darwinian Ape: @MastCell: @Mandruss: @Swarm: @Ealdgyth: @RickinBaltimore: @Johnuniq: @SpacemanSpiff: @Just Chilling: ~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. I believe that the indefinite topic ban from American Politics imposed above is sufficient to deal with the battleground behavior of Hidden Tempo, and I haven't seen any evidence of disruption outside the topic area. Looking at the consensus against unblocking above, I think the current unblock request should be closed as "declined" and Hidden Tempo should have the opportunity to form another request if they desire. If that fails, their talkpage access can be removed, and they will be de facto banned. ~Awilley (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• In answer to GoldenRing's question, I would say yes, per Ivanvector's quote from the banning policy: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". But my personal feelings are "meh". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• A community consensus not to unblock, in my opinion, should require a new community consensus to override. That's a ban, according to CBAN. I'm not too hung up on what we call it, really, but if it seems easier or clearer to call it a site ban, then I support that. -- Begoon 00:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Begoon: I like your take on it better than my own just below this, so... what he said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• So... this is one of those cases that illustrate why there's a need for explicit banning, as opposed to de facto banning. In a lot of community site ban discussion, there are editors (including those that I respect quite a bit) who say "The person is already de facto banned, why do we need a community ban?" I'm not going to repeat my arguments against that, except to say that the policy snippet cited above is about de facto banning, and not about explicit banning. So... my answer is to split those hairs and say that if HT is not unblocked, then he is de facto banned, but has not been explicitly banned via a community ban discussion.
  Yes, that stance can be criticized as a distinction without a difference, but I think that if an admin took it upon themselves to unblock an editor who had been explicitly banned after a community site ban discussion, the heavens would descend on them, but they would (possibly) have a more plausible excuse if the editor involved was only de facto banned.
  Now, if you folks would stop pinging me, I can get back to counting all these damned angels cluttering up the head of this darned pin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC) See above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose site ban – (pinged) Seems that every day of discussion can only get worse for Hidden Tempo's prospects vis-à-vis Wikipedia. I stand by my initial opinion that an indef block was unjustly WP:PUNITIVE and disproportionate to the editor's actual disruption level. A site ban would be even worse. I already note the chilling effects on other editors (see Cjhard's comment of 21 September: Regardless of how the discussion turns out, I'm done with this project based on how you've been treated.), and I shiver at the pile-on that we have witnessed above. If I were in HT's position, I'd feel like being at the hands of the Grand Inquisitor, getting tortured ever deeper for screaming my defense ever louder (WP:BLUDGEON in local jargon). Disgusting. — JFG ^talk 01:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• There is nothing to debate here. Process-wise, it is clear that a) they were indefinitely blocked; b) the unblock request was brought to the community and was discussed (to death); and c) there is no consensus to unblock. Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Per CBAN, they are now CBANed. It isn't relevant that people weren't !voting with this mind. It is intuitive. This CBAN can now only be lifted via a community discussion; no admin can do that on his or her own authority, as the community devoted a ton of time to this, and there is no consensus that HT will not again abuse their editing privileges. A successful appeal to the community will need to be framed in a way that compels consensus that HT will not resume their disruptive behavior and suck up another boatload of community time. (I said this in my initial !vote above, but HT really should have accepted Bish's offer of a TBAN; they went "all or nothing" and got nothing. Somebody who cannot take the reasonable compromise is indeed not cut out for the kind of community work we need to do here) Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• I was going to make a comment but Jytdog and Begoon sum up my feelings about this situation. Valeince (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose site ban per JFG. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is an inviolable Wikipedia policy, not something to be applied selectively or weighed against other factors. As I said in my !vote, we have no history of HT's behavior outside AP, so the indef block cannot be preventative. This essential point is being ignored here and if the indef block stands it will be an embarrassing failure of the community to abide by its own standards and principles. Per JFG, a site ban would be even worse. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban – Many of the development in the AN discussion was related to bludgeoning of the process. Site ban would certainly be an overkill. Alex Shih^Talk 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Per policy, a community decline of a request to remove an indef block is a community ban (linked in two other comments). I'm not always a fan of that being true, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why we would make an exception to a clear, consistent policy for this user. If the point of the entire - what, 1 week? - discussion is just to confirm what everyone already knew - that the block was legit, that HT hasn't come up with a legitimate unblock request after 1+ months, and that an indefinite topic ban is the bare absolute minimum - then Jesus, what a colosal waste of time. If any admin can unblock if they personally like the agreement they can make with HT, then every single person here has wasted their time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, sure, but really what Floq says. What needs to be clear is that all of this really adds up to "no unblock by any individual administrator". Drmies (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban - I don't particularly care whether this is closed or not. This is a fairly nuanced issue of policy that matters quite a bit to the particulars of the close, and I personally don't think it applies here. Whether this policy applies actually matters quite a bit to the way the close works, and I don't think it does, at least by the consensus of the community, which is the only thing that matters. At the end of the day there is no more central place to establish precedent than here. GMG^talk 02:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban I have removed the inappropriate non-admin closure. I echo Mandruss's perspective on the matter, as well as what JFG so eloquently said. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Close review 4: the Closening

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

---

Coffee for the challengers.

@Tazerdadog, Primefac, and There'sNoTime: sorry, I have to challenge this close again. The banning policy clearly states:

• In some cases the community may review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction.
• Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Both of these have occurred here. You noted explicitly that consensus endorses the indefinite block. I don't think anyone could possibly argue that this days-and-kilobytes-long thread does not represent "due consideration by the community", and in fact Hidden Tempo "remain[s] indefinitely blocked". Thus, policy dictates that they are banned by the Wikipedia community, notwithstanding your bolded statement that you don't see consensus for it. I urge you once again to reword your close to reflect this, so as to avoid future wikilawyering. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Just a courtesy note that I've seen this, and that I will be contacting the other closers shortly -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I should have said up front, thanks for stepping up and taking the time to close this in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'm also aware of this, and I'm working on getting a cohesive response together from all of the closers. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, Primefac, and There'sNoTime: Just a note re:above - The site ban question was open less than 24 hours and half of the comments indicated there was nothing to debate per policy. CBS527^Talk 18:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I told you you shouldn't have mentioned the war site ban ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding the just-revised close: 1) no such thing exists as a "community block": all community-derived sanctions are within the scope of the banning policy (thus nominally bans); 2) nowhere was it suggested that Hidden Tempo's talk page access should be revoked until you suggested it just then. I do see that there's a table in the banning policy highlighting the differences between blocks and bans which implies that sitebanned users' talk page access is "usually not allowed", which I hadn't noticed, which I can't find supported by the actual policy, and which goes against current practice in my experience. It wasn't my intention to suggest that Hidden Tempo should not be allowed to edit their talk page, and I see no reason to suggest that now. I see that procedural nitpicking isn't going to change the actual practical result of this, and so I'm withdrawing my objection to the close based on the most recent revision. Thanks again for taking the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata

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

---

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs)
• AN thread regarding user
• Previous instance of Indef block over deletion of a 39 byte draft: Damaging Wikipedia is a capital crime. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- Taku[70]
  • When the Indef was lifted: Actually some problematic users like RH don't deserve respect; they need to be expelled from Wikipedia so actual editors can get to the work of building the encyclopedia. I will retire for time being but hopefully, I can will come back when the project becomes more hospitable to content creators. -- Taku[71] (Edited by Alsee)
• Previous instance of block for disruptive editing
• Previous cautioning by editors regarding disregarding DRV
• Warning regarding disruptively making points
• Recent Edit Warring Noticeboard report
  • Block as the result of the Edit Warring Noticeboard thread
• Returning back to the page for which they were just blocked on
• Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Brainstorming on an RfC - In which Taku continues to argue that CSD:G13 does not apply to Draft space after recieveing multiple editors reconfirmations that "Yes it does" including several reminders that the question is still too early to be re-called.
  • Attempt to forum shop to canvas a precieved supportive consensus.

For these reasons I am at my wits end, therefore I propose the following:

TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability broadly construed. These sanctions shall be appealable in one year from enactment and a failure to successfully appeal the sanctions shall reset the one year clock.

The goal is two fold: To prevent further disruption by this user who has demonstrated over two years that they have a significantly divergent purpose than the general community (see previous blocks/warnings/cautions/requests), and to allow this user some productive contributions. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't argue G13 doesn't apply to the draftspace. But apparently an attempt to have a discussion the use of the draftspace turns out to be too controversial so I can agree for the other users more knowledgeable in policies matters to weight in. (A kind of a self-topic-ban?) -- Taku (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at this point self-topic bans are not going to cut it for me as you've demonstrated in multiple instances since the previous AN thread closed you cannot be allowed to discuss anything with Draft namespace. Even on your own talk page you agree to walk away and then immediately jump aback into the same arguments that have been rejected repeatedly. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, I agree that I will not start a new thread on the draftspace usage, including an RfC. But I do strongly believe some kind of RfC on clarification, not on G13 but on the usage is more productive than having discussions on editors' behaviors. I was merely trying to start a conversion (not on G13 but the usage) but it is clear by now that that was a bad idea. But I would like if someone else can weight in. -- Taku (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support enough is more than enough, [72] and he continues in this thread to play dumb and "debate" the purpose of Draft space/G13/various angles. I told him I may just hat his disruption [73] but he continues. Just look down his "contributions" if you can call them that. I believe Taku is a very bright person who can contribute in many useful ways here but this has become a game for him. He admitted that somewhere recently the game was more fun then writing math topics. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do agree that I'm more on a content-guy than a policy-guy and I'm getting a bit tired of these disputes. So I strongly prefer if the community can establish some explicit rules on the draftspace usage. (Again G13 is just a procedure and doesn't address this matter.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)If your last sentence is true, and your characterization of it accurate, then we should be considering a full ban, not just a topic ban. —Cryptic 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I found the diff [74] and the rest of that post User:Cryptic - is my characterization fair?. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  No. At least, not in the sense in which I read it. —Cryptic 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose  I see I've already posted five times on this page between 20 and 27 August.  I think that things would calm down very quickly if we limit Legacypac and Hasteur to three edits per day in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And I wish that you'd be sanctioned for the unfounded personal attacks against us, but I'm just going to have to be disapointed. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This last post as well as this thread itself should be flagged as evidence of an attempt to silence anyone opposing some personal views on how the draftspace must be used. -- Taku (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Damaging Wikipedia is a [[capital crime]]. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 03:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[75] illustrates the level of passion Taku has been bringing to the draft issue. They have been asserting disruptive levels of OWNership regarding three-year-abandonded drafts containing no more than a sentence fragment. They have been persistently and disruptively seeking to combat, evade, or bizarrely-reinterpret consensus regarding drafts. The most recent discussion at WT:Drafts#Brainstorming_on_an_RfC descended into nonsense. I do not believe the "Alternative suggestion" below will be sufficient to reign in the problem here. Alsee (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Christ. I hadn't planned to go one way or another on the original suggestion, but after that diff Alsee provided where Takuya said someone had committed a capital crime (e.g. they deserve death), I support anything up to and including an indefinite block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support with Boomerang the edit-warring on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 is extremely troubling. As a Straw Man proposal, I think a block that would end this dispute would be to ban Legacypac and Hasteur from the WP:MfD page until the G13 debate is resolved, and to ban Taku from the draft space indefinitely, with an exception for moving "his drafts" to his own user space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is too complicated a suggestion. Just block Taku from draft space and be done with it. Despite the walls of text, nobody seems to be objecting to that outcome. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I was trying to stay out of it because I'm so tired of this fucking Taku draft thing but seriously? Wikipedia is a game and "I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite fun than writing terse math articles)."? Deleting single-line drafts is "damaging Wikipedia" which "is a capital crime"? We are being trolled, and trolled well, if the amount of bytes and brain power devoted to this one single person over the past few months is any indication. Like Rob, I support anything that will cause this disruption to cease, up to and including an indef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as unfortunately necessary, and like BU Rob 13 and PMC, I'll get behind anything which will put a permanent stop to this craziness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with note - With the capital crime thing, I will support anything up to and including an indef. If Taku stops this madness and apologize sincerely, then I will not support more than a 2 week block. Hopefully this will stop the drain on the community's time that this has become. We could have spent this time reviewing AfCs or writing FAs. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support TakuyaMurata has become an SPA dedicated to wikilawyering WP:NOTWEBHOST to conclude that sub-stub drafts can be kept indefinitely—that is, anyone can store forever a few lines at Wikipedia provided it plausibly can be called a draft. Valid points can be made on both sides, but the WP:IDHT one-way discussions have to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let the waste of time end. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of the merits of his argument, this has now reached ridiculous levels of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT from Taku, to the point at which the above posters are correct, Taku has essentially become an SPA, disrupting Wikipedia with needless, timewasting discussions and editwarring to keep their sometimes barely one sentence stub drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for consistently wasting everyone's time and ridiculous gaslighting in this thread. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hold on - no opinion from me yet, but note that the "capital crime" comment occurred in January 2016, nearly two years ago, and the targeted user and two reviewing admins agreed that the comment could not reasonably be perceived as a death threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect, the capital crime was not presented as current evidence, but rather as part of a pattern of hyperbolic reactions and WP:IDHT that the user has consistently shown. I am attempting to set the stage to demonstrate how TakuyaMurata's conduct has not improved even after multiple brushes with sanctioning. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's what I assumed, I'm just pointing out the timeline since a few comments here seem to think it was a very recent comment and/or more than 0% serious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support with sanctions as well for Legacypac and Hasteur. With respect, the discussions around the various draft policy/guideline pages have been polluted for some time by the (justifiable) assumptions of bad faith amongst all three of these editors, and I think it's warranted to extend the proposed sanction to the other two editors as well, as power~enwiki proposed. I'm against the wording that would prevent Taku from participating broadly in individual MfD pages, that's far too broad and unjustified, but I support all of the other wording regarding draft-related project discussions. (To be clear, the sanction prevents commenting on a draft guideline, but not commenting on an MfD where such a guideline is being discussed by others). I suggest that sanction apply to LP and H until the conclusion of the present G13 discussion (it's basically concluded, though) and to Taku indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Struck the parallel sanction suggestion, that other discussion is effectively over and just waiting for someone to close it (I can't for pointy ideological reasons). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Taku. This whole thing is a monumental waste of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen. No sanctions for Hasteur or Legacypac are merited as far as I can see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inadequate examples of disruption presented that have occurred since the recent AN closure. That thread closure specifically mentioned "clemency": if any of the involved parties further obstructs the MFD process or otherwise becomes disruptive (be it in an MFD or through their conduct towards another editor), then this discussion can be revisited, but only the actions since the close of this case should be considered. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Clemency requires the editor to not continue being disruptive. Launching IDHT motivated RFC, attempting to canvass a supportive faux-consensus, edit warring over policies/guidelines/instructional pages, getting blocked for said edit warring, returning to the page they were blocked for edit warring on to reinstate a contested edit, gaslighting discussions to attempt to turn it to a place where they could "win". These actions are incompatible with the Clemency. Even when editors return from indefinite blocks or ArbCom sanctions their previous history is frequently introduced as supplementary evidence to the editor's behavior over an extended period. I would also note that TakuyaMurata's previous interactions with sanctions were not considered by many (if any) of the editors in the "clemency" closed thread. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hasteur is absolutely correct. Even if we assume the previous thread's closure both required future sanction discussions to focus on disruption taking place after the closure and was actually binding, we're not talking about making a determination of culpability, but the extent of remedy necessary to protect the community. It is nonsensical to blind ourselves to how disruptive Taku has previously been when crafting a remedy for his continued disruption. And even then, the thread closure statement isn't binding. Even if there were a consensus that Taku shouldn't be sanctioned for prior conduct in future threads, the consensus in this thread itself could (and clearly will) supersede any such consensus. So let's not play like we're a court of law. We're just trying to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Taku has been a repeated source of disruption in this space, whether it be via POINT or IDHT. Enough is enough. -FASTILY 22:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per other users, continued disruptive behavior. Stikkyy t/c 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Request closure the path forward is very clear amd further posting are just making this worse. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconded Please close this already. The discussion below is not helping anybody. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It may well be that a topic ban is appropriate. But frankly it's been the same editors, over and over, who keep harping on this user. If he's such a big problem, let someone new bring it to the fore. It feels like my kids arguing in the back seat "he keeps poking me". "That's because she keeps making faces". The right answer isn't to punish just one of those kids. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's assume for the sake of argument that we are doing punishment here rather than preventing harm to the community. The answer to your question is not to punish nobody: it'd be to punish everybody. If you believe there are other culpable individuals you are welcome to bring topic ban discussions regarding them. Of course, we're not doing punishment here, but preventing further harm to the community in the least harmful manner possible. That Taku has been disruptive doesn't even seem significantly contested, even by Taku himself. I don't see what the problem is here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think punishing one and then later discussing punishing the other is a good way forward. I feel like Taku has been poked to get him to be disruptive. Personality-wise he's an easy target. He won't back down and blows up over minor slights. So yes, I do think the topic ban may be appropriate. In fact I said so. But I find a one-way finding of fault to be a really bad idea. Hobit (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect, please go review WP:PUNISH and see how fundamentally wrong your thesis is. I know personally I tried the kid-gloves approack in May of last year only to have TakuyaMurata nitpick the argument into "No Consensus" (see previous Taku Megathread evidence regarding WikiProject Mathematics talk page). Now that the community at large has authorized new tools to help clean up Draft namespace (for which TakuyaMurata participated in the RFC) Taku has conseistently attempted to stealth water down the consensus by directly changing pages, opened RFCs which directly counter the stated intent of recently closed RFCs, opened discussions attempting to wordsmith/lawyer loopholes around the stated policies/guidelines/best practices that would give Taku the ability to retain indefinitely 32 byte Draftspace pages and give them the standing to resist and reject any attempt to use or modify the content in mainspace such as redirecting/merging under a very disturbing combination of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. I do admit that I've been intemperate with Takuya, but due to the repeated plays for time ("I'm at a conference", "I need to be working on a paper", "I need to do something besides trying to fix the messes I've made except to spend hours defending my creations") and repeated false flag competence gambits ("I guess I'm not proficient at English", "I guess I don't understand the policy", "I guess I don't know what I need to do") that no user who actually has been working on wikipedia since 2004 could make without having an ulterior gambit in mind. Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hobit, you wanted "someone new bring [topic ban] to the fore". I present myself. I told Taku you're going to get topic banned[76] less than one hour before this topic-ban proposal was posted. I suspect my comment was the tipping point to open this proposal. Checking the editor interaction analyzer I found I had one un-remembered passing encounter with Taku half a year ago. I have only noticed and directly engaged Taku in the last two months. I think I qualify as "someone new". In the last two months I have either found it a waste of time, or a bizarre waste of time, to engage Taku on the topic of drafts. The additional evidence I've been seeing only cements that conclusion. Alsee (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I've seen enough other interactions with Taku that verge on hounding. Have you taken a look at the interactions between those folks and Taku? I find it hard to blame the user when people just keep being on his case for things I think are, in many cases, bogus. Who cares if he creates short stubs in draft space? Apparently it is something that requires massive discussion over a ton of locations on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hobit - no one has even nominated to delete one of his pages for weeks and no one has been hounding him. Taku is the one spreading disruption from page to page. Please look at his activity, I want you to be satisfied with the majority opinion here and not harboring a misconception about what has been happening. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Has it really been weeks between when this thread was started and the last one was closed? The one that stayed here for a long time? After the one before it? And all the discussions elsewhere over a few dozen drafts? I believe you mean well. But at some point you can't be surprised when someone reacts poorly to stuff like that. And IMO, it was all over nothing important (extremely short drafts in draft space are worth 100,000 words of discussion?). If everyone had just let his stub-stub drafts alone, which IMO cause no harm and are actually about maybe getting articles out, we wouldn't be here. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Request closure again there is clear consensus for a very specific topic ban. Can an uninvolved Admin please close this up. Continued debate is just harmful to Taku. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support primarily a site ban, because Taku apparently enjoys playing games and cares nothing that those games drain the time and energy of other users. That's a net negative right there. As second choice, I support a T-ban from draft space and discussions related to draft space, as per Hasteur's proposal, or whatever kind of T-ban gains consensus here. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
• One last comment? This post is just to say I'll be self-topic-banning myself regarding the policy/behavior discussions related to the draftspace, including this thread. As I said and to remind myself, I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia by developing and editing the content. But, sadly, the governing system is broken (the unfairness of this thread is evidence-enough) and that has forced me to be engage in the disputes like this. I still believe someone must stand up against bullies; that one is just not going to be me. -- Taku (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Request closure. Consensus appears clear, and discussion appears to have faded out. Alsee (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Extended content

Comment: It is clear that my participation in discussions regarding the draftspace has ceased to be productive; the latest RfC thread (WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT G13) is the latest example. The original sanction seems to be severe but I can agree to move on as long as there will be the same/similar sanctions on Legacypac and Hasteur. By now, their modus operadi have been well established: getting their opponents banned by any means. That's very unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. Obviously it's not fair to let Legacypac and Hasteur off the hook and I will fight until/unless they receive the same or similar punishments. I will just move on to developing the content (I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as it is beneficial to Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) The time for bargining is over. Your actions are at cause here. When you refuse to follow standard operating procedures and refuse to accept that you are wrong, we have no choice but to remove you from the equation. Please recognize that what you've posted above is a bald faced incivil comment and very close to a personal attack. Wikipedia is not Fair, nor is it Justice, nor is it a Democracy. Your promise that you will fight until/unless Legacypac and I recieve same or similar punishments (again with this fundamental misunderstanding of policy after many years) only demonstrates that you should be blocked indefinitely right now as a clear and present danger as you have demonstrated no interest in participating constructively. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: There was an edit conflict and the above is the response to my previous comment. Anyway, let's stop the fight. I don't care if you win or not. I promise to complete my drafts within the 6 months window (in addition to the proposed sanction). Can we just stop interacting with each other? I think that's the best. Or you can't stop unless/until I'm completely gone? -- Taku (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC) What do I want? I want you to stop all editing and have a thorough review of the policies (including but not limited to WP:OWN, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:CIV, WP:N, WP:MERGE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, WP:5P, WP:POINT) and have a good long think about your editing history and all the "discussions" you've participated in and what your contributions have done for them. At that point each time I'd want you to ask the question "What would an Administrator do in this case?" If you took time out, we wouldn't have the pointy DRVs where you try to overturn a MFD debate on a technicality, Edit warring over policies, instructions, commentaries, and thousands of bytes debating a 32 byte submission. We wouldn't have you hiding behind "I am not proficent with english"/"I need more time because of a deadline"/"I didn't know that policy meant X". I think you are a specialist in graduate level abstract mathematics, however at the end of the day it's looking at what benefit you bring to the community measured against the disruption your contributions bring. The reply of 01:53, 19 September 2017 has me revoking my previous statement. I stand by the previous characterization, I want you gone because even when shown kindness you lash out with personal attacks. Hasteur (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @TakuyaMurata: I'd like to see you focus more on general math topics (maybe Limit (mathematics)) than on trying to explain Grothendieck's terminologies to non-mathematicians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: Wait a minute. You think your action is not disruptive then? I didn't have to participate any of those discussions as long as you didn't try to impose your personal view on how the draftspace must be used. I will let you RULE the draftspace. That's what you want in the end, period. I can give you that. So let stop interacting each other. -- Taku (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: Personal attack??? And you think you're being civil? That's exactly the sort of unfairness I keep bringing up. Anyway, again, I think we can end the dispute as long as I use the draftspace so that there is no more-than-6-month-old and too-short drafts there (in addition to proposed non-participation in the policy discussions). -- Taku (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Is this a personal attack? But it seems you're the one who is trying to make the dispute as verbose as possible so that I can get bannned in the end. It is I who keep suggesting some constructive compromises (see the previous thread as well as this thread). I perceived that's unfair and I have to be punished for saying that? Starting the RfC thread was a mistake but that was not supposed to be about G13 and you are making a supposed policy discussion to a personal matter. Many users seem to get into a trouble with you; is that really because they are problematic users or because it is you who increase the temperature in unnecessary ways? (I notice you tend to claim personal attacks way too often). As far as I know, my contributions to the mainspace are well received. I know I'm editing the mainspace sporadically right now but isn't that because I'm caught up by this disputes and again all blames go to me? Claiming this is unfair gets me banned? That's fair? I'm ready to move on since I don't want to waste everyone's time. Then again you can't even agree on that? Saying that is again a personal attack, which gets me into a trouble. The dynamics is unhealth and all blames go to me. Wow. -- Taku (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

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

---

I find it unlikely the community will enact a topic ban as broadly construed as Hasteur has suggested. Having said that, Takuya above agreed that it would be appropriate for him not to start any new threads about draftspace usage. I suggest we formalize that as a topic ban "on starting new discussions related to draft space, broadly construed". I'd suggest applying this as an indefinite sanction, with possibility of appeal after one year (and every year thereafter). This is even supported by the editor who would be sanctioned, so I don't think this should be too controversial. Hopefully this ends the dispute. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect BU Rob13, this does not deal with the currently open discussions where Taku has called the same question again suggesting that G13 is not validly construed as community consensus recently after their topic ban has expired for which multiple editors have told him that his interpertation is invalid. This does not help his trying to forum shop over at WT:CSD to try and canvas a overruling consensus to the previous statement. I predict, that if your proposal is enacted, Taku will chime in on (or get well intentioned editors to start) threads so that they can continue to spray the FUD position that they have consistently held for over a year. Nonetheless, I would conditionally support (as second preference to primary) this as long as you agree to be on hand to slap down each time Taku attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER around the wording of the sanction. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm not suggesting this because I think it's guaranteed to work. I'm suggesting this because I heavily doubt the community will support your proposal and this is more likely to work than nothing. If he continues to wikilawyer after this sanction, that would be a strong case to ask for more. It's very unlikely the community is going to agree to three separate topic bans for on an editor when they couldn't get anywhere in the Takuya discussion before (which hasn't even been archived yet). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: the part of the problems, as it seems, stems from my lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies (my expertise in math, I suppose). Consequently, I'm not the best person to start a thread like that, as it turned out. But, as I wrote, I still believe the rules on the use of the draftspace are not so clear; i.e., which draft page can/should belong to the draftspace. I thought the answer is any draft but the others disagree. So, for the record, I would really like if the community can set clear rules on the use of the draftspace. The vagueness is a problem because, oftentimes, MfD discussions of the drafts turn to be on the use of the draftspace. Having some global rule is thus preferred than various piecemeal discussions. -- Taku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a global rule, it's just every time we try to apply that rule, you fight tooth and nail to argue the rule doesn't apply for some nitpickey sub-argument. There never really is a hard and fast rule, because Consensus can change, however when the same types of debates resolve the same way, that kind of sets up a precedent for which it's harg to argue against. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: Why does every single edit of yours in this section mention your disagreement with G13 when the subject is your behavior? Why is this gaslighting acceptable? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  Gaslighting?? How? I do not disagree with G13 (in fact, I even supported the expansion for God's sake.) A nomination is not the same as deletion; good useful draft pages need to be preserved and, in my opinion, an admin should decline the G13 nomination of an old but useful draft or do something about it. Also, there is REFUND; so an editor can still find a way to preserve inactive drafts. -- Taku (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  You didn't answer my question. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  Because this is ultimately a policy-question not the behavior one. (I'm aware that User:Hasteur wants to make this as a behavior matter since they cannot win a policy debate.) I suppose Hasteur needs to be somehow warned of repeatedly bringing up the dispute here instead of engaging in the policy debate. -- Taku (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  I gave up trying to make policy points with you because you refuse to accept any position except yours as valid. Since you've blocked content related disputes and continue to disrupt Wikipedia, conduct related disputes are the next way to elicit compliance. I would also note that in this same period I've provided suggestions on a great many AFDs and various other wikipedia projects. I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge, but I can help Wikipedia function well. All you seem to do is look for loopholes and try to continue being a disruptive force. @Nihlus Kryik: This is TakuyaMurata's modus operandi: Look for a minor imperfection and use that as a wedge point to allow them to continue causing disruption. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with additional suggestions - if this ends this subject and gets Taku to get stuff out of the draft, then I think that it is a great idea. I do want to add that I think there should also be a ban from enacting consensus (ie closing RfCs on the subject) and changing policy pages that relate to the draftspace, except for minor changes such as grammar and spelling. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  As far as I know, I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC (and I'm not planning to do that in the future.) Also, there was a proposal in the previous thread that we move math-related draft pages to WikiProject math. I'm willing to accept that compromise if the community decides that inactive drafts do not belong to the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ummm Taku's "I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC" is an alternative fact: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] and that is just this month. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Boy, you have too much time and I'm supposed to be working on my paper :) Anyway, all I can see is my attempt to bring the pages to the status quo. I do believe in establishing some consensus before making controversial policy changes. -- Taku (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as inadequate, which I guess is a support if stronger measures do not pass. Alsee (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original proposal is preferred, although this would be acceptable as a second choice if the first doesn't pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as inadequate although would support if the first proposal is not successful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice- per my rationale above. Additionally, Taku notes his "lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies"- no excuse for an editor who has been around as long as he has, but also if you don't understand the policies, perhaps you shouldn't be editwarring to change them? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I see no reason to believe preventing Taku from starting new discussions will really help anything so long as Taku is allowed to jump into open discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note he's now posted a retirement, but he was retired all through the recent months of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: His retirement speech makes swipes at "fairness", "justice", and policies of the site. As has been said many times, all he had to do was educate himself on the policies we repeatedly showed him and not become an ostritch to them. I certainly think the community dynamic is healthy as Wikipedia existed long before TakuyaMurata and will continue to exist long after, but I could be wrong. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • With some frequency, "retirements" don't last all that long, so the fact of it shouldn't stop the community from approving sanctions, if that's what the consensus is. They would be in effect when the retirement ends, and (I believe) if they are timed, the timing would start with the first edit upon return. (Is that right?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh, there's absolutely no reason to take retirement into account when deciding whether to sanction an editor. Seeing as they're a subset of Wikipedia, these noticeboards are also not a crystal ball. That is, there's no reason to assume the problem that would otherwise have led to sanctions goes away because the editor in question does as well. The Arbitration practice of staying cases during the absence of a party doesn't really apply outside that unique forum. I'm not as on board with tolling any limitation period for the period of "retirement", though; I think that takes us too close to punitive sanctions. The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period, and having Taku leave Wikipedia entirely would result in the same preventive effect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that's probably right, Mendaliv. A sanction which begins after a block ends is something that makes sense to me, but keying the start point of a sanction to when/if an editor ends a period of voluntary "retirement" seems a bit problematical. I think, in those circumstances, if something which can't just be "sat out" is required, it would need to be an indef restriction (as is, in fact, proposed here), although even there one could just not edit for the minimum appeal period, then appeal. But that's always going to be the case - we are never compelled to make edits, retired or not. "The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period" pretty much nails it. I don't have an opinion on precisely what is warranted here. -- Begoon 03:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • "The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period" That's a very good point. My thanks to both of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully I can respond to the comment "all I have to do is to educate myself". I think this shows cultural differences: we have different priorities. This might sound weird but I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia by providing content to the site as opposed to the administrative capacity. If not necessary, I don't want to participate in the policy discussions and such since I would rather develop content. Unfortunately, it was necessary to participate in such discussions. It is clear the focus of the editors here are on behaviors and policies. So my disdain/disregard for administrative nuance annoys many. This is because of the cultural differences: for me, content is the priority not preventing editing wars or enforcing some inner norms many content-type editors don't know or don't care. For the same reason, I cannot stand for the disregard of the contents (mine or otherwise). You can't understand how infuriating to content-type editors the disregard of the content. We can't understand each other since we have different priorities. -- Taku (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Your reading of the situation is not correct and I don't recall you responding to the substance of the objections that have been raised. That latter point is the problem. If it is ok for you to use Wikipedia to indefinitely store brief notes on a hundred math topics, there would be no procedure to inhibit anyone from doing the same—the community has no way to say that keeping brief mentions from mathematics text books is fine, but doing similar for Pokémon or wrestling or beauty contests is not. WP:NOTWEBHOST has to mean something. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Taku: Since some 70+% of my edits are to Mainspace, I consider myself a content creator. To me, content is absolutely the core of the entire project - we could have all the other stuff, but if there was noting in the encyclopedia, there would be no Wikipedia. When I vote at RfA, for instance, my primary concern is that the prospective admin understands the needs and concerns of content creators, either through through own history of being one, or by other means. So I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that You can't understand how infuriating to content-type editors the disregard of the content. We can't understand each other since we have different priorities. is a gross mischaracterization. You do not speak for all content creators. However, I'm certain that you do speak for yourself, and that your personal inability to comprehend the desire of the community not to have undeveloped material lying around for long periods of time without being worked on is based on your perception of yourself as being part of an entirely different culture then other Wikipedians. That is ironic, considering that, at least in regard to your drafts, I think that your bona fides as a "content creator" are quite slim. You may think that you are protecting content, but, in fact, what you're so vigorously protecting are sub-sub-stubs with very little content, and not all that much possibility of growing.
  In the end, the fate of those drafts has always been in your hands, since if you had spent about 1% of the energy you have put out attempting to protect them as they are, and used that to expand them, there would have been no argument at all about removing them from draft space. Instead, you choose to dig in and produce reams of text attempting to justify an essentially unjustifiable situation, instead of ameliorating it. That was your choice, and you're paying for it now. So don't blame it on some non-existent "culture gap" between content creators and everyone else, it's you that are the cause of this, and no one else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not repeat the same discussion. But I cannot help point out some misunderstanding. First of all, WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply to encyclopedic content; please follow the link. Second, the majority of drafts started by me move to the mainspace by myself and many have more than one sentence (e.g., Draft:residual intersection); it is simply untrue that there is little content to protect (mine or otherwise). Third, on the cultural thing, please read the previous thread again; I'm not mistaken to understand that many content-type editors are puzzled by the insistence that the drafts stated by me are "problems" and something has to be done on them. So the cultural difference is real. And how is the attempt to clean-up the draftspace not disruptive? I'm a long-time contributor and it is very hard for me to believe that I have become some unable to follow the rules than the culture of Wikipedia has changed (i.e., shift from content to policy). So no I don't think I have done anything wrong (except I could have approached RfC stuff differently) and I have to be punished for not admitting my sin, right? Jesus. Anyway, I'm too tired of having this discussion; I will finish up the drafts within the 6-month window and try to stay away from any policy/deletion discussion so hopefully the things will calm down. In fact, I should just stay away from the site altogether; the administrative staff needs to realize they have problems or they can't fix the problems (but after finishing up the drafts; just leaving the site is irresponsible.) -- Taku (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Exactly right. Taku, this is a problem entirely of your own making. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes, but it is a collaborative encyclopedia. Collaborating and cooperating is how we get things done, and editors are expected to be able to read the atmosphere and adapt their conduct to conform with community standards. Fortunately for most of us, those standards are fairly open-ended; "different strokes for different folks" goes a long way on Wikipedia. As with everything, however, there is a limit to the community's tolerance. As BMK concisely describes, your reaction to running into the community's limits was not to readapt your behavior to conform with community norms, but to insist upon getting your way. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as they who will not see. So long as you hold your eyes tightly shut to the community's standards of behavior, you will not find much sympathy when it comes to sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I seem to be doing just fine in the mainspace and I keep getting trouble with Hasteur and Legacypac. Unless you equate they as the community, I don't think it is the community that has a problem with me, but a certain fringe segment of the community that wants to destroy me (personally). And you still don't think we should just get rid of those two instead of me, correct? -- Taku (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. I tried to give you a way out. Serves me right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't think it is the community that has a problem with me" I suggest you look at the great number of "supports" above, which may disabuse you of this conceit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've NEVER said I want to get rid of Taku. I've only advocated he stop the incessant disruption. Go write content Taku - you claim not to like or understand policy so leave it alone and write content. Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Taku: As usual, your above 07:03, 20 September 2017 comment failed to respond to the substance of the objections I raised. Telling me to read WP:NOTWEBHOST is known as wikilawyering. Responding to the substance would involve engaging with what I said about "Pokémon or wrestling or beauty contests". This fuss has been going on for quite a while. If, near the start, you had said you wanted to be left alone for another six months so you could finish at least some of the drafts, the whole drama would have been avoided. At this stage, it sounds more like a tactic than a plausible pledge. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Again with the faux gas-lighting arguments by changing the topic of debate (Draft:residual intersection]]. See the Modus Operandi quite clearly presented. A consensus forms that TakuyaMurata either does not like or cannot understand. They present a counter argument that is passingly similar and use that as a wedge to try and devalue the consensus. Again Taku makes a very poor argument for why the community at large should accept their viewpoint (WP:NOTTHEM) especially in light of the recent block appeal that was rejected. Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Analysis of votes

I admit that I have a significant "involved" state with respect to this proposal, but several editors have asked for closure:

• Oppose by subject of the Ban (including an attempt to bargin for a self-topic ban)
• Oppose by an editor who proposes a counter topic ban with zero support (Unscintilating)
• Oppose by a use who fundamentally misunderstands WP:PUNISH (Hobit)
• Oppose by an editor who seems to think previous discussions bind current discussions. (VQuakr)
• 17 supports of some stripe.

Therefore there exists a consensus. I implore an independent admin to heed the requests of Legacypac, Mendaliv, Alsee to close the this request. I believe this is a open and shut case. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

CC BY-SA Violation?

On http://thedailynewnation.com/news/147398/rakhine-was-an-independent-state-and-it-should-remain-independent.html, they clearly copy the article "Rakhine State" (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rakhine+State&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0) and http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/the-genocide-next-door/ did that as well, without saying that wikipedia was the source. Is this a CC BY-SA violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abequinn14 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The community can't do much about it. People rip off Wikipedia all the time. You can always drop a note to legal@wikimedia.org but admin aren't in the business of enforcing our policies on external sites. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If you contributed substantively to the article, you could serve them with a DMCA takedown notice. That's about it. Wikipedia actually can do next to nothing because the Foundation isn't the copyright holder for any of the content on Wikipedia that is user-generated. The editors themselves remain copyright holders and release it under a suitable free license. Only copyright holders can pursue takedowns. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Abequinn14, I've sent emails to well over 100 webmasters/organizations, etc. about their use of Wikipedia content without compliance, though only a few takedown notices because, as above, that can only be done where you are a significant contributor to the page in question. 8 only ever tried to comply in response. Yeah, a bit disheartening. If you want me to send you a model email for you to tailor and send yourself, drop me a message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) On the other hand, I once made a simple polite request to guy who was copy pasting Wikipedia articles in his regular postings about the history of Rock and roll. He complied immediately by providing attribution on all his posts going forward. So perhaps this is A YMMV situation. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Need an admin close

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump_and_handshakes_(2nd_nomination)#Donald_Trump_and_handshakes - the discussion has deteriorated and disruption is brewing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's customary to request closes under the closure requests heading at the top of this page (shortcut WP:ANRFC). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thx Ivanvector. Hope I won't ever need to use it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump bump. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Losar

• Losar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could I please have an administrator to solve a dispute over sources used on the Losar page? An administrator is removing a whole lot of sources including books used as sources from the Losar page. The user is saying it's poorly sourced but I don't understand how book sources, for example, are not verifiable. (49.127.144.174 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

• Hmm yes, that's not exactly what seems to be going on. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Admins, do any of you know who this IP hopping editor might be? Drmies (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm not IP hopping, I can confirm that I am the same IP user that is involved in the dispute. My IP address constantly changes, that's all. So can you tell me why all that information, even those with sources, are being removed? (118.139.92.111 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Just a note, that is exactly the definition of IP hopping. It may or may not be intentional, but the effect is mostly the same. ansh666 09:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I am not IP hopping though, I am not intentionally changing my IP address, it is not my fault that my IP address constantly changes. What do you expect me to do? I do not need to create an account on Wikipedia because that is not a rule. No one has ever told me that my dynamic IP address it a problem, so I'm not sure why that is being pointed out here. Could we discuss the problem please? I am here because I have an issue, I thought this is what administrators are here for. I have been here on many occasions so I'm not sure why it's taking a long time to deal with the issue. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

@Drmies: Could you please tell me why you protected the page? There is currently a discussion in progress and I was asking for help. I am not sure why you protected the page without having a proper discussion. What did I do to you? (137.147.33.208 (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Drmies protected the article because I was too slow getting to it. Go to the article talk page and determine consensus for your version of the article. Tiderolls 13:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: I don't understand why the page would be protected if there was an ongoing discussion. Shouldn't a consensus be reached before action is taken? I'm not a new IP user or anything, I am well aware of the rules here as I have been editing Wikipedia for four years now. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Articles are protected to stop the disruption created by edit wars. Why would an article need protection after a consensus has been determined? I think you would benefit by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Tiderolls 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tide tolls: I never said the page should be protected after consensus. What I was trying to imply was a consensus should be reached before action is taken, I was not talking about protection though. I can understand why you might think that but I was not referring to page protection. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict) It's protected because of the evident edit war. Get consensus on the content first, then protection will be lifted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I thought that might be the case. I tried to prevent that from happening by coming here but I guess I reverted too many times unfortunately. Okay, I will try to get consensus on the content first. Thanks for your help. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

@IP - dynamic IPs are often pointed out so that others know to look for different addresses when looking for background, and also so that they don't spend all their time trying to contact you on a talk page when you've moved on to a new one. I don't know about your specific case. ansh666 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutrality has been reverting this poor content since February, from what I can see. Admins like me are particularly susceptible of false claims about editors removing reliable sources, when that is prima facie not an accurate representation of what's going on. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Okay, but can you tell me why this source was removed?

• Ligeti, Louis (1984). Tibetan and Buddhist Studies: Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma De Koros, Volume 2. University of California Press. p. 344. ISBN 9789630535731. From my four years on Wikipedia, book sources are highly sort after when it comes to academic topics. Also, minor details such as "Asian festival" has been removed. The inclusion of "Asian festival" colour-codes the template, other things like the zodiacs have been removed, despite sources, as well as "Bhutanese" from the template. I don't know what is wrong with that content, I am speaking about the content in the introduction, the template and the table of the zodiacs that were removed. Could you please tell me why all of that was removed despite the inclusion of sources? There were books that were used as citations, so why were they removed along with their content? (120.144.19.54 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

The Ligeti source was not removed - it is still cited under the "practice" section. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Oh okay, sorry I didn't see that. Can I ask you about the removal of the zodiac information, the word "Bhutanese' from the template and the removal of "Asian festival" from the template? I just want to understand why they were removed. Thanks. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

Taking these in order: (1) For the zodiac, I want to see some more solid sources - is there anything better out there? (2) I've add "Bhutanese" to the infobox. (3) The infobox right now says "Related to: Other Asian Lunar New Year festivals" - does that address your concerns? Thanks, Neutrality^talk 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks for doing that. In regards to the zodiacs I will find better sources and get back to you on that. However, some of the sources such as "Time and Date" provide calendar dates for festivals, that is why I added those one in. Are they not good sources? I'm don't think Mongols should be included because they celebrate something slightly different called Tsagaan Sar. As for my other concerns, this is what I was thinking the template should look like, minus the zodiac signs for now.

Losar
Also called	Tibetan New Year Lhochhar
Observed by	Tibetans, Bhutanese, certain other Himalayan peoples and their diasporas and Tibetan Buddhists
Type	Tibetan culture, Tibetan Buddhist
Frequency	Annual
Related to	Chinese New Year, Japanese New Year, Mongolian New Year, Korean New Year, Vietnamese New Year

So you will see that I have included other East Asian festivals because Tibetans use the Tibetan calendar which is derived from the Chinese lunisolar calendar. It would be incorrect to say "other Asian New Year festivals" because it's not directly related to the Lunar New Year festivals in South and Southeast Asia that occur about two or three months later. What I mean by "Asian festival" is that in the "type" section of the template using "Asian festival" will colour-code the template so that it is maroon. I hope that make sense. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for this explanation. I've made several of these changes, which I think will meet your approval - see here. Please let me know if that works.

I don't like the "Date and Time" website because it appears to be a commercial website with ads. I don't have any reason to doubt the website's accuracy, in particular, but neither do I have particular reason to think it's a good source. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks so much for making those changes but I think "Nepalese" should be changed to "certain Nepalese groups" because not all Nepalese celebrate Losar. Other than that, thank you for making those changes. As for the zodiacs, I will get back to you on that. I don't have time right now to do anything so I'll let you know in the future about any sources that I find. Thanks again. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

• OK, can we find someone to impose some closure on this thread? This IP is using the board for content discussion, and that's not what this is for. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Block editors posting Nazi symbols?

Hey admins, just wondering if we have a consensus that anons and IPs posting Nazi symbolism should be blocked on sight? (See Special:Contributions/71.174.123.252) I think this falls under severe vandalism but I'm not sure if that's the right policy to justify a block. Also, displaying this content is or may be illegal in several countries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah. If its vandalism, it doesn't need double secret probation to deal with. It's not like they can be blocked extra hard. We just deal with it as any other vandalism and move on.--Jayron32 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not like they can be blocked extra hard. Hmmmmm... Maybe we should ask WMF to implement an "extra hard" block. You know, not only does it block them from editing, but it automatically hacks their ISP to get their service address and hires a local Vinney-No-Neck type to go give them an open-handed slap in the kisser and say "it's time to rethink your life choices." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, in this situation an IP made one edit which added some Nazi slogans to an article. Do I need to warn them or can I just make with the blockity-block? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

...They made a single edit two hours ago, and it's a Verizon IP, so it's probably not static. What's the point? GMG^talk 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I haven't blocked this IP and there's no ongoing disruption so I'm not going to, I just posted that as an example. I'm asking, in general, if such vandalism requires progressive warnings or if we consider this sort of thing serious enough to just block on sight? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Vandals gonna vandal. When in doubt let Cluebot take the wheel. GMG^talk 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what Jayron means by dealing "like any other vandalism", but I recommend blocking on sight after one edit of that nature. It's what I do. It is not "meh", and ClueBot doesn't have the ability to block, so GreenMeansGo's comment is useless on several levels. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

I'm good at being useless on several levels. GMG^talk 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a pity, GreenMeansGo. I used to find your comments helpful. Did you change your username in order to go troll? Bishonen | talk 15:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

I used to find your comments helpful. Be careful. Some may consider that more of a statement about your judgement than mine. </sarcasm> But if it's a single isolated edit with no indication it will continue, no apparent knowledge of the software or comparatively advanced intentionality (cleverly hiding things in infoboxes, replacing text exactly to make a 0 byte edit, etc), and no reason to believe it wasn't a child bored in traffic on their mother's tablet, a block just seems like a waste of a click, and is at least twice as many clicks as reverting and moving on. And like I said, in this case it's seems most likely to be a mobile IP that's gonna change before you can even click it. So nearly zero chance of blocking this actual individual, and a very small but non-zero chance of blocking someone else. Not the end of the world if you do, just comparatively pointless in my opinion. GMG^talk 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you Bish. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

How is it that I'm the only person to make a truly useless comment in this thread, and yet GMG gets accused of trolling? I wanna be accused of trolling!! Wah! But seriously. Be nice, Bish. GMG is entitled to his opinion, even if he is wrong (read as: even if he disagrees with you and I don't), he still made a good point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No no. It's ok. I'll just go back to Commons where people like me. GMG^talk 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That file has the best description. "True loss" indeed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I usually block on sight for stuff like that too; the odds of a useful contribution coming in the next week from an IP address that has just posted something like that is zero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone is a blatant and obvious vandal beyond all doubt, I just block 'em there and then. No warnings, no templates, no Mr Nice Guy, whack 'em with a big stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks folks, that's what I thought. In fact ClueBot did revert and lv1-warn the IP for that edit, but that doesn't seem like enough. Anyway too much time has passed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd block on sight if it was in the last hour or if I had any reason to think it would happen again. Maybe only for 3 hours if it really had been an hour ago, but I've got no tolerance for this sort of thing even if I believe the editor may have meant it as a joke. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Any blatant Nazi, racist, misogynist, religious, nationalist or other bigotry gets an instant block from me (if I'm first on the scene, though as I'm getting older and slower that's not often the case). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to be posting Nazi imagery, and any sort of blanket ban would have far too many false positives. Because it's so obvious, this is one form of vandalism that is easily spotted and quickly removed and the editor sanctioned if it's inappropriate. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Someone posting symbolism in a contextually-appropriate way probably isn't going to draw much attention. Someone posting Nazi slogans in an article on Judaism is going to be blocked awful damn quick. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine with me (as long as it is just a normal block length for vandalism). Considering the fact that this is very offensive and potentially illegal, it seems that we should treat this a bit more harshly than regular vandalism. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously context matters (you don't want to block someone who is adding Nazi symbols to eg. the Nazi article, in case that needs to be said!), but users posting obvious vandalism can already be blocked without warning if it's clear their intent is to disrupt Wikipedia, especially if that seems to be the only purpose of their account. From WP:BEFOREBLOCK: "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." So this is covered by existing policy, provided their vandalism is clear and seems to be their main or only activity. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken bot

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

---

Not sure how to report this user's totally broken bot, given that amongst other things it vandalises any attempt to use talk pages to notify the user responsible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comfycozybeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.12.182 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW I have notified the user with subst:AN-notice, but of course his bot just deletes the notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.12.182 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. CCB isn't a bot, and you're both edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive post. I am not a malfunctioning bot. This all started when they unjustly removed content from an article. I reverted them and left them a polite warning. Then they starting accusing me of being a variety of things, including a vandal and a troll. Enough already. Comfycozybeds (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted CCB's inappropriate close and fully protected the wrong version of the article. IP, stop making silly accusations. CCB, please engage on the article talkpage - the removals are not, on their face, vandalism - NOTNEWS is a valid reason, despite the IP's behavior, and you are edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks. CCB, please remember that you aren't exempted from 3RR in this case - you are not entitled to edit-war just because the IP is being obnoxious. Please report at AN3 and wait for resolution rather than just reverting. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: CCB has been blocked for 3RR violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Request Admin assistance

I did a page move that I thought would be helpful with a simpler nomenclature per naming conventions, which is accurate. The new (and current) title is P/2006 VW139. After looking at all the links to the former page title and then looking at the infobox I have decided this may not have been a good idea. It seems to be a new page, according to the edit history, which is all I looked at prior to making the move. However, there are a large number of links to the former page title in "What links here".

I am requesting admin help by moving this back, and I will seek consensus for a name change on the talk page later. There are three possible names for this binary main-belt comet. I don't want to cause a disruption to WikiProject Astronomy by having carried out this action. I'll just say thanks in advance. Also, I hate when I do stuff like this. And, I left a note on the project talk page [92] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Moved back to the previous title for now. Looks like the large number of links in "What links here" is the result of transclusion in {{Cornets}}, which was added based on the page Main-belt comet, where the asteroid was added back in 2011. Alex Shih^Talk 18:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy-paste move

• Tap Tap Glee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Tap Tap Glee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across Tap Tap Glee while checking on some non-free images in Draft:Tap Tap Glee. The draft was declined twice in the same day by two different AfC reviewers, but its creator apparently decided to skip any further AfC feedback and directly add it diretly to the mainspace. The "article" looks to be the same version that was declined and also appears to have just been copied-and-pasted into the mainspace. If the article still does not belong it the mainspace, it probably should be moved back to the draft namespace (if possible) or deleted. If it does now deserve a stand-alone article, an admin might be needed to clean things up and do a history merge. Pinging @KGirlTrucker81: and @Whispering: the two AfC reviewers who declned the draft for their input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't changed a whit since I declined it the references are still GameFAQs, a press release and a 404 error. I'm not sure why it got copied to mainspace it's sure not showing any notability. Whispering 02:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Whispering and Marchjuly: From a content point of view, the article has a handful of reviews present in reliable video game sources at TouchArcade, Kotaku, Gamezebo, and Engadget. As a video game editor, I would be inclined to merge and redirect to Tap Tap#Tap Tap Glee. From the behavioral point of view, the editor is a new one who appears to need a bit of guidance, because he has also requested moves for the series and first game articles. --Izno (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If this can be sorted out without anybody getting blocked or bit, then that's fine with me. I assumed any errors made wre made in good faith, but copy-and-paste moves can be messing, so I'm not sure if additional cleanup is needed or whether an admin needs to do it if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I admit I didn't give it much more than a glance. A merge would do nicely, and I got to make sure to give articles more than a glance. Whispering 02:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found no archived copies whatsoever but it's still no hope. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the ultimate result of the article (prod'd, redirected and merged, etc) the draft's history would need merged into the mainspace article. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I made a ridiculous mess of it (don't look at the logs!) but the copy-paste move is repaired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird sock farm that's more than the usual nuisance

Virajmishra (talk · contribs), first is operating a rather weird sock farm, just bringing it up here so that those who block/consider unblocks are aware of the issues. I'm also pinging some of the admins involved in the blocking/declining unblocks as they may be the next targets of his absurd behavior: Only — Ponyo — Yunshui — Yamla — RickinBaltimore — Elcobbola — JamesBWatson:

The master account and early socks are globally locked, but that hasn't prevented him from doing the following:

• Creating an account with a username attacking my mum (now suppressed, so I can't link it)
• Tagging my userpage on Commons as a sock of his
• Placing sock block templates on my and other talk pages at Commons
• Trying to log in to my account
• Requesting password resets on my account
• Spewing some bovine excrement on my talk page and elsewhere.

He mostly uses a Jio internet connection and the IPs are ultra dynamic, not just regular dynamic, so blocking individual IPs may not help beyond a few minutes.

I expect he'll get bored soon, but I'm bringing it here as the login attempts and password reset requests are a real nuisance. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Highly regretable.Apparently got too pissed off after multiple failed attempts at own (??) film promotion due to one reason or other esp. at Commons!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not much we can do in cases like this except revert and block, and wait until the person gets bored, which usually happens eventually, though sometimes it takes a long time. The least response people like this get the sooner they are likely to get bored, so I would certainly not post a block notice to the user's talk page, and it is also questionable whether tagging user pages is on balance a good idea or not. Anyway, thanks for the warning, SpacemanSpiff. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We can also protect, however. I've given your userpage full protection indefinitely. Please let me know when you'd like it to be downgraded, and I'll remove it or downgrade it. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Two small points about that message, Nyttend. Neither of them very important, but I thought worth mentioning.

1. Since your message immediately followed mine, it looked like an answer to me, so I read " I've given your userpage full protection" as meaning you had protected my user page, as I expect anyone reading it would. I thought "What? I thought my user page was already indefinitely fully protected. Has the protection somehow gone? I'd better check." However, it turned out by "your user page" you meant SpacemanSpiff's. Perhaps not the best way to pipe your wikilink?
2. If you look here you will see that SpacemanSpiff doesn't need to let you know if he wants protection removed or downgraded. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

JBW, I think Nyttend meant protecting my Commons user page (which I can't do, and he has done), where it will be helpful (thanks) as this chap's now a cross-wiki nuisance, asking for password resets and all. As long as he sticks to just posting idiotic messages on my talk page it's ok and easily handled. —SpacemanSpiff 11:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you, JamesBWatson, on the "you". I just figured that it was fine, since anyone could mouse over the link. And SpacemanSpiff is correct; I was talking about this action. I took it only after checking SpacemanSpiff's user rights and observing that he was a rollbacker, patroller, file mover, and image reviewer, but not an admin. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw a message from one of their IPs on my talk page this morning. I'm not really sure I'd want my talk page protected at this time either, I can just revert when needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected

Hi sir I want to edit Riyanka Chanda,s page please allow me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidaq Pratap - ofc (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. You can either wait until your account is autoconfirmed or request an edit at Talk:Riyanka Chanda. -- Begoon 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice, though, on your user page, you say you created List of Indian animated feature films, so if Sidaq pratap is your account why can't you use that account to make the edit at Riyanka Chanda? -- Begoon 08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon: Someone created an account using my name @Sidaq Pratap - ofc:. It's not my account and all the info posted by this user is copy paste from by User page :Sidaq pratap/^talk 25 September 3:16 PM (UTC)

A CU might be useful here to help us decide if User:Sidaq Pratap - ofc should be blocked as an impersonation vs blocked as a sock. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock; blocked and tagged. I'll drop a note for the Stewards as well as the master is globally locked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: - Thanks. I suspected it was not your account, which is why I 'pinged' you here. Ponyo, thanks, as always. -- Begoon 22:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Second Italo-Ethiopian War request review of the level of protection because of recent disruptive edits and ?sock? disruptions. Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I placed this article under 3 months semi-protection on Sept. 22, per a protection request at WP:RFPP. The article had been under repeated attacks by sockpuppets, particularly by changing information such as number of deaths to other numbers which are not supported by sources. After the imposition of semi-protection, there was one additional sockpuppet attack from a user who was autoconfirmed; that user is now checkuser blocked. If there are any more attacks by autoconfirmed users, we should consider upgrading to extended confirmed protection. For now I propose waiting to see what happens, since the immediate problem has been dealt with. If anyone thinks we should move to extended confirmed protection now, feel free to go ahead and do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist messages

Please note, watchlist messages are being updated to another page - if you normally watch the watchlist messages, then you may want to watch MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages :D — xaosflux ^Talk 23:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

CU/Rangeblock request

I just blocked Jack3044, which I haven't yet added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Modern Fire. I think there's at least one rangeblock possible, maybe more, and that would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Added this sock to the list. Thanks for the help with this guy, agree a rangeblock(s) would be helpful. Home Lander (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Leaving project owing to some "unfortunate" comments by another contributor.

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=802457793

I will of course be cleaning up some recent efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The relevant comments are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#Excuse_me_.3F and in the edit summary mentioned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So what exactly is the point of this thread? To incriminate an admin and blame your leaving Wikipedia on him? People don't normally make an announcement, and certainly not one incriminating and blaming another user, on AN when they decide to no longer contribute to the project. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think ShakespeareFan00 was rather upset/annoyed by the comments made, which do come across with a fair amount of blunt force - announcing this here in this manner though isn't a great idea, and I would ask ShakespeareFan00 to help de-escalate this by taking a moment away from Wikipedia to collect their thoughts. I don't think there is anything which needs admin action here, and I think we can all agree that not jumping on this thread is in everyone's best interests -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, there's a significant prequel to this, and it's found on Giano's talk page--I ran into that by accident yesterday and was wondering how it would end. Well, now we know. What's funny is that we keep seeing the user apologize for their approach, yet they keep approaching. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

RFC close implementation at Family Guy

I closed a RFC at Talk:Family Guy as consensus against the existing wording, with no consensus on an alternative. I selected the most supported alternative phrasing, and put it in my close as an editorial decision. I also edited the article to implement that close. I notified the initiator of the RFC, User:Curly Turkey that I had closed the discussion. After discussing the close on his talk page here, Curly Turkey reverted to the wording he initially proposed in the RFC. Because I'm a somewhat active RFC closer, if I'm making an error in my process, I need to know to avoid repeating it. Therefore, I'd like to open my close, and especially it's implementation, to the community for review. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Initial reaction without minutely examining each post in the RfC: In my opinion, it's probably not a great idea, after closing an RfC, to then edit the article itself, making a judgment call on what the consensus of the RfC was other than yes/no on the specific RfC question. If there is a judgment call, or a "probably" or "seems to be" alternate action recommended, it's probably best to leave the actual edit to the article editors themselves, if you were the closer that observed that. If they then get into disagreement about the precise alternate wording, those involved can start a new discussion, or if need be an RfC, about that. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Almost echo SoftLavender.I did not review the close on it's merits but it looks to be a situation where there is strong consensus to change status quo but no consensus about what shall the changed version be.I typically close these RFCs by installing the most logical/supported variant as the new status quo and ask the participants to continue from there to discuss on the alternatives.If no phrase has even garnered anything remotely semblant with concensus, I typically instruct to just edit the portion out which becomes the new status quo and continue another round of discussion.Also, as a sidenote, I believe RFC closers should seldom ever exercise their editorial rights while closing a disc.Our job as closers is to evaluate consensus and execute them (if necessary).Nothing more, nothing less! Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 12:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

Resolved

Hey all, any idea what I should do here? A (now blocked) IP editor created Draft:Rathindranath tagore and Draft:Rathindranath Tagore a few days apart. Both have been submitted for AFC and declined for having zero references. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect the one to the other. Two drafts on the same thing aren't necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected the younger to the elder. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:ANRFC

Good day! There is a significant backlog at WP:ANRFC, and I am trying to get 2017 Catalonia attacks closed. I have been closing the simplest AFDs and other discussions, to no avail. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• We're nearing the end of September, and we still have two move reviews open from August. I know its already on ANRFC, but this is significantly overdue for what is supposed to be a weeklong process. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Take away the spamming by Cunard, and I'd be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  We don't expect admins to deal with spammers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What does "spamming by Cunard" refer to? (Serious question.) Looking at his contribs, he has closed more than 45 RfCs since June: [93]. He's not an admin, but he's helping with the backlog. (I haven't examined his closes.) So unless that was a jest, or something is wrong with his closes, I don't understand this comment. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: It presumably refers to the fact that Cunard has, historically, spammed ANRFC with many postings of RfCs which do not need closes or have died out without anyone seeking a definitive resolution. Looking at ANRFC, 15 of the 30 discussions there were listed by Cunard. I suspect he was a participant in none of them (or perhaps a very small percentage). This is an improvement over the past, when he would list 20-30 per week, but still not good. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oooh, an admin backlog, you say? @Ymblanter: - get to it, son. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Come on, let's not do this again :( Alex Shih^Talk 07:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ask an admin who begged the community to get the bit to actually do some backlog clearing? Seems pretty reasonable to ask someone who wanted to clear backlogs to have one brought to their attention. I'll even thank him, if he does a good job of it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you back that claim up with some proof? I'm not seeing any begging here; I see a dual nomination by two highly experienced administrators; nor do I see any promise that he would "clear backlogs", he stated "I try to help with backlogs", something he had already done prior to the RfA: [94]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Curious Lugnuts, do you really want to have a frank and open discussion about whether the community feels your contributions to AN are a net benefit and should be allowed to continue? We can have that discussion. I'd rather not honestly, but I do imagine it would very quickly reach a strong consensus. So we can if you would like. GMG^talk 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Such a discussion would be beneficial to the community. I'll dig out some infamous diffs when someone is ready to start. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'd love to help with the pending move review from August, but it so happens that I was the review requester! (totally forgot about that in the meantime) I do think the situation has been settled in the meantime thanks to a parallel discussion about Lhasa that has been closed. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive user

It appears Helloworld10 (talk · contribs) is not making any contributive edits. Please make this stop --ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Most recent edit was a few hours ago, and Drmies has given a final warning on user's talk page. If problematic edits persist, I'm sure that the user will certainly be blocked. Deor (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put movingpictures on the Main page!

Please don't put moving pictures on the Main page. When you do, it makes it harder for me to use the "Search Wikipedia" box to find the articles I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.38.97 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest using a browser extension which stops animated images from autoplaying. Perhaps something like this (for Firefox) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, why would moving pictures make it harder to use the search box? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but this is the third time I've seen comments like this (the other two were in OTRS). Primefac (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a mobile issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it refers to the banner at the top that loads after the rest of the page. This is the only thing I can think of, as a user could attempt to click the search box but they accidentally click the banner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Range contributions has arrived!

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T163562
Resolved

Almost 13 years after it was first requested, MediaWiki now allows you to query for IP ranges, and right at Special:Contributions where you'd expect it to work. This supports IPv4 and IPv6. For example, see Special:Contributions/2601:401:503:62b0::/64. It does not support wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*), but the gadget many of you use will continue to function. The native contributions list will simply be shown below the gadget's results.

There is also a new interface message shown when you are viewing an IP range: MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon-range (which is empty at the time of writing), as opposed to the normal MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon message you see when viewing a single IP. One more important note is that Special:DeletedContributions and Special:Log do not support IP ranges -- yet!

If you are a fan of the XTools range contributions tool, which gives you various WHOIS information and sorting by IPs, you may be interested to know there are plans to introduce something similar in MediaWiki. That's probably many moons away from completion, but feel free to follow that task for updates. We also have plans to add a IP range calculator to core. If you have any ideas regarding that (should it be shown at Special:Contribs, or as it's own Special page?) please share your thoughts.

If you notice anything is off with the data, things are slow, other weirdness, don't hesitate to comment at phab:T163562, create a new ticket, or ping someone at Community Tech.

Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Very useful! Thank you! --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome as always MusikAnimal! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I commented below, but I think a separate page for the rangecalc would be good. It should still be kept in the CU interface, but it would seem odd to put in on the contribs or block pages, given the relative rarity of the need to calculate ranges while at either of those two. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic news. I suspect everyone will soon come to wonder how they used to manage without this! WJBscribe (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Any plans to expose the equivalent query via the API; ucuserprefix is not the same. MER-C 12:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C: Good call! I've created phab:T177150 — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work! And yes, having a range calculator built into MediaWiki would be lovely. I'd suggest a standalone special page would be the best place for it so that it can be found when it's needed but it's out of the way when it's not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's talk page access

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

---

On September 25, User:The Rambling Man was blocked, some will say, in accordance with his arbitration restriction. That is not being argued here. However, GorillaWarfare has also revoked talk page access to TRM and anyone else who wants to message him, effectively gagging him for two weeks. Despite a discussion at her talk page, GW has not shown a sign of lifting the talk page restriction. I am here to ask: should TRM and other editors be allowed to edit his talk page again?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, again this isn't a discussion about the block or if protecting the talk page was a good or bad idea. That being said, I think it would be prudent to unprotect TRMs talk page, if only to stop people disruptively bypassing the protection -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking this - it's disappointing to read the below, and frankly this is all just a touch too dramatic and becoming personal. Please find something more constructive to do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I tried to reason with GW with some reasonable and civil alternative options and ended up banging my head against a wall. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This is not a raving vandal but a competent, productive editor who has received a two week block. The justness of the block is a topic for separate discussion. TRM should be allowed to have two-way communications. We hope (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - no reason to revoke TP access. GiantSnowman 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes TRM did nothing to warrant the restriction of their talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Revoking talk page access should be done only very rarely and in extreme situations such as gross abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. If "to stop people disruptively bypassing the protection" translates as to stop other editors from attempting to communicate with a colleague, while attempting to improve WP (TRM is in the middle of some collaborative article work), or to pass on harmless supportive messages then things have come to a sorry pass on WP frankly. Irondome (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're free to twist what I meant any way you wish, but at least we agree on lifting the protection. You have a great day now -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what it amounts to doesn't it? Irondome (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Disruptively removing messages of goodwill is the least constructive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Not seeing a good reason for full protect. Arkon (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes No need to revoke access. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per User:SchroCat and others. Quite troubling that this action came from an arb, who we elect to solve issues, not make them worse. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and while I understand why he was blocked for doing something I suggested he not do, I'm quite perturbed that he has been blocked for so long during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Workshop an ArbComm case at a critical time when input is needed from more editors and TRM behaviour is being inappropriately examined. The talk page lock is a step too far. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: Without necessarily agreeing with you, thanks for posting a constructive argument re participation in the case. It would be great if a lot more people took part in cases, and didn't leave them solely to the parties and the arbitrators. Every case ends in a vote and there'll always be people unhappy with the outcome. But greater community participation along the way might mitigate some of those feelings at the end. Statement of the obvious perhaps, but we have had some cases in recent times with near-zero participation, and it's not great for actually resolving disputes. I do appreciate the irony of me saying this while marked inactive on the Rubin case - I was away when it started and it seemed unreasonable to jump in at the end . But as a general point, the spirit of getting more people involved is a good one, and thanks for raising it.. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Historically during his blocks TRM has contributed to Main_Page/Errors through his talk page, not spammed malformed unblock requests or attacked other editors. There was no reason to restrict his talk page access. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per the arguments above. GW appears to think she's in some kind of closed court dictatorship and that she and the rest of her cohorts at ARBCOM are beyond all criticism. They're not. And the gagging of TRM's talkpage is further evidence of this oppressive behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment linking to my reasoning here just so it's available from this discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. (I commented there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Leaning no unless there's a stipulation that the block is not to be discussed there. Otherwise it feels like inviting drama. I remember that the last time TRM was blocked he pinged other editors about main page stuff and these other editors acted on those issues on their own accord, and according to Irondome above TRM's in the middle of some collaborative article work. If we can keep doing productive things like that, then I say yes to reinstating talk page access. If it's just going to lead to 'discussions' about how arbitrators might as well rename to dictators, then we're better off leaving the protection in place. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• To add, even if talk page access is to be restored I'm in favour of leaving the protection in place for a short period of time (say 2 days) before restoring it, so that emotions are less of a factor. Banedon (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What about my emotions? talk page sample --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to tell The Rambling Man that the article he improved so much in revieweing is now on the Main page: DYK ... that after baritone Johannes Martin Kränzle recovered from MDS, he made his debut at the Bayreuth Festival in 2017 as Beckmesser, staged by the festival's first Jewish director? Thank you, TRM.

• Yes - Mostly because of the ARBCOM case. That said, it seems rather win-win: if TRM uses the talk page in a productive manner, it's a win for the project. If he uses it in a disruptive way, it's WP:ROPE or "I told you so" for those concerned. The potential for disruption is minimized by being constrained to the talk page, so the possible benefits seem to outweigh the possible harm. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ROPE applies to what TRM does, but what about other people? Banedon (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Banedon: But of course! This is why I buy stock in rope manufacturers (and glue manufactuers)... there's always a demand for it on wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Begrudging yes. Last time his Main Page error spotting, from the confines of his prison cell, seemed to be even more fastidious and ruthless. Could we allow him alternate Thursdays perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, unless the arbitration proceedings are stayed while TRM is unable to participate publicly. I certainly hope the Committee chooses to respect the consensus that is obviously emerging here, rather than claiming some kind of privilege. This sort of outrage can and should result in revisiting the Committee's power structure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an arbitration enforcement action; not an arbitration committee action which would have fewer community review options. GorillaWarfare has already indicated they have no objection to any consensus outcome from this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You and I both know the fact that it was an action taken by an arbitrator, in the midst of proceedings in which both the arbitrator and blocked editor were participating, purportedly in enforcement of a prior arbitration sanction, and which involves a unique and (to my mind) essentially unprecedented action means that it's as good as a Committee action. Nobody would dare undo this action without the consent of GW or another arbitrator, which I admit she had deigned to provide. Even if this is not directly an action taken by the Committee, it is an action which has tainted the appearance of impartiality that the Committee requires in order to function. This very fact is part of what makes GW's action so outrageous. That there may be a reasonable explanation for why it might be a good idea (see, e.g., my learned colleague BMK's explanation below) does not excuse the unbelievably poor optics of this action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Again, this was an editor acting in their capacity as an ordinary administrator to enforce an arbitration committee decision. It wasn't discussed with the rest of the Committee, it wasn't voted on beforehand, and it didn't need to be as it is not an action by Arbcom as a whole. As an ordinary administrator action it is open to review here or at AE, and that's precisely the conversation we're all having right now. This is entirely different to (say) a block imposed by direct Committee motion or in a PD (an Arbcomblock), which is voted on by the Committee as a whole and cannot usually be reviewed other than at ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - Looks like I'm swimming upstream here, but after reading the discussions on GW's talk page and seeing her explanation for the TP protection, it seems to me that TRM should really thank her for it, as it prevents him from duplicating his actions in previous instances, which exacerbated things for him considerably. Of course, the downside is that it will presumably harden TRM's feelinsg against ArbCom even more, but I think the block would have inevitably done that anyway. So, in short: GW's action were justified by the sanctions in place against TRM (and, incidentally, none of the objectors has apparently stopped to wonder why talk page access cut-off and protection were made a part of those sanctions in the first place, since it's something that's hardly usual; the answer lies in TRM's previous behavior) and should be kept in place. Further, if TRM himself wants talk page access restored and the page unprotected, he should e-mail one of the editors above to have his opinion placed on the record here. I wouldn't recommend it, though, since opening up the page is just a likely to end up with a much longer block, perhaps even an indef one.
  (For the record, some may be aware that TRM and I have history, but they may not be aware that in the Arthur Rubin case, I have argued against any sanctions being dealt out to TRM, so the opinion expressed here is not motivated by an anti-TRM bias, just an evaluation of the circumstances.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Admins having a discretion to do something doesn't mean they can just do it because they think it's a good idea. GorillaWarfare has failed to provide any persuasive reasoning in support of her actions. Her - belated - explanation is unconvincing. I remain of the view that the preemptive talkpage protection appears designed mainly to reinforce an extremely questionable block. We should take actions whose effect is to silence those who have been sanctioned only as a last resort. WJBscribe (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This now tops my list of 'most shortsighted admin decision made'. And given the previous action that was in its place was the unblock of a certain Australian serial sock-abuser, its in good company. While the points made by BMK are certainly *good* ones, given the active case which is currently being dragged out to no good purpose, a case during which I might add Arthur Rubin reported TRM for edit warring - despite the fact the only reason Rubin is editing at all outside the case is because TRM made a rather overly generous plea for him to be able to do so: I would certainly feel in his situation that the dog and pony show that is Arbcom at the moment might be more than a little vexing and worthy of fairly harsh criticism. I would also point out, that as this was an AE block of existing arbcom restrictions (albeit recently amended) that the block itself is subject to appeal either at AE or here. Given the amount of criticism its garnered at GW's talkpage, that might be worth entertaining. If no one has proposed unblocking him by tomorrow, I will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with appeals at WP:AE is that the rules say that "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". It's a rule that frequently stands in the way of reviewing poor AE blocks. If TRM's talkpage access is restored, he can however post an appeal on his talkpage for someone to copy to WP:AE on his behalf... (another good reason for unprotecting the talkpage) WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  While correct in a sense: all admin actions (with very very few exceptions) are subject to review and can potentially be overturned as a result of community consensus at an appropriate venue. eg here. If consensus is the basic admin action is inappropriate, its irrelevant if the sanctioned user has appealed it or not. We dont continue to punish people when consensus is the punishment is unwarranted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hyperbolic venting

• And purely for the benefit of those unaware of the meaning of that expression: - see "Gentry’s Equine and Canine Paradox." -- Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Martinevans123 is referring to OID's use of "dog and pony show". I believe it also used in the sense of a presentation that is required to fulfill contractual obligations but is, in fact, almost totally unnecessary, consisting mostly of smoke and mirrors, or spun up out of meager content. At least, that's the way I've heard it used in the theatrical biz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Without endorsing the sentiment, I thought he was referring to what the article describes as "a jocular lack of appreciation," which is surely a better way of expressing disagreement than the more common "hyperbolic venting" for which these noticeboards are so famous. Ah well. Martinevans123, as always thanks for the entertaining page link. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• What? No opinion about whether TRM should have been blocked, and no opinion about whether a blocked TRM should have access to his talk page, but it's downright absurd to give the page full protection unless there's active disruption by other users going on at the same time. If you don't want to allow the editor to edit his talk page, just tick the box for "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" when you're specifying the block settings. There's no need to prevent other people from editing it. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes with admin eyes watching the page to make sure the situation isn't exacerbated over the block period by TRM or his detractors. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. Every time he's been given talk page access during a block in the past, he's used it to edit by proxy behind the block. The point of these short-term blocks is to incentivize a change in behavior so we don't have to go long-term. This is a case of "for your own good". If TRM doesn't feel any impact from being blocked because they continue like normal by proxy, then they will continue being a general nuisance and eventually be indeffed by ArbCom. This is the reason why ArbCom added the restricted talk page access option to the remedy in the first place (as confirmed by an arbitrator I've talked to). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If it’s gonna happen, better for it to happen on-wiki. This is an awful precedent to be setting, and will only harm the legitimacy of the Committee. That we even have an arbitrator !voting in this discussion is almost as outrageous as the fact that an arbitrator took this action while a case was pending. This is unbelievably shortsighted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Blocks and protection are intended to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not put editors on the naughty step. If the use an editor will make of their talkpage while blocked is to "proxy" helpful edits that improve the content of Wikipedia, this is a good thing. For that matter, TRM is welcome to contact me by email or indeed on my talkpage on other Wikipedia projects where he is mot blocked to let me know of WP:ERRORS in mainpage content that ought to be corrected. WJBscribe (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, purely in my capacity as a regular editor, and largely per BU Rob13. Additionally, this is also for TRM's own good, so that he doesn't shoot himself in the foot during his block. Giving him back talk page access would, whether that's the intention or not, be an exercise in WP:ROPE. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Let us gag him in order to save him, I guess? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mendaliv: Gag him from what? What is he going to do with talk page access that he should be doing or needs to do so urgently that it can't wait til his block is over? And is it worth getting that done at the potential cost of him shooting himself in the foot? I'm honestly curious. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - BU Rob13 brings up an excellent point of how this has been abused in the past for editing by proxy. Removing the protection would enable this behavior to continue and potentially jeopardize his ability to continue with the project. -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - Per BU Rob13, mainly. TRM has an avenue to request unblocking still, so there is no requirement for TPA. Additionally, I find the push to overrule enforcement with denigrating remarks inappropriate. There are reasons TRM is where he is at right now. – Nihlus (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as GW has imposed per BU Rob 13, and since the restrictions placed by GW are within reasonable admin discretion. I'm not convinced it's going to work to effect a behavioural change, but it's worth a try since nothing else seems to be working. Martinp (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. In addition to what Rob13 said above, it's worth pointing out that ArbCom was specifically aware of that past history, and therefore made it part of The Rambling Man's restrictions: The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block. The people who are treating this as a bizarre and unusual situation must be unfamiliar with the circumstances of the case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No way. ArbCom do not have the power to overrule the protection policy and its WP:PREEMPT provision. Blocking without talk page access may or may not be reasonable (not having investigated, I offer no opinion there), but full-protecting the page is outright unacceptable. No disruption by other editors was occurring shortly before this protection was levied — a sockmaster came by to disrupt things, leading to semiprotection on the 21st, but other than that and a message delivery, all that happened in the days before this protection was a couple of instances of people chatting with TRM. Blocking him with no talk page access means that people won't be able to talk with him, so if you're intending to stop this kind of conversation, you don't need any kind of protection. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose you must disagree with discretionary sanctions then. --Rschen7754 04:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the full protection - Did anybody notice the lack of the required AN notification on User talk:The Rambling Man? Talk page access hasn't just been revoked, the talk page has been given full protection which prevents any editor from editing it except those with administrator tools. The minimum that needs to be done is having the protection removed so that other editors can give required notifications (such as the one currently being neglected). I have no opinion on whether talk page access should remain revoked. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• TRM has still got e-mail access. Most probably someone has already used that to notify him of this discussion, but just in case no one has, I just did so.
  E-mail is also a means for editors who have been involved in collaborative efforts with TRM to communicate with him, and, with a minimum of effort, group e-mails can be used for projects with multiple collaborators. Yes, it's a little bit of a burden, but not so much so that any necessary communication can't be carried out quite effectively. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• And that use of e-mail is also part of why we ought not protect the user talk page. We shouldn't encourage a situation where we have yet more secret e-mail loops forming. Let's do our work out in the open. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that we're "encouraging" situations such as this, I think this situation came about pretty much because of the editor's own behavior (it was a fairly predictable result of violating the sanction), and the suggestion of using e-mail is simply answering those who claim that TRM cannot now participate in ongoing collaborations with other editors; because the e-mail option exists, that's not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Mainly because it's unnecessary. TRM, while arguably being too forward, hadn't said anything untrue in the statements that lead to his block and TP protection. The ridiculous amount of bureaucracy in this case is enough to make anyone want to bang their head against a wall. Secondly, I find the idea that he shouldn't be granted TP access because he may "edit by proxy" which, the last time, did nothing but improve the encyclopedia, a bizarre argument against removing the protection. Capeo (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - The block is another discussion for another day however inregards to the tp access revoking in my eyes it was overkill to say the least and it obviously should've never have been done in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 02:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No per Beyond My Ken, who said the words better than I could have, and BU Rob13, who hits the nail on the head so hard that it's gone through the wood and out the other side. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. This is absurd and unnecessary. I don't see any sign of talk page abuse that would suggest the need for this drastic action. If he abuses it, then shut it off. But a preemptive strike? Not so much. agtx 03:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Agtx: Could you expand on that a bit? Do you mean that you looked at TRM's recent talk page activity and didn't see anything there that would justify GW taking the action she did, or do you mean that you examined TRM's behavior in all the past circumstances where he was blocked, including those which led to ArbCom including this in his sanction "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block"? [95] Clearly GW was within her discretion, since the sanction specifically gives that to her, so arguments against her being allowed to do it are pretty much null-and-void, while arguments which turn on whether she should have done it rather turn on having a good overall view of TRM's behavior, which an arbitrator is more likely to have a handle on more than the majority of those posting here, myself incluyded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: The first, which I think is enough. I understand that's part of the sanction, but it's an additional thing, right? As in, the admin can block TRM, or the admin can block TRM and fully protect the talk page. If the admin is going to do both things, then there has to be a reason for it related to the violation of the sanction (that is, TRM's recent behavior). I don't know what that would be other than talk page abuse, and I'm not seeing it here. agtx 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's not additional thing in the sense that the admin has to have additional evidence to impose the talk page restrictions: it's totally at the discretion of the admin, with no requirement for a more onerous evidential burden then needed to simply block. The sanction read, in toto:

  4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

  If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

  If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

  The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

  Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

  As for just reading the current talk page actitivty of TRM, that's really not sufficient, and I don't believe that GW's action was based on that (or that's the impression I got from reading her talk page responses.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I read the sanction, and I read GW's justification on her talk page. I think that the way you're looking at this is just a little too formalistic. Evidentiary burdens? That's not what this is about. The question is whether GW used her discretion in a way that lines up with the views of the community. I say no, she didn't this time. Clearly you disagree, and that's fine. agtx 04:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• ArbCom sanctions and enforcement action pretty much have to be "formalistic", considering the amount of Wikilawyering they'r esubject to, and the scrutiny (such as this) given to the Committee and the admins who carry out enforcement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This sums it up. This situation is a perfect example of something where the enacted enforcement protocols were followed, as written. Consider how much discussion and debate has been generated. Any time steps are skipped or actions are done without due process, it almost always causes a tsunami of debate and contention. The reason being is that ArbCom issues are generally the most controversial issues on the project. Issues with unanimous consensus rarely make it to ArbCom with the exception of a few areas. Mkdw ^talk 15:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No--PerRob13.Largely for his own good.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No per Rob13; Beyond My Ken; and Ks0stm; and per GW's presented rationale, which I will quote here with a diff [96]. I wish it was quoted earlier, maybe it would make a difference:

Regarding why I placed the TPP, it was because of TRM's past history in reacting to blocks (and I believe this is why that enforcement was authorized to begin with). In the past, TRM has responded to blocks by generally whipping himself and others into a frenzy, often goaded or egged on by folks who want to push his buttons. He's in the past made things worse for himself, as well as wasted a lot of time for people trying to keep it under control, so I decided to include the TPP to avoid that. I feel like it's worked fairly well—folks with concerns about the block/protection have still been able to discuss their concerns, and TRM has been able to discuss the block via email with myself and the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In particular, my concern is others unfairly egging him on, which then creates a situation. TRM has lately been an effective editor during talk page discussions over at Talk:2017. I want the best outcome for him. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No per Rob13 and Steve Quinn. --Rschen7754 04:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• It should be noted, the 2016 arbitration motion grants that the "enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block". The WP:ACDS policy states, "All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful." In the same section, "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction". Consensus requires a basis in Wikipedia policy. Based upon the relevant policies, there is no policy-based standing to overturn the sanctioned administrative action. TRM may only make a private email appeal under the current circumstance. I can only presume that this was intentionally implemented; it seems very specific to allow an enforcing admin to fully protect a user talk page during an enforcement block. Mkdw ^talk 04:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Specific indeed. In fact, I believe that language was added to the proposed decision in the case by GW, as drafting arbitrator, unless I'm misreading the timeline. -- Begoon 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: GorillaWarfare has agreed to the lifting of the protection if this discussion shows a consensus to do so [97]. It was with the interpretation of the rules you have advanced in mind that I asked for her agreement. WJBscribe (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It can equally be noted that IAR trumps those policies you've highlighted, @Mkdw. It can also be noted that there has been an observation that TRM has continued to improve the pedia through his talk page whilst blocked which, in my view, lends more weight on the applicability of IAR Dax Bane 05:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. As much of unpopular an opinion this may be, The Rambling Man knew what was coming. I don't take TRM as a fool who just slipped. ArbCom has already made an amended remedy that specifically says that TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. His comments here fell afoul of that undoubtedly to me. His arbitration enforcement also states that the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block. This is less about GorillaWarfare and more about how TRM's next escalating block, if the pattern follows, goes to a month. Not following the remedies already set out encourages this behavior. There is already an appeals process for how to go about being unblocked and this isn't that route. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - I guess I should express my view. Two things to consider: an Arb could have simply barred TRM from commenting at the Workshop talk page or take the time to realize the Workshop would close in a few days. Other editors have noted that TRM has contributed to their projects and this inability to even edit his talk page is impeding progress. The inability to discuss with TRM before blocking was a huge misstep and the "protection" of his talk page on top of that makes this overkill. What is this preventing: open discussion, supportive messages, collaboration? My word, the horror!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No I agree with Beyond My Ken and BU Rob13, and accept the explanation for the talk page restriction offered by Gorilla Warfare. The sanctioned editor must learn now to moderate their behavior which has been problematic for years, but they have thus far failed to do so. No editor is indispensible, no matter the number of members of their fan club. This editor should take the sanctions to heart, and comply with them diligently upon their return to editing. Or find some other hobby. Countless people edit without such drama. Drop it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, per BMK, BU Rob13, Cullen328, and others. The editor has stirred up more drama on Wikipedia than any other editor in recent memory, Eric included. There's no need for there to be more drama now on his talk page, or proxy editing, or further self-incriminating actions. Wikipedia can function without that, and without his on-wiki input, for the duration of the block. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. A suitable rationale wasn't given in the first place (apart from "the possibility is given in the finding") and inventing ones after the fact in this discussion is not exactly helping. FP should be for vandals and similar culprits. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Pointless, punitive, stupid and, I fear, makes it look like the Committee wants to push TRM towards the exit, which is entirely in line with so many of its actions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No TRM can appeal the block through other means if they want to, and as the discussion here clearly illustrates, there's no shortage of places where interested editors can discuss ArbCom's actions and ways forward. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Nick-D You misunderstand. The question is not about TRM's block. It's about the fact that I, for example, am prevented from posting at his talk page, because an Arb has protected it. The question is whether that protection is improper. If I edit TRM's talk page abusively, block me. Don't protect the page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  The second half of my comment addresses that point. There is no need for the talk page to be active for the next few days, and given the history here it appears to be for the best for it to not be. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  "There is no need for the talk page to be active for the next few days" So, we should always apply full page protection every time we block a user? Because there's no need for their user talk while blocked? That's a bad rationale. And while I admire your self-confidence, you're basing your assumption on a false premise. While TRM is blocked, I and thousands of other editors, are not and I may have 20 good uses for TRM's user talk "over the next few days". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  WP:There is no deadline, and no editor is indispensable. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  "no editor is indispensable". Understood. On tomorrow's OTD - Alouette 1 has several {{fact}} tags, 1991 Haitian coup d'état has unsourced paragraphs, same with Guadalupe Victoria, and Michaelmas. Can you fix?. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  I will admit to being biased against the Main Page -- I wouldn't mind if the majority of it was scrapped -- but it certainly must be a structural fault if a section of it is set up in such a way that a single editor is vitally necessary for its proper running. We really cannot afford for that to be the case -- for want of a nail... -- and it points to the need for some kind of restructuring so that if that vital editor is lost (for whatever reason) the section can continue operating as usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No - action within admin discretion, explicitly authorized by Arbcom, and reasonable given the history of talk page protection being needed when TRM is blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: what history of protection being needed? See the protection log. His talkpage has only been fully protected once for a total of less than two hours, when it removed by another admin and not restored. WJBscribe (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: I'm referring to the Arbcom case's enforcement log, where it is noted that TRM's talk page was fully protected in tandem with arbitration enforcement block in March of this year, and that the validity of that block was challenged and upheld (though its length was reduced). I admit that this particular enforcement provision is unusually harsh, however I have to assume that because of its unusual-ness, the Committee had good reason to offer the remedy of restricting all edits to the page, not just the usual user-level talk page revocation we see for users misusing it during a block (which doesn't seem to be the case here anyway). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No Gorrillawarfare should not have agreed to this AN process, but since she has, reviewing it as an admin action, given her reason, and given ARBPOL and the documented history at WP:AE, her action is within reasoned discretion (the only way reasoned discretion can't be found is if you assume bad faith, which should not be assumed) - that only leaves whether locking the page, instead of just taking away talk page access to the blocked user is the better choice, but that is practically a thing without any difference - as we have seen, there are multiple forums available to non-blocked users to talk about this and send their good wishes, as well as communication by e-mail. For the future, I recommend placement of the reason in the template, in addition to the reason for the block. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. For all the reasons give by those who voted 'yes'. Plus being a member of Arbcom does not provide immunity against criticism for their admin actions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• A surprising thing to say. Where has anyone claimed that members of Arbcom should be immune to criticism? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - if the idea was to prevent TRM from "proxying" while blocked (which strikes me as a goal totally at odds with our actual function as an enyclcopedia... remember that folks, we're here to write an encyclopedia???) then prohibiting his access to his TP would be enough. Frankly, I found the full protection to be overkill and struck me as the blocking arb (because give me a break - who is likely to forget the blocker was an arb here) trying to stifle oppostion. Your milage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - wrong decision, even if on paper within the discretion of the blocker. Using extreme measures in non extreme circumstances is more about attitude than necessity. Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Seems OTT. And the blocking admin seems to care more about a pet cat, than being accountable for this mess. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• That personal attack is uncalled for. GW has explained her reasoning on her talk page (even though I happen to disagree with it.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Seconded as being uncalled for - please give your opinion, but keep it civil. Your point is equally valid without the personal dig -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Kind of an odd thing to say. Of course I care about my pet cat, and I'm responsible for keeping him healthy. Would you have preferred I cancel the vet appointment so I could respond on my talk page a few hours sooner? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite a big time gap between you locking down TRM's page, your appearance to say you're "busy" and your return here. So pretty please, with sugar ontop, please sort out this mess you created. Thank you ever so much. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What? That's not at all how it happened. I locked down TRM's page, then returned to answer some of the questions and explained why I had been gone a bit longer than normal. I didn't just return to say I'm busy and then leave again. I've been regularly checking my talk page and this discussion in case there are things I can clarify or answer. I guess I did go away again once, but I can't imagine you want me to not sleep as well as neglect my cat's health... I've already said that I will respect the outcome of this discussion, and so am letting it run its course. If there's a question or something I can clarify and I've missed it, please point it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it happened. As you're not very active at all, it's easy to get the diffs: Locked down TRM page at 00:13, 26 September 2017‎. Replied on your talkpage with your cat story at 21:06, 27 September 2017. Turn up here to reply at 17:44, 28 September 2017, with a small number of edits in between, but none really addressing the issue. There's nearly 48hrs between the first two timestamps and almost 24hrs between the last (IE the best part of three days). And for the record, a human life (TRM) out-weighs the importance of any other living being. It just seems odd, if not bad, that such a controversial action that you did, you seem to have vanished for most of the time after it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you are not helping with your hyperbole. Yes, a human life outweighs the life of other creatures, but TRMs life was not at stake, it's just his user talk page which is protected. GorillaWarfare should not have fully protected it (that it is allowed by ArbCom doesn't mean that it has to be done, thta is solely your own choice and respnsability), and the protection should long have been lifted seeing that it is clearly controversial and there is no consensus (and no good reason) for it; but attck them on those grounds, not on some "you value your cat above the life of TRM" nonsensical angle. Fram (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking back to the issue of User:Coffee, when he was bullied by an admin and that nearly ended VERY badly. Thankfully, he was OK. I'm not saying that TRM is in the same situation, but as a long-standing, long-term editor, I do question the mental state of such users when they are essentially gagged, with no right of reply. I doubt he'd contest the block, or even if he did, it being sucessful, but this lockdown is certainly not the right way to go about it. Now to take my weasel for a walk. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Your comments are extremely inappropriate and ridiculous. As others have stated, your use of personal attacks and aspersions is out of line and should be struck. ...a human life (TRM) out-weighs the importance of any other living being. This is insanity. She is not putting up TRM for execution and he will survive through this block. If you don't strike out these comments, I ask that an administrator who reads this handle it themselves. – Nihlus (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I've been closely watching this discussion, as well as comments on my talk page. I am letting the discussion run its course, and while I am happy to answer any questions or concerns that I can clarify, it would be more disruptive than helpful for me to respond to every point here. There have been a number of rhetorical questions, but I don't think I've missed any where someone actually wanted me to answer. If I have, again, please point them out.

Also, this thing about my cat is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm pretty amazed you're continuing that point. Canceling his vet appointment so that I could respond to a question a couple of hours sooner would've meant at least a week's more discomfort for him, given my vet's general availability. Trying to make some sort of equivalency between my cat's well-being and TRM's life is ridiculous hyperbole—this isn't a case where TRM also had ear mites and I was solely responsible for getting him medical care. As for your point about the mental health of blocked editors who can't edit their talk page, that happens many times a day. If you were actually concerned about that and not trying to make some ridiculous point here, I'd think you'd be discussing that more widely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well other users are now questioning your incredible poor timing in dealing with the matter in hand. (SagaciousPhil, for one, in the section below). Are they wrong too? Also, now you're back, please can you answer the question from yesterday evening, if that's OK. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are wrong. I've said as much below. And thank you for pinging me there just now; I've responded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rather than the crowbar, I'll apply the feather. Nihlus is mostly correct here, minus the unnecessary threat of admin enforcement. If it was coming, it would have already come. He's on an admin noticeboard with many admins present here. That said, Nihlus is right that TRM isn't up for execution - at least, even in account form, not yet. Perhaps leave the pet cat out of it. GW is actually accountable for her cat. Admin accountability does actually come second to real-life accountability. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• In 1943, Abraham Maslow formulated his hierarchy of needs and identified the most basic physiological needs for human survival, including food, water, air, clothing, medical care, shelter, and Wikipedia talk page access. If you actually believe this Lugnuts, then you lack the proper perspective and competence to edit Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The care of a living thing is more important than your sense of entitlement. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Did I just read this right? That the health of a family member, whether 4 or 2 legged (or even 3 legged) is less important than what goes on at a website? Seriously? Someone needs their priorities checked. Hopefully, you'll never have to make a choice between taking care of a loved one and what goes on, on the fucking internet, because who knows what will happen to your loved one. Blackmane (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Unnecessary action. TRM's TP access can be revoked if he steps out of line. Semi-protection should be enough to keep away "grave-dancers."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - full protection of a user talk page should be extremely rare. Jonathunder (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No No editor is indispensable, and Wikipedia seems to have coped last time without TRM editing via proxy so it'll cope again. GW's actions are very much within what's allowed- in fact, explicitly stated as allowed. Sandstein did the same in March and whilst GW's inital response was not ideal, this complaint appears to be more about Arbcom bashing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. If you don't like the restriction, appeal it through proper channels. If you don't like the policy, get a consensus to get it changed. All you are doing here is carving out an exception for an popular editor, which essentially means some editors are more equal than others. As Jcc said, no editor is indispensable. If the encyclopedia survived without RickK, it can survive without TRM's talk page for the duration of the block. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No protecting the talk page is explicitly permitted in the remedy, so obviously the arbitrators thought it was reasonable and may be necessary, and the justification for it looks perfectly reasonable to me. I'm sure the sky isn't going to fall in if nobody edits this talk page for a fortnight. Hut 8.5 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes In response to BU_Rob13 and his concerns regarding TRM's use of the talk page to "edit by proxy behind the block", I think that the strongest arguments for restoring talk page access comes from certain members of ArbCom themselves in a prior case involving TRM, so Yes per Drmies[98], Doug Weller [99], and Opabinia regalis [100]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsareArde (talk • contribs)

• The above editor has 16 edits to their name (March 2015-present), only 2 of which are to articles. [101] Their edits are also widely separated in time. [102] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• So... what happened with that "Clarification and amendment" earlier this year? Was Sandstein's page protection overturned, and what then occurred on TRM's talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sandstein's protection was removed by Bishonen about two hours after it was placed initially. The "Clarification and amendment" was abandoned as moot as the protection had already been removed and the block reduced to a week by appeal [103](time served). In regards to my post quantity, I can only direct you to the comment I made on my talk page.DsareArde (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I read that, it was ... unconvincing. All I can say is that a legitimate editor with a record such as yours should consider accumulating a little credibility as an editor before wading in to highly contentious issues such as this one. And I would say that no matter what your !vote was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The readers are the ones who suffer while TRM's talk page remains blocked. I'm certainly no great editor, but I read articles on this website every day (most often from navigating off the main page). To be frank, readers likely don't care about this little dance that editors play, and therefore everything we do should benefit them. Like...letting prolific contributors contribute. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• That would seem to be an argument against the block which TRM received, which is specifically not the subject of this survey. As pointed out numerous times, editors who need to interact with TRM regarding projects they are collaborating on can do so by e-mail, so nothing is preventing them from editing; the only editor prevented from contributing is TRM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken I'm not talking about the block (which was bad - arbcom blocking someone critical of arbcom actions in a certain case during said case), but about the full talk page protection. Last time TRM was blocked he posted main page errors he saw on his talk page for others to correct. To me this is an improving the project, which should be every editor's goal. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, as per Ealdgyth who took the words out of my typing fingers. My wording would, however, have gone on to be far more vehement in condemning the action taken especially as the admin/arbitrator has already been a named party in an ArbCom case where her previous unilateral actions were deemed "suboptimal". In the light of the current ArbCom case, to revoke TPA and fully protect the talk page is further suboptimal behaviour as it can indeed be seen as an arbitrator choosing to stifle opposition and take punitive action just because she can. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Are all editors expected to blindly accept authority? Many of the "no" !votes sound to me like "it was made by a member of ArbCom thus it must be perfect". People in high positions make mistakes too. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @A lad insane: God I hope not. XD We're not infallible. One glance at the number of clarification and amendment requests at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 is enough evidence of that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I notice a trend upthread. Most "yes" opinions came in during the evening in the UK, while most "no" opinions came in during the evening in the US. This sounds like that "cultural differences" thing rearing its head again. People are asserting that TRM was insulting or belittling, but all I see is fair comment. If somebody asserts that Arbcom over-react and punish people, and Arbcom then does something that looks like over-reacting and punishment even if they did not intend it to be, then people will think it's true! I'm reminded of something I learned a while back when moderating web forums successfully - it's not enough that justice is done, you have to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, and I've never seen any "cultural differences" be called in or observed at any other similar poll here on Wikipedia. Nor are most of the Yes !votes British or a greater percentage (population count taken into account) American from what I can see. What I see is the earliest respondents were those who were arguing with or objecting to GorillaWarfare on her talkpage (or at least watching it because they objected to her action), and thus immediately saw the link to this discussion which was posted there immediately after this thread was opened. No one appeared to want to break the tide until BMK, which then somehow gave permission to other dissenting !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with BMK's insights - all that's happened is the drama that would have happened on TRM's talk page has migrated on GorillaWarfare's (and here) instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

+1. Many of the "No" votes talk about TRM's behaviour, but miss the point that we're not talking about the block, but about the gagging order on his talk page. If you remove the "No" votes that concentrate on discussing TRM's behaviour, rather than talk page access, the numbers drop considerably. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any "No" !votes that are dealing with whether TRM should or should not be blocked. Some of them do refer to TRM's past behavior, that's true, but only as a factor in why GW would opt for imposing the discretionary talk page protection, which seems to me to be a perfectly valid argument. I see no reason to "drop" any "No" !votes, unless we're also going to consider dropping the knee-jerk anti-ArbCom "Yes" !votes as well, but I wouldn't support that either. People have numerous reasons for commenting the way that they do, and it's a pretty slippery slope if we start eliminating only those whose reasoning appears to us to be erroneous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to look more closely. Several deal just with the block, so I'm surprised you can't see them. All I asuggesting is ignoring those votes that do not deal with TPA, which is entirely logical, given that is the topic under discussion. SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please enumerate the !No votes which "deal just with the block" and "do not deal with TPA"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you can read them for yourself. SchroCat (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not, since, in my estimation, none of the "No" !votes meet your criteria, which is why I'm asking you, the person who is making this claim – and suggesting that certain !votes should be discounted – to back up your opinion with a bit of evidence. It shouldn't be all that onerous for you to list the "No" !votes which "deal just with the block" and "do not deal with TPA". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. I didn't see any Ivotes which deal with "just" the block. I believe the talk page full protection was noted.

Ritchie333 I think saying "the drama that would have happened on TRM's talk page has migrated on GorillaWarfare's (and here)" could be an insightful comment. It was GW's intention to keep the heavy drama and grave-dancers off TRM's talk page to keep things from going further south for everyone involved [104]. So maybe GW did indeed make the correct call. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't really what I was getting it - rather I was saying with perhaps a little more forethought, GorillaWarfare might have thought "hang on, if I do a long block and lock TRM's talk page, I'm going to eat shit for it on ANI. I probably don't have time for that. What's another option that calms down the disruption on the Arbcom case that doesn't mean I eat shit at ANI? Hmmm....." And now she's protesting that she doesn't have time to deal with this and real life is getting in the way. What on earth did she expect? Like chess, it's sometimes a good idea to look 3-4 moves ahead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That requires a ... remarkable level of assumption on your part. Where, exactly, has GorillaWarfare said that she doesn't have the time to deal with this? (Please don't tell me that you, too, are referencing the need to sleep and take a cat to the vet for a couple hours.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I'm getting it. Let me give you a practical example : recently I blocked My name is not dave for going over WP:3RR - he went over the limit, and a block was the best and fairest option out of all I considered (IIRC I personally agreed with his edits, but as an admin you can't take sides). I also anticipated that, as an experienced editor, he would have something to say about it, so I made sure I was around for the afternoon to listen to it. In the end, Oshwah got to the unblock request first, but the principle holds - as soon as I got a note along the lines of "oops, yeah, went over 3RR, sorry" I would have unblocked anyway. The point here is that I didn't block without making absolutely sure I had the time to deal with any fallout afterwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd reiterate what The Ed17 said: can you point to where I've said I don't have time to deal with this? If I have, I sure don't remember. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why carry out an action that in all probability was going to cause re-actions/problems if you were having to leave for an appointment and would, therefore, be unavailable to promptly respond to queries? That is what infers "not having time". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I blocked TRM at 23:13 on 25 September. If memory serves, I was online until about midnight my time (4:00 UTC). The first talk page message I got about it was at 7:51, which would have been almost 4am for me. From the way you worded this it seems like you think I blocked and then almost immediately left—the appointment was the following day. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, GorillaWarfare, so it was the following morning that you didn't have time to check anything before going to the vet appointment? That still infers you "didn't have time" though, doesn't it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Like many Wikipedians, I have to sleep, work full time, and care for my pet. Next time I make a block, should I be sure to take a week off from work and hire a petsitter? We're not talking about someone who made a block and immediately logged off, or made a block and then left for a week-long trip with no internet access. I made a block, stayed online for over four hours, went to sleep, went to work, left work early to take my pet to the vet, and then logged back on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you did not have time, which is what you were claiming was not the case above. Now, if you'll forgive me, it is Friday evening in the UK and I now have things to do in real life too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is rather enough about GW's cat. Admin accountability does not require that admins must respond immediately to every situation that may present itself whilst we go on with our actual lives, nor does it require admins to be available 24 hours a day just in case something happens. GW responded promptly when she was able to do so. That is all that is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree on this point. It would be one thing that if GW placed the block knowing they would be without internet accept for 1-2 weeks immediately afterwards. Not being available for a few hours to a day after a block (even knowing one would be gone) is completely fair and reasonable as long as they responded in a reasonably timely manner from that point (as did happen). --MASEM (t) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clearly we have very different ideas of "having time"; I'd thought most people accounted for normal sleep, work, etc. in their interpretations, but apparently not. Anyway, enjoy your evening! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a salient point here - you blocked a long standing editor with multiple FAs under their belt for two weeks with all avenues of communication disabled. Nobody asked you to do that. Can you not see how that might be controversial, and you might get disagreement and argument over that? You should, as you were dragged to Arbcom last time you pulled a similar stunt. If you don't want to be picked apart, do not do controversial stuff like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course I understand that it's controversial, and nowhere have I said that I don't want criticism. In fact, I've said the opposite: that I welcome people to discuss the action, and that I'll respect the outcome of such a discussion ([105], and at least twice more since). What I do not agree with are folks implying that I should have forgone sleep, work, and a veterinary visit for my cat in order to respond to inquiries immediately at any hour. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"In other words, you did not have time, which is what you were claiming was not the case above." That is not true. If you believe it to be, please provide the quote and the diff. Softlavender (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec)GorillaWarfare, since you have time to deal with this, could you perhaps, you know, deal with it. There clearly is no consensus for your action, and you were under no obligation from the arbcom restrictions to add that protection. It is a nuisance to good faith editors like Gerda Arendt above, and there is no history of this being necessary with previous blocks. So there is no justification to let this protection continue any longer. Fram (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also no consensus to undo it, and my understanding is that she said she would undo it if there was consensus to do so. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had been planning to undo the protection when this discussion was fairly unanimous against it. Now that a fair amount of folks have expressed opinions either way, I'd rather have an uninvolved party evaluate the consensus. Whatever they decide, I will respect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I just cannot piece the rationality of this move together. Are editors like Gerda really the devil in disguise ("oh yes you are"), making preparations to dance all over TRM's grave whenever he is blocked? No. They want to work with their colleague, and express support for him. I have read the comments above -- no one is indispensable -- but some editors don't just see each other as another slab of meat ready to be replaced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you think that the talk page protection is a personal reflection on Gerda? After all, when someone's talk page is bombed with vandalism and needs to be semi-protected, we don't take that as a reflection on all IPs and unconfirmed editors, do we? It's just a necessary action taken because of the behavior of some. It's been explained what has happened in the past on TRM's talk page when he's been blocked, and that the remedy was imposed to prevent that from recurring again. That's no reflection on editors who may have legitimate and non-disruptive business with TRM, although they suffer from the remedy, just as the good IPs and unconfirmed editors do during vandalism semi-protections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The rationality is probably worth taking up with Arbcom in a clarification request. They're the ones who offered it as a remedy, and it's obviously contentious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that given the response here, and the degree of misunderstanding displayed by !voters on both sides of the aisle, a clarification from ArbCom as to the purpose of the remedy, and their feelings about the application of it, would be helpful. As you say, the best route would be for someone -- perhaps one of the participants who have been most adamant;y opposed to the current use of the remedy -- to file a Clarification Request with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Close

Come on now. For or against, we don't need anymore !votes just an admin who will box this - we all know what the above means - and I would close it but then someone would perhaps say I can't unprotect it. So, just close, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is overturning an arbitration enforcement action. It needs at least 24 hours discussion. Flash decisions on arb enforcement actions are great ways to get sanctioned for reverting an arb enforcement action without adequate discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I don't think that's in the rules - and no there will be no benefit to anyone or the project leaving this open, I am sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:Blocking policy requires a clear, substantial, active consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn. It's not clear that a discussion can be clear if flash closed before the truly uninvolved editors (e.g. those not watching TRM's talk page or related discussions) can notice the discussion and comment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support closing this insanity now. Every minute this continues is another blemish on the committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I second what BU Rob13 said. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ks0stm:, are you fucking serious right now? You're an Arb. You're !voting? You can't say it's in your capacity as an "editor" when the subject you're voting on is party to a current Arb case. TRM is too forward about how bad this current committee is but, damn, he's not wrong. Capeo (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Capeo: I already said in my vote to accept that case that I would functionally recuse from aspects of the proposed decision, if any, that address TRM or his conduct. I still plan to do so. Further, for what it's worth, just because I'm an arbitrator doesn't mean every comment on an administrative situation is in my capacity as an arbitrator. The same goes for my checkuser and oversight roles, too. After all, I'm a regular editor like you, just with a few extra roles I also perform. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Can't? Where does it say that he can't? – Nihlus (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm:, then you shouldn't "functionally recuse", you should just recuse. The idea that you're going to be impartial to one party while voting to maintain restrictions on another party is, frankly, preposterous. And, yes, because you're an arbitrator "doesn't mean every comment on an administrative situation is in my capacity as an arbitrator" except when there's a friggin' case going on dealing with a party you're voting on. How is that hard to understand? Capeo (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"The idea that you're going to be impartial to one party while voting to maintain restrictions on another party is, frankly, preposterous" I can, and I will. TRM may grind my gears in the wrong way, but I've pretty much never interacted with Arthur Rubin, and the fact that the situation that brought about his case involved TRM won't compromise my ability to judge his conduct neutrally. It's not as if I think someone gets a free pass for breaking policy just because they do it towards TRM. Futher, there's precedent for partial recusals, so it's not as if I'm doing something unheard of in that regard. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Guess it's time for the community to fix the Committee if you won't police your own behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest "fixing" something that is actually broken instead? Ks0stm is entirely correct; partial recusals are allowed and do not cause any problems. There are places where arbcom policies could be improved, but this isn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering how much work it takes to get the Committee to even accept a desysop case, I think it's entirely appropriate to talk about making structural changes to how arbitration works on Wikipedia. What we're seeing here is a symptom of a far more serious disease. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior by an arb. Talking about making structural changes to how arbitration works on Wikipedia is fine, but you are hanging your coat on the wrong coatrack. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon here: there's nothing in this case that screams "systemic failure", just a normal application of a discretionary sanction by an admin. If GW is at fault (which I don't believe she is), it's her fault, not that of the sanction or the committee that put it in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you can call something that elicits such broad-based, reasoned outrage as you see above "normal" is exactly why I call this a structural problem in the arbitration system; why it is a symptom of a far more serious disease, as I stated above. Sitting arbitrators should not be blocking or unblocking parties to cases where they are active at all. Where there is misconduct within the scope of an ongoing proceeding is one thing, but for an arbitrator who is supposed to be an impartial finder of fact to undertake actions outside the scope of and unconnected to the active case with respect to a party is simply unacceptable. It's high time to put the illogic of ends justifying means to bed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No. There is nothing reasonable about "outrage" here. Yes, the admins, including arbitrators should block people during arbitration cases for breach of remedies. It only makes sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I said "reasoned" not "reasonable". As in there is reasoning involved. That you don't personally find it reasonable is immaterial. As to your belief that arbitrators can function as any other administrator in any context, I find disturbing, and frankly indicative of the structural, and perhaps cultural, failings I hint at above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, partial recusal is allowed, but as I said to GorillaWarfare, why not simply just recuse instead? There are easily enough Arbs to take the case and you don't run the risk of someone turning round later with "Well, of course you would vote that way, because ...". Isn't it simply more trouble than it's worth? Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone above voting "no": why is full protection necessary, and not standard talk page access revocation? That it is allowed by the Arbcom case is not a justification, there has to be a specific reason why full protection is chosen here, and I haven't seen that yet. Fram (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Presumably to prohibit grave dancing or other such behavior, though to be honest I'm not 100% for sure. I'll defer to others who may know more about why full protection was chosen for the remedy. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Pre-emptively fully protecting a talk page to prohobit grave dancing? Deal with the editors who act thus instead perhaps? Fram (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I can see an argument to be made for that, I suppose. Might be worth bringing up at WP:ARCA. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • This is an abnormal remedy for an abnormal situation. In the past, TRM suffered from gravedancers and rather inevitable blow-ups as a result of them. It is obviously not optimal to allow that to continue, nor is it optimal to revoke TPA to TRM while allowing the gravedancers (often unblockables themselves!) to proceed without TRM even being able to respond. In light of the history, I support the remedy as-is. I usually would not in less extreme circumstances. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
          • If the purpose of the remedy is to prevent gravedancing, then it must be intended for TRM's benefit, not to punish him. It should therefore be a matter for him whether or not such a protection is applied, and he wants it to be lifted. WJBscribe (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Grave dancing is easily dealt with by blocking people and if needed semi-protection. Not full protection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
          • BU Rob13, there are very few actual unblockables (if any). There are some admins who had a habit of swiftly unblocking some people no matter what they had done, but in most cases this hasn't continued and in the end results in a desysop for that admin and either a long block or a long "voluntary" resignation for the "unblockable" anyway. Anyone, whether member of ArbCom, admin, co-founder, FA contributor, bot magician, ... can and in most cases has been blocked or otherwise restricted. Fram (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
            • "[T]here are very few actual unblockables (if any). I actually laughed out loud. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
              • I wanna laugh too. Who is unblockable? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                • I used to be, until I forgot making my regular payments to the slush fund. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • You should have used the payroll deduction option, I've heard it really makes a world of difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • Don't worry, admins get membership in the unblockable group free of duty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Off topic

• This is slightly off topic, but regardless the outcome of this discussion, I was wondering if anyone would oppose if good faith edits (at User:The Rambling Man or other places) can be pasted to User talk:The Rambling Man? I think it would be a reasonable step forward. Alex Shih^Talk 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course the No !voters would oppose it. How is that a "reasonable step forward"? The TP is locked to prevent activity on it. Softlavender (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that's not a very good "way forward". I commented upthread that Arbcom must have had good reason to allow preventing all edits to the page, rather than normal TPA revocation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That comment was predicated on this being an ArbComm decision, but GW has clarified it was done in an Admin capacity and not discussed with ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In her admin capacity of enforcing an arbitration decision. It's the arbs' decision to allow the page to be fully protected as enforcement which I think should be clarified, especially because Arbcom hasn't attached any conditions to that option at all other than admin discretion. I had a pretty quick look through the case workshop and proposed decision pages but I don't see anyone explaining why such an unusual restriction is necessary. It just looks to me like it was dropped into the proposal and nobody objected. I'm not very familiar with the background but I get the sense from this that "everyone knows" there's disruption via TRM's talk page when they're blocked (from them or from others), but if this was such a huge issue that long-term full protection of a talk page was made available as a remedy, it should have at least been mentioned in the case. I can't find it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It appears to have been copied from an earlier case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited. – Nihlus (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Further, the proposal was drafted by Roger Davies. – Nihlus (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Ymblanter, You've indicated that a close "might" be coming, and you've been editing since then. On the basis that Justice delayed is justice denied, could you close this appropriately please. Dragging it out further only increases the justifiable frustration many people are feeling over this. When closing, could you also please indicate which members of ArbCom you have discussed your close with, and the substantive points of those discussions. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  It will be a multi-administrator closure, and I am currently waiting till my colleagues in North America wake up and react to what I sent them from my European time zone.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I did not discuss the substance of the closure with any ArbCom members, nor am I going to do this, though I had some technical communication with two ArbCom members (one of these exchanges is available at the bottom of my user talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for being so clear. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Ymblanter: while you are waiting, and for the sake of transparency, please indicate the names of all the admins who are involved in this "multi-administrator" close and also disclose the names of all the others it has been discussed with together with the platform(s) used. Oh, and the name of the second ArbCom member you have discussed it with. Further, would you please clarify/confirm whether you were asked to "close" this? If so, by whom? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, I was not asked to close this. The two other closers will be KrakatoaKatie and Primefac, and the other arbcom member I had communication with was Ks0stm. Not sure what you are asking about platforms, and which platforms, but I did not discuss the closure with anybody else.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  By platforms, I mean was it discussed via email, IRC etc, so please confirm, as I believe all actions on Wikipedia should be open and transparent. Also how was it decided who would be your fellow closers and, again, by whom? In one of your responses below, you state "we feel ....", who is "we"? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Everything was (and is still being) discussed by e-mail, ideally one of us will just post the text of the closing statement. "We" means the three closers. For the rest, I am afraid, you want to know too much, but I am not from the "admin cabal" or "IRC crowd" assuming these exist. I think my track record shows that it is impossible to force me to do smth I disagree with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't get why it would need to be a multiadmin close. The ruling authority is clear, the polling is clear. There is no consensus to modify the sanction. Period. There are some legitimate concerns, there are some questions about whether or not it was really necessary, but nothing that demonstrates abuse of power by GW, or that her actions were outside mainstream admin actions. Additionally, nothing was introduced to demonstrate the situation has changed since the block. In cases like this, where the community does not speak in one voice to overturn an otherwise legitimate sanction, the sanction stands. As always, this may be appealed directly to Arb. You are welcome to use that as the opinion of one uninvolved admin if you really need multiple admin to close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  The multi-admin close is needed because we feel that there are sides who are not going to accept a singe-admin close, with adding more drama. Concerning your reasoning, I do not think I want to discuss it here because the discussion itself is closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd disagree with that, Dennis. The pure stats are 35-21 (if you count a "leaning oppose" as "No") in favour of removing the talkpage protection. In percentage terms that's 63-37. Even if that's not "consensus", it's certainly leaning towards it. Of course, like any discussion, the important point is how convincing those arguments are, which is what the admin needs to decide. On such a controversial issue, I think leaving it on the shoulders of a single admin is not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• We're hashing out the language right now. We should have this posted in just a bit. Katie^talk 13:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, is the protection of User:The Rambling Man also going to be part of the discussion? Alex Shih^Talk 13:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's not part of the discussion above, but we're mindful of it. Katie^talk 14:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Those peppering the closers with questions and simultaneously asking for immediacy may wish to consider picking one or the other. The more questions they have to answer pre-close, the longer the close will take. I'm not saying don't seek accountability, but it's not quite fair to ask them to be doing two things at once. Many of your questions may be answered in the closing statement, and if they aren't, you can always ask them after. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards consensus isn't the same as consensus. When changing/overturning an admin action that is clearly allowable, clearly within the exact letter of policy or Arb ruling, I think you have to have a very clear consensus. There isn't a convincing claim of misuse here, it is all about preference. I would be loathe to overturn an action with less than 75% under these circumstances, as there isn't any showing of error or poor judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Range block for proxies

Oops, rangeblocked all of Alaska!

A range block that involves these IPs would be nice. 185.121.173.172; 185.121.174.133: 185.121.174.134. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Range would be 185.121.172.0/22 according to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: there's a handy range calculator at the bottom of Special:CheckUser that you can use for these :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, BEANS. Hahaha! Seriously, no one should let me anywhere near that button. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Funny this came up, I just asking about moving the CheckUser range calculator somewhere public. Where do you think it should go? Special:RangeCalculator? Or bundle it in with Special:Contributions and/or Special:Block? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... my personal preference would be a separate page, with the interface remaining on the CheckUser page as well. It is often necessary to calculate ranges when using CU, but with the regular contribs or block interface I don't see it being used enough to warrant being loaded onto the page every time. Edit: I've commented on the appropriate section, so as to avoid splitting the discussion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we go for large range blocks on proxies, but not mobile phone ISPs? We have a few bouncy socks who cause far more trouble, but we can't get a thing done about them. Proxy use is not implicitly evil, any more than IP editing is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We do. Just ask the dog/rapper vandal. Or that other guy, who keeps fucking around from Georgia and whose range block includes me, a state over. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a hope against Europefan though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Proxies have less chance of collateral damage - mainly due to proxies not being permitted in the first place. Large bans on mobile phone ISP's are pointless as functionally a lot of mobile phones will change IP whenever they lose-reconnect a data connection to their mobile carrier. I can force a mobile IP reset just by enabling and disabling 3/4g. It can be done, but in a lot of cases its pointless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Tom94022

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

---

Tom94022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing his desire for Wikipedia to start using kibibyte, mebibyte, and gibibyte for nearly ten years[106][107][108][109] and the consensus has always been against him.

Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[110] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline. he was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is the wrong place and that he needs to propose changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers He then proposed making a change[111] to Floppy disk that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline.

I propose a narrow topic ban for Tom94022 saying that he cannot edit any article or article talk page other than Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on the topic of IEC prefixes to binary numbers. I don't want to stop him from arguing for a guideline change, just to stop him from doing so in the wrong place. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I propose that Guy Macon (talk · contribs) be slapped in the face with a wet trout for making this proposal in a tone that might lead one to think it is made in all seriousness. (Do not ignore or skimp on the "wet" aspect.) Jeh (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There was nothing wrong with my proposal. Tom94022 posting proposals that we change WP:COMPUNITS in the wrong place is a minor bit of disruption, but is has been going on for a decade. And you are encouraging his behavior.[112] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping it really was a humorous thing. Ok then.

You wrote: "Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[113] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline."

Actually, no, he didn't make any such proposal; your claim is at best misleading. No changes to Binary prefix at all were proposed, let alone anything that would be in violation of anything. To the extent that changes to COMPUNITS were discussed, it is never in violation of a guideline to discuss changes to that guideline.

Possible changes to COMPUNITS were mused about on that page only because somebody else brought up the notion of allowing the general use of IEC prefixes. Tom's response - I'd hardly call it a "proposal" - was far more moderate than the post that started the thread.

Re your claim of "pushing his desire for nearly ten years", and "going on for a decade" - three of your four diffs supporting those claims are from 2008; the fourth is from 2015. This hardly shows an effort that's been ongoing "for nearly ten years"; rather it shows a gap of seven. Anyone who doesn't check your diffs could get quite a different impression, one of persistent, disruptive editing, from your wording. Again, I think that is highly misleading.

You wrote: "He then proposed [at talk:Floppy disk -jeh] making a change[114] to Floppy disk that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline."

He thinks it is not, per the "exception" which he quotes. You disagree? So respond accordingly at talk:Floppy disk. Which I see you have not done.

Ooh, "direct violation". Mentioned twice in the same graf?! Scary! I fear for Wikipedia's life! Better shoot him bring out the banhammer now!!!

Regarding "Tom was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is [sic] the wrong place" - It rather looks to me like what you first told him "in no uncertain terms" was to shut up and go away:

"You are wasting your time. This is one of those situations where the consensus is clear and you just have to accept it. See WP:1AM" ([115])

That looks to me to be exactly an attempt that you claim your proposal here is not, to "stop him from arguing for a guideline change". (And are you familiar with WP:CCC?)

Finally, Tom94022's current proposal at talk:Floppy disk (diff) is, despite your claim here, specifically not a proposal to change the MOS guideline. It is rather a proposal to edit Floppy disk in a way that may use IEC prefixes within what Tom94022 believes the guideline allows. And he ends with

" I'd like to see if there is a consensus that this is permitted under the exception before I proceed. "

Oh yeah, dangerously disruptive tendentious edit-warring stuff there. And for that you're proposing a topic ban?

I find your eagerness and willingness to use the ban hammer (however "narrow") highly disturbing, particularly when your arguments for it are so riddled with mistakes.

Oh, and then there's your parting shot - your claim that I was "encouraging" him. Apparently you missed here, here, here, here, here, and here. Those comprise the entirety of my contributions to that thread except for the last one, which you linked and which I'll mention in a moment. I do not see how in the world you can interpret those as my encouraging discussion in favor of use of IEC prefixes, or of discussion in the wrong place.

The last one was, yeah, my "encouraging" Tom to go ahead with "moving" the discussion to talk:Floppy disk. As the discussion in question is a proposal for changes to the Floppy disk article, that is exactly where it belongs. No?

In sum - I think you have grossly over-reacted here, to the extent of repeatedly misrepresenting the actions of others in an attempt to make a case. I think your "proposal" here is far more disruptive, even dangerous, than the "behavior" you're trying to squelch. In all seriousness, I suggest that in the future you, Guy Macon, invoke some systematic means for carefully evaluating what you write before committing it to project pages. Particularly where it involves topics you feel strongly about. Jeh (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, and thank you for taking the time to express it in an entire wall of text. For the record, your ability to read minds over the Internet sucks. I have no strong feelings one way or the other concerning IEC units. I am simply following the consensus found at WP:COMPUNITS. Your opinion that proposing to "change the table in section 3.5 to use only IEC prefixes" does not violate COMPUNITS is also noted. This is the last reply I will make to you, per WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You start a section proposing a topic ban, but then don't want to answer a detailed analysis of your evidence per "ignore all drama"? I guess we better close this section as "withdrawn" then, as that is what your reply actually boils down to. Fram (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I have already explained to you that I choose not to interact with you. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if you posted a list of the people who still are allowed to reply on posts you mke to the dramah boards? Perhaps only those that agree with you? Fram (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Guy, there you go again. "Your opinion [...] is noted." I expressed no such opinion. And even if I had, there is no P or G against expressing such an opinion. So by all means, "note" whatever you like; whatever proposal you make in the future from these "notes" will no doubt be as riddled with problems as this of yours was...

...so imagine my concern.

It's not a "wall of text". There are, after all, paragraph breaks. But it did take that much text to document all of your errors. Maybe next time, don't make as many.

Also, maybe next time, consider IAD before ever starting. Jeh (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close this thread per analysis by Jeh and refusal to address these points by OP. If you are not willing to reply to a detailed analysis of your arguments, then why should we bother analyzing them any further? Looking at e.g. Talk:Terabyte (the page your third diff, from 2008, comes from), I see nothing there which would indicate either problematic behaviour by Tom94022 or evidence that "the consensus has always been against him." (which wouldn't be a reason for a topic ban anyway). The edits that caused this proposal are not problematic at all, and were in reply to a discussion by someone else (but in support of Tom94022s position). "Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[110] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline. he was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is the wrong place and that he needs to propose changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers"[116]: they did not "propose making a change to binary prefix", they were discussing changing the guideline: and they were "told in no uncertain terms" by you; not heeding your "certain terms" is not yet a reason to get a topic ban. Topic bans are for seriously disrupive editors, not for silencing someone you disagree with. Banning people who have trouble presenting the facts accurately in proposals they make to AN or ANI from making any further proposals may be a more fruitful solution to this issue. Fram (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. I don't see anything overly problematic with Tom's behavior, it seems that he simply interprets policy a bit differently than the OP here, and would like to see a change. I don't see compelling evidence that this has entered into the realm of tendentious editing. More concerning is the OP's attitude toward non-interaction with those that seem to have come here in good faith and spent a considerable amount of time bringing up what appear to be legitimate criticisms of the OP's topic ban proposal. I find the passive-aggressiveness of this comment a bit concerning. If GM is not willing to discuss, then the proposal is dead in the water. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I could add to Jeh's execellent analysis is that the openning of a discussion on the Floppy disk talk page was in response to an editor's suggestion that binary prefixes could be used on that page under the MOS exception. It was shouted down in 2008 but perhaps things have changed. Tom94022 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing this proposal per Insertcleverphrasehere's comment. Please close. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• You might be inclined to just close this yourself, Guy Macon, as withdrawn. Just write "withdrawn" as the result and sign. Side-note; I wasn't aware you were withdrawing as I was closing while you wrote the comment. Otherwise I would have written "withdrawn by OP" and closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Competence / language issue on Japanese railways and Vu-0001

Vu-0001 (talk · contribs) persists in creating railway articles that appear to be either Google auto-translations of ja:WP content, or else simple duplicates:

• JGR Class 150
• JGR Class 160
• JGR Class 230
• JGR Class 1070
• JGR Class 1800

Despite warnings, they persist. They do not engage in any dialogue. I suspect a language issue.

Cleanup is beyond practical, deletions on nearly all are pending. We would be better with redlinks than these.

They're welcome to explain at user_talk:, but they're unconstructive and too problematic in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Due to the claims made of being the first steam locomotive in Japan" in all of the articles, they can't all be correct. The user did not engage with me when I brought up the fact that 150 and 160 were copies of each other (I was unaware of the others at the time). With only one source each, and not finding anything else in google, I suggest taking the articles to AfD. As for the user, a warning and checking what he/she does next (with escalating actions if they ignore the warning) is probably appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted three of them with a G3-related rationale of User wrote articles about five locomotive types, including this one, and claimed that each was Japan's first locomotive type. The other two I kept, since DAJF was kind enough to give them complete rewrites. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The results are in for the Administrator Confidence Survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikipedia English Administrator Confidence Survey results are in. Thank you to the 117 participants who filled out the survey. :-)

A copy of the raw results can be found on the results page. Initial impressions of the raw results are welcome on talk page.

On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team will share further results from the comments section of the survey and our preliminary analysis. The team wants to work with the community to identity significant findings and how that it could influence our team's work on tool development.

Later in October, we will have second discussion that will focus on the finding in the survey comments sections that are directed towards policy changes or different ways of reporting and managing cases.

Again, thank you for participating in the survey. And look forward to discussing the results on Monday. For Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to rangeblock User:The abominable Wiki troll again (2a02:c7f:8e0c:6600::/64)

2a02:c7f:8e0c:6600::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Per this block log and after User:NinjaRobotPirate blocked them last for 1 month, this appears to be User:The abominable Wiki troll, yet again. Along with the usual disruption, they're now IP hopping within their IPv6 network disrupting several admin's talkpages. All of the range's contributions can be seen here. 201.170.23.88 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new magic word for short descriptions

This discussion was spread across multiple pages, including some village pumps, but organically ended up at a dedicated page. However, we are now at (or beyond?) the stage where this again needs wide publicity and participation. Please see the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Strategies for improving the descriptions and especially the "Proposal from WMF" subsection (currently the bottom one), where a new magic word is proposed and specific implementations of it discussed.

This is a discussion which will potentially impact all articles and affect the first thing all users get to see in mobile view and on apps (and elsewhere), so getting enough input on this is important. I have posted it at WP:CENT and WP:VPPR and will also post notices at the bot owners noticeboard. Feel free to drop notes at other places. I have included this board because, while this isn't an admin issue per se, this is the place where many veteran editors hang out.

Please keep the actual discussion in one place (i.e. not here ;-) ). Fram (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)

Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)

Dubious image(s)

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

---

Posting this here because I'm not sure of the intricacies of Commons. If I have suspicions about the copyright status of an upload (but can't prove it with Tineye etc.) where is the best place there to raise the issue, as opposed to straight out nominating it for deletion? (the image, incidentally, is File:Wu_Yifan.jpg). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I find reverse image search on Google to be a great alternative. I show a few hits on there for that image. – Nihlus (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - Tin Eye can sometimes be a bit limited. It found nothing for me on this one, but I get several google results, like Nihlus. Google Image Search often finds more than Tin Eye. For firefox or chrome there are extensions to add a right click Google image search, or you can drag images to the Google search box. With this one I'd probably just nominate it for a deletion discussion - the user's other uploads seem similarly suspect. -- Begoon 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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